Steve Chapman had an interesting column about police car cameras in yesterday's Townhall.com. Those cameras can be a two edged sword. They can protect an officer from false accusations of misconduct, but they can also show police misconduct. Personally, I think having a camera installed in every patrol car makes a lot of sense. Too bad that budgetary considerations impede the installation of these cameras. Here is Chapman's Townhall.com column:
SMILE, YOU'RE ON COP-CAR CAMERA
by Steve Chapman
One night last summer Raymond Bell was pulled over by a Chicago cop and arrested for driving under the influence. Officer Joe D. Parker, a 23-year veteran, reported that upon getting out of his car, Bell was stinking of alcohol, lurching and unable to walk a straight line or stand on one foot.
An officer with his stellar record would normally prevail against a DUI suspect. But in this case, Bell had something on his side: a video camera mounted on the dashboard of Parker's squad car that told a radically different story.
Far from revealing a staggering drunk, reported the Chicago Sun-Times, the video "showed Bell appearing to be perfectly balanced," passing the sobriety tests that Parker administered -- and being refused when he asked to take a Breathalyzer. Prosecutors watched the video and promptly dismissed the case. They are now considering charges against Parker.
That episode raises the question: Nine years into the 21st century, why isn't every squad car in America equipped with a dashboard video camera? Why do we persist in relying on the slippery, self-interested, incomplete and unverified accounts of opposing participants when we have the means to see the truth with our own eyes?
In this instance, the innocent man was lucky to be stopped by a cop driving a video-armed vehicle. The odds are against it, since only 11 percent of the CPD's cars have cameras for recording traffic stops. Though the department is planning to use federal stimulus money to double that number and the mayor has said he wants cameras installed in the remaining vehicles "as quickly as possible," no one is radiating a sense of haste.
Why not? The department says the main obstacle is money. Equipping another 300 cars, as the city plans, will require $2.1 million. So making them standard on the rest would cost about $13 million.
But that shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle. The Illinois State Police, with a fleet of nearly 1,100 vehicles, have managed to install cameras in more than 900.
Spending $13 million looks extravagant only until you compare it to the cost of losing lawsuits over police misconduct. From 2005 through the middle of 2008, says the Chicago Reader, the city paid out $155 million in police cases. Dashboard cameras don't have to prevent many million-dollar judgments to be a bargain.
The cops -- at least the good ones, who are presumably the majority -- have as much reason to want these recordings as the accused. The best defense against a phony charge of police brutality is a video showing exactly what the officer said and did. A suspect who is visibly inebriated or violent will have a hard time refuting the camera's testimony in court.
Yet Chicago has dragged its feet, and it's not alone. After the 1991 Rodney King beating, a commission recommended that the Los Angeles Police Department mount cameras in its squad cars. It installed some but soon got rid of them.
A federal monitor proposed the idea again in 2005, but the police chief, The Los Angeles Times reported, "said he saw it as a long-term project." Last year -- 17 years later -- the LAPD finally decided to equip some vehicles.
Contrast that with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's enthusiasm for other types of video. Chicago now has some 2,250 surveillance cameras to detect criminal conduct in public places. By 2016, Daley promised last month, Chicago will have one on every corner. The city has also installed red-light cameras at some 132 intersections, with another 330 planned.
So what exactly is different about those cameras? Well, they are trained on the citizenry, not on the police. What's sauce for the goose seems to be regarded as a dubious liquid substance when proposed for the gander. The city is less eager to capture video evidence if it may expose wrongdoing by its own law enforcement agents.
But the rest of us might want to keep unsleeping electronic eyes on the people with guns and badges. A city with a good police department can gain a lot from squad-car video cameras. A city with a bad one can gain even more.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
ATTORNEY GENERAL MOONBEAM
Jerry Brown has been California's Attorney General since 2007. He was that state's governor from 1975-1983. In 1978, the late Mike Royko, then a Chicago Sun Times columnist, nicknamed Brown "Governor Moonbeam" for proposing the establishment of a California space academy. The nickname stuck with people all over the country who saw Brown's life-style and politics as eccentric.
Brown is an ardent opponent of the death penalty. As governor he took every opportunity to appoint judges who had openly expressed their opposition to capital punishment. His most notorious anti-death penalty appointment was that of Rose Bird in 1977 as chief justice of the California State Supreme Court. He also appointed avowed death penalty opponents Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin to the state's highest court. During her 10 years as chief justice, Bird overturned every one of the 61 capital cases that came before the court on appeal. Finally the public got fed up and, in a 1986 retention election, removed Bird, Reynoso and Grodin from the bench.
Now Brown has weighed in on the 2007 drug overdose death in Florida of former Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith. He announced that Anna Nicole's former lawyer and boyfriend, Howard Stern, and two Los Angeles area doctors, Khristine Eroshevich, a psychiatrist, and Sandeep Kapoor have been charged with a number of felonies.
Stern and Kapoor were charged with one count of unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance. Eroshevich and Stern were charged with unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance between June 2004 and January 2007. Kapoor and Eroshevich were each charged with obtaining a prescription for opiates by "fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." They were both also charged with one count of obtaining a prescription for opiates by giving a false name or address. Kapoor and Stern were also charged with one count of "prescribing, administering or dispensing a controlled substance to an addict." Eroshevich was charged with the same crime for separate prescriptions.
Brown announced, "These individuals repeatedly and excessively furnished thousands of prescription pills to Anna Nicole Smith, often for no legitimate medical purpose." The charges were filed in Los Angeles County where prosecutors said that during a three year period, the doctors gave opiates, benzodiazapines and other drugs to Stern, who then gave them to Anna Nicole.
I don't have a problem with the charges being filed, but I do not understand why the authorities waited two years after Anna Nicole's death in Florida before filing them. Investigations of doctors for dispensing drugs illegally are quite simple and can usually be wrapped up in a few weeks. Could the late timing have anything to do with Brown's announced intention of running for governor again next year?
It is said that charges were filed against Eroshevich and Kapoor as a mesage to all doctors that prescribing drugs for no legitimate medical purpose will no longer be tolerated. "People in white smocks in pharmacies and with their medical degrees are a growing threat," Brown said. So, when will Attorney General Moonbeam and local California prosecutors start filing charges against all those doctors who are prescribing medical marijuana for the questionable and outright phony symptoms described by their potted patients?
Brown is an ardent opponent of the death penalty. As governor he took every opportunity to appoint judges who had openly expressed their opposition to capital punishment. His most notorious anti-death penalty appointment was that of Rose Bird in 1977 as chief justice of the California State Supreme Court. He also appointed avowed death penalty opponents Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin to the state's highest court. During her 10 years as chief justice, Bird overturned every one of the 61 capital cases that came before the court on appeal. Finally the public got fed up and, in a 1986 retention election, removed Bird, Reynoso and Grodin from the bench.
Now Brown has weighed in on the 2007 drug overdose death in Florida of former Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith. He announced that Anna Nicole's former lawyer and boyfriend, Howard Stern, and two Los Angeles area doctors, Khristine Eroshevich, a psychiatrist, and Sandeep Kapoor have been charged with a number of felonies.
Stern and Kapoor were charged with one count of unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance. Eroshevich and Stern were charged with unlawfully prescribing a controlled substance between June 2004 and January 2007. Kapoor and Eroshevich were each charged with obtaining a prescription for opiates by "fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." They were both also charged with one count of obtaining a prescription for opiates by giving a false name or address. Kapoor and Stern were also charged with one count of "prescribing, administering or dispensing a controlled substance to an addict." Eroshevich was charged with the same crime for separate prescriptions.
Brown announced, "These individuals repeatedly and excessively furnished thousands of prescription pills to Anna Nicole Smith, often for no legitimate medical purpose." The charges were filed in Los Angeles County where prosecutors said that during a three year period, the doctors gave opiates, benzodiazapines and other drugs to Stern, who then gave them to Anna Nicole.
I don't have a problem with the charges being filed, but I do not understand why the authorities waited two years after Anna Nicole's death in Florida before filing them. Investigations of doctors for dispensing drugs illegally are quite simple and can usually be wrapped up in a few weeks. Could the late timing have anything to do with Brown's announced intention of running for governor again next year?
It is said that charges were filed against Eroshevich and Kapoor as a mesage to all doctors that prescribing drugs for no legitimate medical purpose will no longer be tolerated. "People in white smocks in pharmacies and with their medical degrees are a growing threat," Brown said. So, when will Attorney General Moonbeam and local California prosecutors start filing charges against all those doctors who are prescribing medical marijuana for the questionable and outright phony symptoms described by their potted patients?
Friday, March 13, 2009
JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION
The term "jury nullification" refers to criminal cases in which juries disregard solid evidence of guilt to acquit the defendant. The O. J. Simpson murder trial is a good example. There is another type of nullification in the administration of justice. It involves death sentences and I call it JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION. When judges let defense attorneys manipulate the appellate process so that the condemned linger on death row for 10-20 years, they have effectively nullified those death sentences.
In yesterday's Townhall.com, columnist Debra Saunders gave a good example of judicial nullification. It involves a notorious California case, but the appellate process manipulations she describes are practiced in all the other death penalty states as well. Here is her column:
RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS: SAFE ON DEATH ROW
by Debra J. Saunders
When a jury found Richard Allen Davis guilty of the murder of Petaluma's 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1996, Davis puckered his lips and extended a middle finger to TV cameras. Later, Davis was sentenced to death, and outraged California voters passed a three-strikes sentencing law.
From death row now, Davis still is puckering up and extending his finger at the public -- and the public is paying for it. It's 2009, yet it was only this month that Davis' first appeal was argued before the California Supreme Court.
"Who would think it would take almost as long for this guy to get his hearing after he was sentenced to death than my daughter was on this Earth and she didn't reach her 13th birthday?" Polly's father, Marc Klaas, told me Tuesday.
Expect a ruling on that appeal within 90 days. Then there's a state habeas corpus appeal. Then Davis has a federal habeas corpus appeal. Before it's over, Davis, now 54, probably will have died of boredom. Or from another opium overdose, like the one for which he was treated in 2006, despite the fact that he was inside San Quentin.
How did it take this long? Davis was sentenced to death in September 1996 for the 1993 crime. Then it took the California Supreme Court office that handles appellate attorneys until mid-2001 to appoint attorney Phillip Cherney to represent Davis. As I've reported before, five years is not an unusual hiatus.
Then it took Cherney until July 11, 2005 to file an opening brief. Producing the appeal took longer than the prosecuting of Davis.
After another four years of delay and back and forth with the California attorney general's office, voila, there was a hearing in March.
"I have no issue with the careful consideration of death penalty appeals or that it is an automatic process," said Klaas, and he wants a system that prevents the execution of an innocent man.
But the last 13 years were not dedicated to a hunt to find the real killer. Davis confessed on videotape. He led authorities to Polly's body.
So the basis of the appeal was legal contortion. Cherney argued that the trial should have been moved from Sonoma County, not to San Jose, but to San Diego. Also, while police had advised Davis about his right to remain silent and consult a lawyer, they did not do so before one pre-confession talk. As if a man with an 11-page rap sheet might be unaware of his rights.
According to The Associated Press, Cherney even complained that California's inability to quickly carry out executions has forced Davis "to endure the uncertainty and ever-present tension on death row for such an extended time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment."
Shameless. "I was expecting some kind of brilliant argumentation," Klaas told me afterward. After all, the five-year process to appoint an attorney is supposed to limit the pool to highly qualified specialists. Instead, Klaas watched "some guy with a ponytail making pretty weak arguments."
In Cherney's defense, weak arguments were all he had. How much has this exercise cost taxpayers? No one knows. That information is restricted. Ron Matthias, the supervising deputy attorney general handling the case, told me, "The frustration that you are describing is shared widely."
Here's the worst part: If Davis said tomorrow that he wanted "the big jab," the state could not comply. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel suspended all California lethal injections. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lethal injection. Didn't matter, because a Marin County judge had ruled that there must be public comment on the new Fogel-inspired lethal injection protocol before it is adopted.
When will the public comment occur? "I don't know," a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson answered.
It's funny how the folks who want to parole criminals to pare the state budget never look at the high cost of glacial appeals. Klaas believes that the decades-long delays are the result of "a silent protest against the death penalty by the defense bar, abolitionists and other death-row apologists." If there ever is an innocent person on death row, he'll die before the courts find out.
In yesterday's Townhall.com, columnist Debra Saunders gave a good example of judicial nullification. It involves a notorious California case, but the appellate process manipulations she describes are practiced in all the other death penalty states as well. Here is her column:
RICHARD ALLEN DAVIS: SAFE ON DEATH ROW
by Debra J. Saunders
When a jury found Richard Allen Davis guilty of the murder of Petaluma's 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1996, Davis puckered his lips and extended a middle finger to TV cameras. Later, Davis was sentenced to death, and outraged California voters passed a three-strikes sentencing law.
From death row now, Davis still is puckering up and extending his finger at the public -- and the public is paying for it. It's 2009, yet it was only this month that Davis' first appeal was argued before the California Supreme Court.
"Who would think it would take almost as long for this guy to get his hearing after he was sentenced to death than my daughter was on this Earth and she didn't reach her 13th birthday?" Polly's father, Marc Klaas, told me Tuesday.
Expect a ruling on that appeal within 90 days. Then there's a state habeas corpus appeal. Then Davis has a federal habeas corpus appeal. Before it's over, Davis, now 54, probably will have died of boredom. Or from another opium overdose, like the one for which he was treated in 2006, despite the fact that he was inside San Quentin.
How did it take this long? Davis was sentenced to death in September 1996 for the 1993 crime. Then it took the California Supreme Court office that handles appellate attorneys until mid-2001 to appoint attorney Phillip Cherney to represent Davis. As I've reported before, five years is not an unusual hiatus.
Then it took Cherney until July 11, 2005 to file an opening brief. Producing the appeal took longer than the prosecuting of Davis.
After another four years of delay and back and forth with the California attorney general's office, voila, there was a hearing in March.
"I have no issue with the careful consideration of death penalty appeals or that it is an automatic process," said Klaas, and he wants a system that prevents the execution of an innocent man.
But the last 13 years were not dedicated to a hunt to find the real killer. Davis confessed on videotape. He led authorities to Polly's body.
So the basis of the appeal was legal contortion. Cherney argued that the trial should have been moved from Sonoma County, not to San Jose, but to San Diego. Also, while police had advised Davis about his right to remain silent and consult a lawyer, they did not do so before one pre-confession talk. As if a man with an 11-page rap sheet might be unaware of his rights.
According to The Associated Press, Cherney even complained that California's inability to quickly carry out executions has forced Davis "to endure the uncertainty and ever-present tension on death row for such an extended time constitutes cruel and unusual punishment."
Shameless. "I was expecting some kind of brilliant argumentation," Klaas told me afterward. After all, the five-year process to appoint an attorney is supposed to limit the pool to highly qualified specialists. Instead, Klaas watched "some guy with a ponytail making pretty weak arguments."
In Cherney's defense, weak arguments were all he had. How much has this exercise cost taxpayers? No one knows. That information is restricted. Ron Matthias, the supervising deputy attorney general handling the case, told me, "The frustration that you are describing is shared widely."
Here's the worst part: If Davis said tomorrow that he wanted "the big jab," the state could not comply. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel suspended all California lethal injections. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lethal injection. Didn't matter, because a Marin County judge had ruled that there must be public comment on the new Fogel-inspired lethal injection protocol before it is adopted.
When will the public comment occur? "I don't know," a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokesperson answered.
It's funny how the folks who want to parole criminals to pare the state budget never look at the high cost of glacial appeals. Klaas believes that the decades-long delays are the result of "a silent protest against the death penalty by the defense bar, abolitionists and other death-row apologists." If there ever is an innocent person on death row, he'll die before the courts find out.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
DER NEUE AMERIKANISCHER FUHRER ?
Coming home from Walmart, I was listening to that buffoon, Roach Limburger, asking one of his dodohead listeners, "Do you hate me?" He explained that he asked the question because of the current brouhaha over his "I want Obama to fail" remarks. His faithful dodohead replied "No!" When Roach asked why not, the dodohead replied, "Because you are always right." Now that answer is really frightening!
I'll give the devil his due. I believe Roach when he claims that he wants Obama's programs to fail only because he thinks they will destroy America. Now, I do not like some parts of the President's programs - the bank bailouts, the pork in the stimulus package, the proposed dumbing-down of a college education, etc. - but I certainly do not believe that if all of those pass, America will go to hell in a handbasket.
Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican National Committee, criticized Roach for his "fail" remarks, then was quick to apologize to the blowhard for having criticized him. Steele was right in taking Roach to task. Limburger may have millions of dodoheads who believe he is always right, but he is also driving millions of others out of the Republican party and keeping new voters from joining up.
If you will read the book "Malignant Self Love" by Sam Vaknin, you will see Limburger as a typical narcissist. Dr. Vaknin, a world authority on narcissism, cites a number of leaders - Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and others - as examples of narcissists who had a tremendous influence over their followers. "They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom."
When you have someone with a self-inflated ego claiming to speak for the nation's conservatives he will turn more people off than on. But that doesn't mean Limburger lacks power - just look at Steele's quick apology. I am reminded of Adolf Hitler. Roach looks a lot like the Fuhrer, absent of anti-Semitism, and his admirers sound just like Hitler's cheering audiences. When Hitler came to power, his Nazi party members - also dodoheads - constituted a small minority of Germans who believed the Fuhrer was always right.
Hitler managed to obtain the broad support of Germans who were not Nazi party members because he frightened them into believing that the communists were about to destroy Germany. Limburger is frightening a lot of Americans by claiming that Obama's "socialist" programs will destroy America. Is Roach der neue Amerikanischer Fuhrer? I think I just heard some Limburger dodoheads shouting: Heil Roach! Sieg Heil! Heil Roach!
I'll give the devil his due. I believe Roach when he claims that he wants Obama's programs to fail only because he thinks they will destroy America. Now, I do not like some parts of the President's programs - the bank bailouts, the pork in the stimulus package, the proposed dumbing-down of a college education, etc. - but I certainly do not believe that if all of those pass, America will go to hell in a handbasket.
Michael Steele, the new head of the Republican National Committee, criticized Roach for his "fail" remarks, then was quick to apologize to the blowhard for having criticized him. Steele was right in taking Roach to task. Limburger may have millions of dodoheads who believe he is always right, but he is also driving millions of others out of the Republican party and keeping new voters from joining up.
If you will read the book "Malignant Self Love" by Sam Vaknin, you will see Limburger as a typical narcissist. Dr. Vaknin, a world authority on narcissism, cites a number of leaders - Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and others - as examples of narcissists who had a tremendous influence over their followers. "They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom."
When you have someone with a self-inflated ego claiming to speak for the nation's conservatives he will turn more people off than on. But that doesn't mean Limburger lacks power - just look at Steele's quick apology. I am reminded of Adolf Hitler. Roach looks a lot like the Fuhrer, absent of anti-Semitism, and his admirers sound just like Hitler's cheering audiences. When Hitler came to power, his Nazi party members - also dodoheads - constituted a small minority of Germans who believed the Fuhrer was always right.
Hitler managed to obtain the broad support of Germans who were not Nazi party members because he frightened them into believing that the communists were about to destroy Germany. Limburger is frightening a lot of Americans by claiming that Obama's "socialist" programs will destroy America. Is Roach der neue Amerikanischer Fuhrer? I think I just heard some Limburger dodoheads shouting: Heil Roach! Sieg Heil! Heil Roach!
GUN CONTROL NUTS
I have some senior (old fart) friends who have been buying guns and applying for licenses to carry concealed weapons. They told me it was really hard for them to buy a pistol because there is a run on hand guns and dealers are having a hard time keeping them in stock. Because there is a lot of fear out there that the Obama administration and the liberal Democrat controlled congress will seek further restrictions on gun ownerwhip, people are buying guns while they still can.
With yesterday's deadly one-man shooting sprees in Alabama (11 dead) and Germany (16 dead), you can bet that the ban on military assault (style) rifles, which expired during the last term of the Bush administration, will be reinstated. Whether further restrictions will come from Congress or the new administration remains to be seen. I'm sure the Brady bunch are licking their chops at that prospect.
The liberal mindset on guns is well illustrated by a Mike Adams column in today's Townhall.com. Here is that column:
TRIGGER ANGRY
by Mike S. Adams
Townhall.com, March 11, 2009
Odds are you’ve either heard of the phrase "trigger happy" or you’ve never been in a discussion about gun control. Leftists love to use the phrase "trigger happy" when they are justifying fascistic gun control policies that would curtail the rights of ordinary citizens. When leftists use the term "trigger happy" they get a mental image of a person who is just itching to kill a fellow citizen. I use a similar term, "trigger angry." And when I use it I get a mental image of Professor Paula Anderson.
John Wahlberg gave a speech in Professor Anderson’s communications class at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). The topic was a general one on relevant issues in the media. John decided to argue that concealed weapons permits would reduce violence and, more specifically, would have saved lives during the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007.
After John’s speech, his trigger angry professor decided to call the police. As a result, John was hauled down to the station and interrogated. To date, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has failed to provide John with the support he needs as his professor seeks to undermine his First Amendment rights en route to undermining the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
The 23-year old Wahlberg was greeted by campus police officers who read off a list of all his registered firearms. When the campus police reminded Wahlberg that guns were prohibited in campus, they apparently were not aware that he lives off campus. In fact, he lives twenty miles off campus. He also keeps the guns in a safe.
Professor Anderson’s actions were outrageous, partly because the questions police asked were so invasive. Imagine police presenting a gay professor with a list of his sex partners and then reminding him that sodomy is against the law. But, wait, sodomy is a constitutional right. Wahlberg was talking about gun ownership.
What about the possible defamation resulting from the situation? Merely taking Mr. Wahlberg into the station for questioning will cause him to be perceived differently by students. But Anderson said she had a different perception in mind: The perception that merely discussing guns makes one violent.
I have to ask the obvious: Does Professor Anderson think discussing sex makes one a rapist? Would she take seriously anyone who held such a view? Should anyone who discusses sex be hauled into the police station, reminded that rape is illegal, and asked whether every sex act he had was consensual?
If you think that Professor Anderson is the only trigger angry professor at her university, think again. She said she consults her Chair and Dean every time she looks into a possible risk. That means other people helped her decide to have Wahlberg taken into custody. And a tenured member of the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, Jerold Duquette, says he doesn’t know that he would have reacted differently. I tried to find a member of the Faculty Senate Committee on Firearms Freedom but there isn’t one.
My solution to professors like Paula Anderson is one based upon my belief that our universities would be better off if they did the exact opposite of what they are doing now. For example, Hamline University in Minnesota expelled a student for merely mentioning that he supported concealed weapons permits on campus. The student was re-admitted but only after taking a psychological evaluation.
So I propose that we put Professor Anderson on paid leave until she can be psychologically evaluated. In the unlikely event that she passes the exam she can be reinstated. If not, so much the better for Connecticut taxpayers.
With yesterday's deadly one-man shooting sprees in Alabama (11 dead) and Germany (16 dead), you can bet that the ban on military assault (style) rifles, which expired during the last term of the Bush administration, will be reinstated. Whether further restrictions will come from Congress or the new administration remains to be seen. I'm sure the Brady bunch are licking their chops at that prospect.
The liberal mindset on guns is well illustrated by a Mike Adams column in today's Townhall.com. Here is that column:
TRIGGER ANGRY
by Mike S. Adams
Townhall.com, March 11, 2009
Odds are you’ve either heard of the phrase "trigger happy" or you’ve never been in a discussion about gun control. Leftists love to use the phrase "trigger happy" when they are justifying fascistic gun control policies that would curtail the rights of ordinary citizens. When leftists use the term "trigger happy" they get a mental image of a person who is just itching to kill a fellow citizen. I use a similar term, "trigger angry." And when I use it I get a mental image of Professor Paula Anderson.
John Wahlberg gave a speech in Professor Anderson’s communications class at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). The topic was a general one on relevant issues in the media. John decided to argue that concealed weapons permits would reduce violence and, more specifically, would have saved lives during the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007.
After John’s speech, his trigger angry professor decided to call the police. As a result, John was hauled down to the station and interrogated. To date, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has failed to provide John with the support he needs as his professor seeks to undermine his First Amendment rights en route to undermining the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
The 23-year old Wahlberg was greeted by campus police officers who read off a list of all his registered firearms. When the campus police reminded Wahlberg that guns were prohibited in campus, they apparently were not aware that he lives off campus. In fact, he lives twenty miles off campus. He also keeps the guns in a safe.
Professor Anderson’s actions were outrageous, partly because the questions police asked were so invasive. Imagine police presenting a gay professor with a list of his sex partners and then reminding him that sodomy is against the law. But, wait, sodomy is a constitutional right. Wahlberg was talking about gun ownership.
What about the possible defamation resulting from the situation? Merely taking Mr. Wahlberg into the station for questioning will cause him to be perceived differently by students. But Anderson said she had a different perception in mind: The perception that merely discussing guns makes one violent.
I have to ask the obvious: Does Professor Anderson think discussing sex makes one a rapist? Would she take seriously anyone who held such a view? Should anyone who discusses sex be hauled into the police station, reminded that rape is illegal, and asked whether every sex act he had was consensual?
If you think that Professor Anderson is the only trigger angry professor at her university, think again. She said she consults her Chair and Dean every time she looks into a possible risk. That means other people helped her decide to have Wahlberg taken into custody. And a tenured member of the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom, Jerold Duquette, says he doesn’t know that he would have reacted differently. I tried to find a member of the Faculty Senate Committee on Firearms Freedom but there isn’t one.
My solution to professors like Paula Anderson is one based upon my belief that our universities would be better off if they did the exact opposite of what they are doing now. For example, Hamline University in Minnesota expelled a student for merely mentioning that he supported concealed weapons permits on campus. The student was re-admitted but only after taking a psychological evaluation.
So I propose that we put Professor Anderson on paid leave until she can be psychologically evaluated. In the unlikely event that she passes the exam she can be reinstated. If not, so much the better for Connecticut taxpayers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
SUCCESS DURING DIFFERENT STAGES OF LIFE
THE CIRCLE OF LIFE, an explanation of success was sent to me by a good friend. At 82, I am happy to report that the last time I checked, I was still enjoying success.
What is success? ... A simple explanation
At the age of 3, success means:
Not shitting in your pants
At the age of 12, success means:
Having friends
At the age of 18, success means:
Having a driver's license
At the age of 20, success means:
Having sex
At the age of 35, success means:
Having money
At the age of 50, success means:
Having money
At the age of 60, success means:
Having sex
At the age of 70, success means:
Having a driver's license
At the age of 75, success means:
Having friends
At the age of 80, success means:
Not shitting in your pants
There you have it ... Enjoy success!
What is success? ... A simple explanation
At the age of 3, success means:
Not shitting in your pants
At the age of 12, success means:
Having friends
At the age of 18, success means:
Having a driver's license
At the age of 20, success means:
Having sex
At the age of 35, success means:
Having money
At the age of 50, success means:
Having money
At the age of 60, success means:
Having sex
At the age of 70, success means:
Having a driver's license
At the age of 75, success means:
Having friends
At the age of 80, success means:
Not shitting in your pants
There you have it ... Enjoy success!
Monday, March 09, 2009
EUROPEANS SCARED SHITLESS OF MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS
In my blog, "Islamization of Europe" (2-16-09), I excerpted parts of a speech Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, gave in New York that was sponsored by the Hudson Institute. In today's Townhall.com, columnist Burt Prelutsky had a piece entitled, "Islam and the Death of Western Civilization." In one part of his column, Prelutsky reported on the shameful and cowardly way the British government reacted to an invitation for Wilders to show his documentary film, "Fitna," in England.
In the blog, "Distorted and Questionable Condemnation of Israel," which I published earlier today, I metioned that "the European Union's hostility to Israel is an obvious attempt to placate a large and volatile Muslim immigarant community." The Europeans are scared shitless that the Muslim community will take offense to any criticism of Islam and to any expressions of support for Israel. As a result, they usually cave in to the demands of Muslims, even when those demands infringe on the rights of others. For example, in a cowardly reaction to Muslim complaints that Jews were being depicted sympathetically, the British government has banned the teaching of the Holocaust in England's public schools.
Here is that part of Prelutsky's column that deals with the Wilders affair:
.......... a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, was invited by a member of the House of Lords to come to England and screen his 17-minute film. The documentary, "Fitna," links text from the Koran with footage of Islamic terrorism around the world.
Well, a funny thing happened on his way to Parliament. It seems that England’s Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, uninvited Mr. Wilders. On the grounds that the Dutchman would incite civil unrest if allowed entry to the country, Wilders was met at Heathrow and sent packing back to the Netherlands.
Although his own government has raised an official objection, England hasn’t budged. They feel that Wilders and his little movie would be the equivalent of someone’s yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The English politicians are defending their craven act on the grounds of cultural sensitivity. Which is of course a highfalutin’ euphemism for censorship. But, then, you can always count on bureaucrats to pass off cowardice as principle.
When I see the way that Muslims have bullied one country after another into kowtowing to their demands, one can’t help thinking that Hitler’s biggest mistake was being born 70 years too soon.
That whirring sound you hear is Winston Churchill spinning in his grave.
In the blog, "Distorted and Questionable Condemnation of Israel," which I published earlier today, I metioned that "the European Union's hostility to Israel is an obvious attempt to placate a large and volatile Muslim immigarant community." The Europeans are scared shitless that the Muslim community will take offense to any criticism of Islam and to any expressions of support for Israel. As a result, they usually cave in to the demands of Muslims, even when those demands infringe on the rights of others. For example, in a cowardly reaction to Muslim complaints that Jews were being depicted sympathetically, the British government has banned the teaching of the Holocaust in England's public schools.
Here is that part of Prelutsky's column that deals with the Wilders affair:
.......... a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, was invited by a member of the House of Lords to come to England and screen his 17-minute film. The documentary, "Fitna," links text from the Koran with footage of Islamic terrorism around the world.
Well, a funny thing happened on his way to Parliament. It seems that England’s Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, uninvited Mr. Wilders. On the grounds that the Dutchman would incite civil unrest if allowed entry to the country, Wilders was met at Heathrow and sent packing back to the Netherlands.
Although his own government has raised an official objection, England hasn’t budged. They feel that Wilders and his little movie would be the equivalent of someone’s yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The English politicians are defending their craven act on the grounds of cultural sensitivity. Which is of course a highfalutin’ euphemism for censorship. But, then, you can always count on bureaucrats to pass off cowardice as principle.
When I see the way that Muslims have bullied one country after another into kowtowing to their demands, one can’t help thinking that Hitler’s biggest mistake was being born 70 years too soon.
That whirring sound you hear is Winston Churchill spinning in his grave.
COMPLAINTS SIMILAR TO MINE
Robert A. Hall, a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War who served five terms in the Massachusetts state semate, has published a rather long piece entitled, "I'm Tired." He makes a number of complaints, many of which are very similar to those contained in some of my blogs. Here is a sampling of his complaints:
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
.............. the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian.
I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone,
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.
Editor's Note: Robert Hall blogs at:
http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
.............. the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian.
I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone,
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught.
Editor's Note: Robert Hall blogs at:
http://www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com
DISTORTED AND QUESTIONABLE CONDEMNATION OF ISRAEL
If you've been following my blogs, you know that I have written about Israel's enemies on the far-left and about the Marxist influence at College of the Mainland (COM) in Texas City, an institution I derisively refer to as College of the Marxists. David Smith is one of several avowed Marxists at COM who daily teach their impressionable stuents about the evils of capitalism and about American imperialism and warmongering.
Last month, Smith had a guest column in the Galveston Daily News which illustrated the left's hatred of Israel. Smith's article condemning Israel's attack on Gaza contained untruths and half-truth and was designed to make the Jewish state appear guilty of war crimes. I responded with a letter to the editor which the Daily News chose not to publish. Of course, that's the newspaper's perogative. So, I've decided to blog both the article by Smith and my response to it. First, here is his article:
ISRAEL THE AGGRESSOR, NOT THE VICTIM
By David Smith
The Daily News
Published February 25, 2009
Letter writer M.A. Khalili was right to criticize the Bush Administration for supporting Israel’s "slaughter of innocent Palestinians" during the recent invasion of Gaza ("Bush Incompetence Shows in Palestine," The Daily News, Jan. 24).
In contrast, Jayson Levy was wrong in asserting that "Israel didn’t target civilians" and blaming the Hamas government for the Israeli invasion ("Israel Doesn’t Target Civilians," The Daily News, Feb. 9).
About 12 Israelis died during this asymmetrical war. In contrast, Israel’s bombing, shelling, and invasion of Gaza left about 1,300 Palestinians dead and about 5,000 wounded. Estimates from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and other sources vary but make clear that several hundred Palestinian civilians are among the dead. Notwithstanding Levy’s claim, civilians in Gaza did not die because Hamas used them as human shields. Instead, they died because Israel committed what U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has called "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions."
Falk, a former professor at Princeton University, is widely regarded as an expert in international law. He has pointed out that Israel was illegally targeting civilians because, "the air strikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world."
Falk has also criticized Israel for inflicting collective punishment, noting that, "the entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants."
And he has blasted Israel for illegally engaging in a wildly disproportionate military response to Hamas’ rocket attacks.
As Griff White reported in The Washington Post on Jan. 15, Israel targeted not only Hamas rocket-launching sites but also the political, educational, religious and social institutions associated with the Hamas government. While Hamas rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns clearly violated international law, so, too, did Israeli targeting of civilian sites and civilians, which produced far greater casualties, just as intended by Israel.
As Professor George Giacaman of Birzeit University has emphasized, "the issue is whether civilian casualties were foreseeable. They still have an obligation not to harm civilians."
Israel’s murder and maiming of innocent civilians, its collective punishment of the people of Gaza and its disproportionate military response have led many people around the world to condemn the invasion. Pro-Palestinian rallies and protests erupted in cities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the Americas.
The United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel for attacking Gaza and violating the human rights of the Palestinian people. The European Parliament deplored the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment in contravention of international humanitarian law."
And just who started this war? As Henry Siegman of the U.S. Middle East Project has explained, "Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce." The June 2008 truce agreement required Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel and required Israel to stop military incursions and assassinations in Gaza. As Professor Siegman has pointed out, Hamas complied with the terms of the truce. But, in November, Israeli troops entered Gaza and killed six Hamas members. Hamas resumed rocket attacks only after this violation of the truce by Israel.
David Michael Smith is a professor of government at College of the Mainland and a member of the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee.
And here is the response I sent to Letters to the Editor:
David Smith's anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian rhetoric is typical of the same malarkey of untruths and half-tuths perpetrated by Marxists and far-left academics in the United States and Europe. Smith has been a long-time supporter of and apologist for the Palestinian cause and has participated in Palestinian demonstrations at the Israeli consulate in Houston.
Smith relies on members of the United Nations and the European Union to bolster his accusations and condemnations. The United Nations General Assembly, dominated by third world and Muslim countries, has been very hostile to the Jewish state since its birth 60 years ago. And the European Union's hostility to Israel is an obvious attempt to placate a large and volatile Muslim immigarant community. Thus one has to question the credibility of any UN and EU allegations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is a fact, and Marxist Smith knows this very well, that Hamas fired its rockets from the midst of civilian concentrations and from school yards, while stockpiling its weapons in mosques and school buildings. And Israel did something no other combatant has ever done - it notified the Gaza civilians beforehand of exactly where their attacks would be aimed at.
Is the loss of civilian lives tragic? Sure it is! But Israel is surrounded by millions of diehard enemies who have vowed to destroy the Jewish state, and that includes the "moderate" Palestinians of the Fatah faction.
Actually it is rather refreshing to see Smith's condemnations directed at a country other than the United States.
Editor's Note: My letter was e-mailed to the newspaper on February 25th. It was, with some minor editing, finally published in the March 10th issue of the Galveston Daily News.
Last month, Smith had a guest column in the Galveston Daily News which illustrated the left's hatred of Israel. Smith's article condemning Israel's attack on Gaza contained untruths and half-truth and was designed to make the Jewish state appear guilty of war crimes. I responded with a letter to the editor which the Daily News chose not to publish. Of course, that's the newspaper's perogative. So, I've decided to blog both the article by Smith and my response to it. First, here is his article:
ISRAEL THE AGGRESSOR, NOT THE VICTIM
By David Smith
The Daily News
Published February 25, 2009
Letter writer M.A. Khalili was right to criticize the Bush Administration for supporting Israel’s "slaughter of innocent Palestinians" during the recent invasion of Gaza ("Bush Incompetence Shows in Palestine," The Daily News, Jan. 24).
In contrast, Jayson Levy was wrong in asserting that "Israel didn’t target civilians" and blaming the Hamas government for the Israeli invasion ("Israel Doesn’t Target Civilians," The Daily News, Feb. 9).
About 12 Israelis died during this asymmetrical war. In contrast, Israel’s bombing, shelling, and invasion of Gaza left about 1,300 Palestinians dead and about 5,000 wounded. Estimates from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and other sources vary but make clear that several hundred Palestinian civilians are among the dead. Notwithstanding Levy’s claim, civilians in Gaza did not die because Hamas used them as human shields. Instead, they died because Israel committed what U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk has called "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions."
Falk, a former professor at Princeton University, is widely regarded as an expert in international law. He has pointed out that Israel was illegally targeting civilians because, "the air strikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world."
Falk has also criticized Israel for inflicting collective punishment, noting that, "the entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants."
And he has blasted Israel for illegally engaging in a wildly disproportionate military response to Hamas’ rocket attacks.
As Griff White reported in The Washington Post on Jan. 15, Israel targeted not only Hamas rocket-launching sites but also the political, educational, religious and social institutions associated with the Hamas government. While Hamas rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns clearly violated international law, so, too, did Israeli targeting of civilian sites and civilians, which produced far greater casualties, just as intended by Israel.
As Professor George Giacaman of Birzeit University has emphasized, "the issue is whether civilian casualties were foreseeable. They still have an obligation not to harm civilians."
Israel’s murder and maiming of innocent civilians, its collective punishment of the people of Gaza and its disproportionate military response have led many people around the world to condemn the invasion. Pro-Palestinian rallies and protests erupted in cities throughout the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the Americas.
The United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel for attacking Gaza and violating the human rights of the Palestinian people. The European Parliament deplored the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment in contravention of international humanitarian law."
And just who started this war? As Henry Siegman of the U.S. Middle East Project has explained, "Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce." The June 2008 truce agreement required Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel and required Israel to stop military incursions and assassinations in Gaza. As Professor Siegman has pointed out, Hamas complied with the terms of the truce. But, in November, Israeli troops entered Gaza and killed six Hamas members. Hamas resumed rocket attacks only after this violation of the truce by Israel.
David Michael Smith is a professor of government at College of the Mainland and a member of the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee.
And here is the response I sent to Letters to the Editor:
David Smith's anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian rhetoric is typical of the same malarkey of untruths and half-tuths perpetrated by Marxists and far-left academics in the United States and Europe. Smith has been a long-time supporter of and apologist for the Palestinian cause and has participated in Palestinian demonstrations at the Israeli consulate in Houston.
Smith relies on members of the United Nations and the European Union to bolster his accusations and condemnations. The United Nations General Assembly, dominated by third world and Muslim countries, has been very hostile to the Jewish state since its birth 60 years ago. And the European Union's hostility to Israel is an obvious attempt to placate a large and volatile Muslim immigarant community. Thus one has to question the credibility of any UN and EU allegations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is a fact, and Marxist Smith knows this very well, that Hamas fired its rockets from the midst of civilian concentrations and from school yards, while stockpiling its weapons in mosques and school buildings. And Israel did something no other combatant has ever done - it notified the Gaza civilians beforehand of exactly where their attacks would be aimed at.
Is the loss of civilian lives tragic? Sure it is! But Israel is surrounded by millions of diehard enemies who have vowed to destroy the Jewish state, and that includes the "moderate" Palestinians of the Fatah faction.
Actually it is rather refreshing to see Smith's condemnations directed at a country other than the United States.
Editor's Note: My letter was e-mailed to the newspaper on February 25th. It was, with some minor editing, finally published in the March 10th issue of the Galveston Daily News.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
CONVICTED DRUNK-DRIVING KILLER'S OUTRAGEOUS REWARD FOR BEING THE DAUGHTER OF A JUDGE
I am pissed off, thoroughly pissed off! In 2006, Elizabeth Shelton, the 21-year-old daughter of state district judge in Houston who presides over juvenile cases, was convicted of intoxication manslaughter for a freeway accident that killed her boyfriend. According to two tests, Shelton had a blood alcohol concentration MORE THAN THREE TIMES the legal limit when she smashed the SUV she was driving into the back of a box truck around 2 a.m.
After her father, Judge Pat Shelton, used every legal trick in the book to keep his daughter from paying for her crime, Shelton was sentenced to eight years of probation, fined $10,000 and ordered to serve four months in jail and perform 240 hours of community service at the rate of eight hours a month for 30 months.
Judge Shelton then joined his daughter and her dead boyfriend's family in filing a lawsuit against the driver of the truck, seeking $20,000 for the destruction of the Lexus SUV she was driving and an amount to be determined for mental anguish, pain and suffering. To me it seemed UNBELIEVABLE that they would have the AUDACITY to sue the truck driver because the judge's daughter rear-ended his truck while driving rip-roaring drunk on a Houston freeway around 2 a.m. Judge Shelton should have been ashamed of himself - but then he's a lawyer and most of them have no shame.
Now comes the really outrageous part. During the four months Elizabeth Shelton spent in the Harris County jail, she worked as a trustee cleaning and passing out supplies to other inmates. For that she was credited with, yes you guessed it, 240 hours of community service. No lawyer and no Harris County official has heard of any jail inmate ever having been granted community service credit for trustee work done while serving time, and neither have I.
Richard Mays, a visiting judge, was the SCOUNDREL who apparently rewarded Shelton for being the daughter of a fellow judge. Mays claims that he was merely following the recommendation of the probation department, claiming that he got a phone call from someone identifying themselves as being from the Community Supervision and Corrections Department. Hmmmm, I wonder if it could have been Judge Shelton or someone from his staff who made that phony phone call if it was actually ever made?
After Community Supervision and Corrections administrators insisted that jail work is not approved for community service credit, Judge Mays said, "I still don't understand what the big deal is. If she's done community service, what difference does it matter whether she's in the jail or not in the jail?" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MATTER? What law school did this clown attend? Did the State of Texas actually grant this jerk of a judge a license to practice law?
The scales of justice have been broken in this case. To begin with, the sentence Judge Shelton's daughter received was way too light. And now this. Anyone who believes in justice should be every bit as outraged as I am. Judge Mays insists that he did not treat Elizabeth Shelton preferentially because her father was a fellow judge. If you believe that, you must still believe in the tooth fairy. Remember that judges are also lawyers. And what is the difference between a lawyer and a liar? - THE SPELLING.
After her father, Judge Pat Shelton, used every legal trick in the book to keep his daughter from paying for her crime, Shelton was sentenced to eight years of probation, fined $10,000 and ordered to serve four months in jail and perform 240 hours of community service at the rate of eight hours a month for 30 months.
Judge Shelton then joined his daughter and her dead boyfriend's family in filing a lawsuit against the driver of the truck, seeking $20,000 for the destruction of the Lexus SUV she was driving and an amount to be determined for mental anguish, pain and suffering. To me it seemed UNBELIEVABLE that they would have the AUDACITY to sue the truck driver because the judge's daughter rear-ended his truck while driving rip-roaring drunk on a Houston freeway around 2 a.m. Judge Shelton should have been ashamed of himself - but then he's a lawyer and most of them have no shame.
Now comes the really outrageous part. During the four months Elizabeth Shelton spent in the Harris County jail, she worked as a trustee cleaning and passing out supplies to other inmates. For that she was credited with, yes you guessed it, 240 hours of community service. No lawyer and no Harris County official has heard of any jail inmate ever having been granted community service credit for trustee work done while serving time, and neither have I.
Richard Mays, a visiting judge, was the SCOUNDREL who apparently rewarded Shelton for being the daughter of a fellow judge. Mays claims that he was merely following the recommendation of the probation department, claiming that he got a phone call from someone identifying themselves as being from the Community Supervision and Corrections Department. Hmmmm, I wonder if it could have been Judge Shelton or someone from his staff who made that phony phone call if it was actually ever made?
After Community Supervision and Corrections administrators insisted that jail work is not approved for community service credit, Judge Mays said, "I still don't understand what the big deal is. If she's done community service, what difference does it matter whether she's in the jail or not in the jail?" WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MATTER? What law school did this clown attend? Did the State of Texas actually grant this jerk of a judge a license to practice law?
The scales of justice have been broken in this case. To begin with, the sentence Judge Shelton's daughter received was way too light. And now this. Anyone who believes in justice should be every bit as outraged as I am. Judge Mays insists that he did not treat Elizabeth Shelton preferentially because her father was a fellow judge. If you believe that, you must still believe in the tooth fairy. Remember that judges are also lawyers. And what is the difference between a lawyer and a liar? - THE SPELLING.
DUDLEY DOORITE STRIKES AGAIN
Roman Forest is a little woodlands community north of Houston that depends on the ticketing of unwary motorists to fund its municipal operations. Such a town is a perfect fit for the Dudley Doorites in the police service. And sure enough, one of them has struck again by ticketing a horseback rider for littering when his horse pooped by the side of a road. Doorite's poop littering ticket is a load of pure horseshit, no pun intended. Here is the story:
HOUSTON -- A 2-year-old colt has gotten his owner in trouble with the law, Elizabeth Scarborough of KPRC Local 2 reported February 24, 2009.
HORSE TICKET.....IN TEXAS?
"Whatever you want to do on him, you can," said Ben McCleary, who has been training Rascal to one day go on trail rides.
McCleary said part of that training means riding him near roads.
"So they won't spook," said McCleary. "And, of course, you don't want to get thrown 10 feet."
While McCleary and Rascal were walking Tuesday, McCleary said Roman Forest police stopped him because Rascal had left behind some evidence.
"Next thing I know somebody stopped me, searched me twice, and I got a citation because the horse pooped on the side of the road," said McCleary.
The ticket McCleary said listed the offense as "littering." Under vehicle registration, it said "not applicable, horse."
"I didn't know what to think," McCleary said. "I never heard of a law saying that."
Roman Forest's police chief said he would not comment about the ticket, but was looking into it.
Stable owner Robbie Jones said he's shocked.
"The horse is the one who littered," said Jones. "In all likelihood, Ben wouldn't even be aware of it. The horse just does it."
"I mean it's an animal, has bowel movements," said McCleary.
Jones and McCleary said they worried about what this could mean for all riders.
"In the next four days, trail riders will come right up 59," said Jones. "I hate to have police lined up writing them tickets."
They said the ticket, is downright un-Texan.
"Now I can't even walk a horse down the road to train it?" asked Jones. "It seems extremely anti-Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, and that's 100 percent Texan."
McCleary is expected in court on March 11.
Here's the News video:
http://www.click2houston.com/video/18789383/index.html
HOUSTON -- A 2-year-old colt has gotten his owner in trouble with the law, Elizabeth Scarborough of KPRC Local 2 reported February 24, 2009.
HORSE TICKET.....IN TEXAS?
"Whatever you want to do on him, you can," said Ben McCleary, who has been training Rascal to one day go on trail rides.
McCleary said part of that training means riding him near roads.
"So they won't spook," said McCleary. "And, of course, you don't want to get thrown 10 feet."
While McCleary and Rascal were walking Tuesday, McCleary said Roman Forest police stopped him because Rascal had left behind some evidence.
"Next thing I know somebody stopped me, searched me twice, and I got a citation because the horse pooped on the side of the road," said McCleary.
The ticket McCleary said listed the offense as "littering." Under vehicle registration, it said "not applicable, horse."
"I didn't know what to think," McCleary said. "I never heard of a law saying that."
Roman Forest's police chief said he would not comment about the ticket, but was looking into it.
Stable owner Robbie Jones said he's shocked.
"The horse is the one who littered," said Jones. "In all likelihood, Ben wouldn't even be aware of it. The horse just does it."
"I mean it's an animal, has bowel movements," said McCleary.
Jones and McCleary said they worried about what this could mean for all riders.
"In the next four days, trail riders will come right up 59," said Jones. "I hate to have police lined up writing them tickets."
They said the ticket, is downright un-Texan.
"Now I can't even walk a horse down the road to train it?" asked Jones. "It seems extremely anti-Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, and that's 100 percent Texan."
McCleary is expected in court on March 11.
Here's the News video:
http://www.click2houston.com/video/18789383/index.html
WHERE DOES EDUCATION FIT INTO COLLEGE ATHLETICS ?
Norman Chad is a syndicated sports columnist who is best known for his "Couch Slouch" columns and for his coverage of poker on ESPN. His columns are humerous but biting. Chad is either loved or hated, there's no in between. In the past, I have written some blogs about the farce of "student athletes" in big time college sports.
In one column Chad wrote about the large number of intentional fouls committed during the last few minutes of college basketball games. In describing a game between Syracuse and Connecticut, he wrote: "A classic! Featuring 66 fouls and 93 free-throw attempts. I believe everyone fouled out, and both schools had to use actual students to finish the game."
A recent Couch Slouch column in the Washington Post dealt with the power generated by intercollegiate athletics. Here is that column:
THE WASHINGTON POST
Couch Slouch
CALHOUN GETS CAUGHT IN A SALARY FLAP
Monday, March 2, 2009; Page E02
Over and over I watched the stirring video last week of Jim Calhoun's news conference tirade -- it was 73 seconds of commercial-free entertainment gold -- in which the Connecticut men's basketball coach was asked to defend his $1.6 million salary in the face of the state's billion-dollar budget deficit.
As an alert, if somewhat prone, observer of the academic, athletic and financial culture of America, Couch Slouch learned several lessons, including some insight into Manny RamÃrez, from Calhoun's testy exchange with activist Ken Krayeske:
After basketball games, basketball coaches only want to talk about basketball, you know, stuff like rebounding and turnovers and bad officiating. Krayeske ambushed Calhoun after the Huskies beat South Florida in regard to his salary -- that would be like grilling Al Capone after a gangland hit about his taxes. At least Krayeske had the good sense not to pester Calhoun following a U-Conn. loss.
Still, this notion that certain questions are off-limits at certain times is a bit shaky. Let's say, hypothetically, that Calhoun had robbed a string of convenience marts several days earlier. Would it be inappropriate to bring up these crimes at a postgame news conference? I think not.
Now, everyone knows where I stand on big-time intercollegiate athletics, but I am not going to run Calhoun up the flagpole for being paid to do his job. In fact, if I were offered $50,000 to sit atop a flagpole in the buff for an hour while humming "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree," I believe I'd be in line at the bank depositing the check before I considered the social ramifications of my work in a tough economy.
Calhoun is not responsible for the state's fiscal crisis, nor is he required to act on it. This is the way it works in the New World: They offer you the money, and you take it or leave it. He took it. This nation was built on the belief, "Whatever the market will bear," and, to this day, everyone from P.T. Barnum to Carrot Top has benefited from it.
Still, Calhoun should be sensitive to the fact that many of his fellow state workers are suffering cutbacks. The coach interrupted his inquisitor with the following words: "Not a dime back." Not a dime back? Who's advising him, Marie Antoinette? Workers earning far fewer dimes in Connecticut will be forced to make concessions, but the state's highest-profile and highest-paid employee says NOT A DIME BACK? Ouch.
The governor of Connecticut and two state legislators reprimanded Calhoun for his outburst. Oh, please. These are the people charged with running the state -- perhaps if they weren't so bent on making the state university's basketball team such an out-of-whack priority, they'd have the proper mind-set to do their own jobs better.
Where does education fit into all this? It never has. U-Conn. -- like many institutions of higher earning -- brings in 18-year-old athletes to sell tickets and TV rights to basketball games. In return, the athletes get a scholarship to a university in which they scarcely attend classes. This is known as March Madness, or as I like to call it, Societal Insanity.
Academics, as always, is incidental. Or as Calhoun put it in response to one of Krayeske's questions, "What was the take tonight?"
You see, from dawn to dusk from coast to coast, it is always about money; that's the way we keep score in America. Calhoun was hired to win and earn. "We make $12 million a year for this university," he exclaimed. I immediately thought: T-shirt opportunity! On the front, it says, "We make $12 million a year for this university," and, on the back, it says, "NOT A DIME BACK." You could move 5,000 of those babies at $17.95 each in a single day through Storrs alone.
How does Manny RamÃrez figure in all this? He doesn't, except for the fact that, if he ever accepts the Los Angeles Dodgers' offer of $25 million for this season, we will be able to say that Manny makes $25 million a year for Manny, minus Scott Boras's commission.
In one column Chad wrote about the large number of intentional fouls committed during the last few minutes of college basketball games. In describing a game between Syracuse and Connecticut, he wrote: "A classic! Featuring 66 fouls and 93 free-throw attempts. I believe everyone fouled out, and both schools had to use actual students to finish the game."
A recent Couch Slouch column in the Washington Post dealt with the power generated by intercollegiate athletics. Here is that column:
THE WASHINGTON POST
Couch Slouch
CALHOUN GETS CAUGHT IN A SALARY FLAP
Monday, March 2, 2009; Page E02
Over and over I watched the stirring video last week of Jim Calhoun's news conference tirade -- it was 73 seconds of commercial-free entertainment gold -- in which the Connecticut men's basketball coach was asked to defend his $1.6 million salary in the face of the state's billion-dollar budget deficit.
As an alert, if somewhat prone, observer of the academic, athletic and financial culture of America, Couch Slouch learned several lessons, including some insight into Manny RamÃrez, from Calhoun's testy exchange with activist Ken Krayeske:
After basketball games, basketball coaches only want to talk about basketball, you know, stuff like rebounding and turnovers and bad officiating. Krayeske ambushed Calhoun after the Huskies beat South Florida in regard to his salary -- that would be like grilling Al Capone after a gangland hit about his taxes. At least Krayeske had the good sense not to pester Calhoun following a U-Conn. loss.
Still, this notion that certain questions are off-limits at certain times is a bit shaky. Let's say, hypothetically, that Calhoun had robbed a string of convenience marts several days earlier. Would it be inappropriate to bring up these crimes at a postgame news conference? I think not.
Now, everyone knows where I stand on big-time intercollegiate athletics, but I am not going to run Calhoun up the flagpole for being paid to do his job. In fact, if I were offered $50,000 to sit atop a flagpole in the buff for an hour while humming "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree," I believe I'd be in line at the bank depositing the check before I considered the social ramifications of my work in a tough economy.
Calhoun is not responsible for the state's fiscal crisis, nor is he required to act on it. This is the way it works in the New World: They offer you the money, and you take it or leave it. He took it. This nation was built on the belief, "Whatever the market will bear," and, to this day, everyone from P.T. Barnum to Carrot Top has benefited from it.
Still, Calhoun should be sensitive to the fact that many of his fellow state workers are suffering cutbacks. The coach interrupted his inquisitor with the following words: "Not a dime back." Not a dime back? Who's advising him, Marie Antoinette? Workers earning far fewer dimes in Connecticut will be forced to make concessions, but the state's highest-profile and highest-paid employee says NOT A DIME BACK? Ouch.
The governor of Connecticut and two state legislators reprimanded Calhoun for his outburst. Oh, please. These are the people charged with running the state -- perhaps if they weren't so bent on making the state university's basketball team such an out-of-whack priority, they'd have the proper mind-set to do their own jobs better.
Where does education fit into all this? It never has. U-Conn. -- like many institutions of higher earning -- brings in 18-year-old athletes to sell tickets and TV rights to basketball games. In return, the athletes get a scholarship to a university in which they scarcely attend classes. This is known as March Madness, or as I like to call it, Societal Insanity.
Academics, as always, is incidental. Or as Calhoun put it in response to one of Krayeske's questions, "What was the take tonight?"
You see, from dawn to dusk from coast to coast, it is always about money; that's the way we keep score in America. Calhoun was hired to win and earn. "We make $12 million a year for this university," he exclaimed. I immediately thought: T-shirt opportunity! On the front, it says, "We make $12 million a year for this university," and, on the back, it says, "NOT A DIME BACK." You could move 5,000 of those babies at $17.95 each in a single day through Storrs alone.
How does Manny RamÃrez figure in all this? He doesn't, except for the fact that, if he ever accepts the Los Angeles Dodgers' offer of $25 million for this season, we will be able to say that Manny makes $25 million a year for Manny, minus Scott Boras's commission.
Friday, March 06, 2009
COULD THE POLICE OFFICER BE HAVING A BAD DAY?
The first-line supervisor in the police patrol unit is critical to the successful operation of the whole police agency. The police sergeant is actually more important than the chief of police, that is if he does his job properly. Unfortunately, too many supervisors are not doing their best or don't really know how to do so. First-line supervision involves much more than making assignments, reviewing police reports, checking to see that officers are not goofing off, and chewing ass when they do.
A case in point is a letter writen by an irate mother which appeared in The Citizen, a local weekly newspaper in the Houston area. The editor entitled the letter: "Officer's rudeness uncalled for." Now before going any further, I want to make it clear that this letter represents only the version of the aggrieved motorist, and does not present the offending officer's side. Here are some exerpts from the letter.
".......... I was not speeding and I wasn't breaking the law, but to my suprise he stopped behind me. He came to my car, my window is broken since Hurricane Ike, opening the car door. He rudely asked me if I had seen the stop sign behind me. I responded: 'yes sir, and did stop.' He accused me of not even coming close to stopping. He immediately threatened me with towing my van if I continued arguing. I felt very uncomfortable and intimidated with his behavior toward me and my young son.
I remained silent. He kept on going on and on about neighbors complaining of people speeding, said I was calling him a liar because I did not agree with his charges, and last he said that if I had a problem, I could take it to a judge. ..........I was only able to make one comment. The officer turned my one comment into this big argument. ..........Could it have been that the officer was having a bad day ..........? ..........Finally, it could have been that he was trying to meet his quota of tickets for that day and he was irritated by that. .........."
She ended her letter with, "Note: A formal complaint for an investigation has been filed with the Houston police internal affairs against the unprofessionlism and rudeness of the officer."
Was the incident as bad as she described it? Possibly, but probaly not. However, something untoward happend during this traffic stop to make her file an official complaint with the Houston Police Department and to write a letter to the editor of The Citizen.
Could the officer have had a bad day? That is a very good question. Police officers do have their bad days. Could the officer have had an argument with his wife before leaving home for work? Did the officer get his ass chewed out for not writing enough traffic tickets? There are any number of other reasons why an officer could be having a bad day. And that is where the first-line supervisor comes in. He should never contrtibute to an officer's bad mood by chewing his ass out at the beginning of a shift - that should wait until the end of the shift.
Most important of all, a sergeant must be extremely familiar with his subordinate officers. That familiarity leads him to recognize any mood swings among his charges. An officer who is in a bad mood is trouble waiting to happen on the street. It may lead to a bad traffic stop like the one the letter writer complained about. Or it could lead to an unneccessary and dangerous physical altercation during an arrest. The bad traffic stop is a public relations nightmare. The physical altercation could be deadly.
So what is the first-line supervisor to do? When he recognizes that one of his officers is troubled, he should not let him on the streets because it is human nature to take one's frustrations out on others. Put him behind a desk or even send him home. Can't do that because there is a shortage of officers? Bullshit! The trouble that an officer in a bad mood can cause his agency and the community is far worse than any shortage of personnel. And when the shit hits the fan, he'll end up suspended or fired, in the hospital or dead, and the resulting publicity could be detrimental to the whole department.
A case in point is a letter writen by an irate mother which appeared in The Citizen, a local weekly newspaper in the Houston area. The editor entitled the letter: "Officer's rudeness uncalled for." Now before going any further, I want to make it clear that this letter represents only the version of the aggrieved motorist, and does not present the offending officer's side. Here are some exerpts from the letter.
".......... I was not speeding and I wasn't breaking the law, but to my suprise he stopped behind me. He came to my car, my window is broken since Hurricane Ike, opening the car door. He rudely asked me if I had seen the stop sign behind me. I responded: 'yes sir, and did stop.' He accused me of not even coming close to stopping. He immediately threatened me with towing my van if I continued arguing. I felt very uncomfortable and intimidated with his behavior toward me and my young son.
I remained silent. He kept on going on and on about neighbors complaining of people speeding, said I was calling him a liar because I did not agree with his charges, and last he said that if I had a problem, I could take it to a judge. ..........I was only able to make one comment. The officer turned my one comment into this big argument. ..........Could it have been that the officer was having a bad day ..........? ..........Finally, it could have been that he was trying to meet his quota of tickets for that day and he was irritated by that. .........."
She ended her letter with, "Note: A formal complaint for an investigation has been filed with the Houston police internal affairs against the unprofessionlism and rudeness of the officer."
Was the incident as bad as she described it? Possibly, but probaly not. However, something untoward happend during this traffic stop to make her file an official complaint with the Houston Police Department and to write a letter to the editor of The Citizen.
Could the officer have had a bad day? That is a very good question. Police officers do have their bad days. Could the officer have had an argument with his wife before leaving home for work? Did the officer get his ass chewed out for not writing enough traffic tickets? There are any number of other reasons why an officer could be having a bad day. And that is where the first-line supervisor comes in. He should never contrtibute to an officer's bad mood by chewing his ass out at the beginning of a shift - that should wait until the end of the shift.
Most important of all, a sergeant must be extremely familiar with his subordinate officers. That familiarity leads him to recognize any mood swings among his charges. An officer who is in a bad mood is trouble waiting to happen on the street. It may lead to a bad traffic stop like the one the letter writer complained about. Or it could lead to an unneccessary and dangerous physical altercation during an arrest. The bad traffic stop is a public relations nightmare. The physical altercation could be deadly.
So what is the first-line supervisor to do? When he recognizes that one of his officers is troubled, he should not let him on the streets because it is human nature to take one's frustrations out on others. Put him behind a desk or even send him home. Can't do that because there is a shortage of officers? Bullshit! The trouble that an officer in a bad mood can cause his agency and the community is far worse than any shortage of personnel. And when the shit hits the fan, he'll end up suspended or fired, in the hospital or dead, and the resulting publicity could be detrimental to the whole department.
LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND
"Liberals have long had a moral problem with expanding the war on drugs. In fact, most liberals say that it makes sense to contract the war on drugs by focusing on the arrests of large scale drug dealers as opposed to small-time users. The general idea is, of course, a correct one. No one could legitimately argue that the occasional user of an illegal drug is as morally culpable as the regular supplier."
Thus wrote Mike Adams in yesterday's Townhall.com. His column actually dealt with the feminists on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Wilminton, and not with the war on drugs. While I usually agree with Mike's views, I must take exception to his statement: No one could legitimately argue that the occasional user of an illegal drug is as morally cupable as the regualr supplier. I can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.
There are millions of "occasional" users of illegal drugs in this country. I maintain that the occasional users, together with the regular users, are more culpable than the dealers who supply them with the illegal drugs they crave. Has Mike Adams, a strong proponent of capitalism, forgotten about the law of supply and demand? When there is no demand for a product there will be no supplier for that product!
The insatiable hunger for "recreational" drugs in this country is a shameful reflection of a society gone wrong. There is really no excuse for it. Our drug poblems arose out of the anti-Vietnam War youth movement and its cultural revolution. The demand for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth and other mind-altering drugs has been strong ever since it spread from San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district throughout the land.
No other country comes close to approaching the high level of demand for illicit drugs found in America. Marijuana has become the leading cash crop in California, Kentucky and some other states. The idiotic legalization of "medical marijuana" in California has served to increase demand and made millionaires out of a whole bunch of "pot pharmacists." We are funding the drug cartels in Mexico and Columbia. Were it not for the millions of American recreational durg users, there would be no drug cartels, no drug wars in Mexico, and no revolutionary armed forces in Columbia.
So Mike, please rethink your position on those occasional drug users. Don't tell us they are not as morally culpable as drug dealers. It is the law of supply and demand that keeps drug dealers in business and the occasional user plays a major role in the demand for illegal drugs.
Thus wrote Mike Adams in yesterday's Townhall.com. His column actually dealt with the feminists on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Wilminton, and not with the war on drugs. While I usually agree with Mike's views, I must take exception to his statement: No one could legitimately argue that the occasional user of an illegal drug is as morally cupable as the regualr supplier. I can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.
There are millions of "occasional" users of illegal drugs in this country. I maintain that the occasional users, together with the regular users, are more culpable than the dealers who supply them with the illegal drugs they crave. Has Mike Adams, a strong proponent of capitalism, forgotten about the law of supply and demand? When there is no demand for a product there will be no supplier for that product!
The insatiable hunger for "recreational" drugs in this country is a shameful reflection of a society gone wrong. There is really no excuse for it. Our drug poblems arose out of the anti-Vietnam War youth movement and its cultural revolution. The demand for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth and other mind-altering drugs has been strong ever since it spread from San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district throughout the land.
No other country comes close to approaching the high level of demand for illicit drugs found in America. Marijuana has become the leading cash crop in California, Kentucky and some other states. The idiotic legalization of "medical marijuana" in California has served to increase demand and made millionaires out of a whole bunch of "pot pharmacists." We are funding the drug cartels in Mexico and Columbia. Were it not for the millions of American recreational durg users, there would be no drug cartels, no drug wars in Mexico, and no revolutionary armed forces in Columbia.
So Mike, please rethink your position on those occasional drug users. Don't tell us they are not as morally culpable as drug dealers. It is the law of supply and demand that keeps drug dealers in business and the occasional user plays a major role in the demand for illegal drugs.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
CAN VETERINARY MARIJUANA BE FAR BEHIND ?
Medical marijuana in California is going great guns. Every Tom, Dick and Harry and every Mary, Jane and Jill seems able to procure pot prescriptions from physicians for any number of ailments in addition to those of glaucoma, cancer and AIDS. Erectile Dysfunction is about the only condition they're not prescribing pot for. The Obama administration has told the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to stop raiding marijuana "pharmacies" which, while legal in California, are operating in violation of federal laws. I have seen ads on reputable websites suggesting they can help me get set up in California's multi-million dollar medical marijuana business.
This begs the question, can veterinary marijuana be far behind? Just the other day, some 20-year-old jerk in Nebraska stuffed his girlfriend's pet kitten inside a home-made bong and then smoked marijuana through the device. When busted by the cops, he maintained that he was only trying to calm the cat down. This idiot, empirical evidence that the use of pot can addle your brains, is facing prosecution for drug possession and animal cruelty.
I can see a whole new industry growing up around the treatment of pets and other animals. Pot to turn your pet Pit Bull, Rottweiler or Chow Chow into a lazy lap dog, one that a small child can safely cuddle and squeeze like a Teddy Bear. Pot to make monkeys and apes suitable for children's petting zoos. Pot to help chickens lay more eggs. Pot to make other farm animals more manageable. Sound far-fetched? Well just look at how, under a well intentioned but misguided law, the prescription of medical marijuana has been perverted in the land of nuts and fruits. So, why not also apply the use of pot in the veterinary field?
The use of marijuana for medical purposes is a dubious proposition at best and remains a topic of controversy. There are a bunch of doctors, former or current pot smokers I suspect, who claim that marijuana relieves the pain of glaucoma, the ill effects of cancer chemotherapy and the suffering of full-blown AIDS patients. There are just as many doctors who dispute those claims and who say that even if there is a chance they could be true, there are traditional drugs readily available to treat those problems.
I am sure that getting stoned on pot will relieve some pain and other physical discomforts. But so will getting drunk on beer, wine or any other alcoholic beverages. While drunk driving is a very serious problem, I wonder how many innocent people in California, or elsewheres for that matter, are getting killed by drivers under the influence of pot, prescribed or otherwise?
This begs the question, can veterinary marijuana be far behind? Just the other day, some 20-year-old jerk in Nebraska stuffed his girlfriend's pet kitten inside a home-made bong and then smoked marijuana through the device. When busted by the cops, he maintained that he was only trying to calm the cat down. This idiot, empirical evidence that the use of pot can addle your brains, is facing prosecution for drug possession and animal cruelty.
I can see a whole new industry growing up around the treatment of pets and other animals. Pot to turn your pet Pit Bull, Rottweiler or Chow Chow into a lazy lap dog, one that a small child can safely cuddle and squeeze like a Teddy Bear. Pot to make monkeys and apes suitable for children's petting zoos. Pot to help chickens lay more eggs. Pot to make other farm animals more manageable. Sound far-fetched? Well just look at how, under a well intentioned but misguided law, the prescription of medical marijuana has been perverted in the land of nuts and fruits. So, why not also apply the use of pot in the veterinary field?
The use of marijuana for medical purposes is a dubious proposition at best and remains a topic of controversy. There are a bunch of doctors, former or current pot smokers I suspect, who claim that marijuana relieves the pain of glaucoma, the ill effects of cancer chemotherapy and the suffering of full-blown AIDS patients. There are just as many doctors who dispute those claims and who say that even if there is a chance they could be true, there are traditional drugs readily available to treat those problems.
I am sure that getting stoned on pot will relieve some pain and other physical discomforts. But so will getting drunk on beer, wine or any other alcoholic beverages. While drunk driving is a very serious problem, I wonder how many innocent people in California, or elsewheres for that matter, are getting killed by drivers under the influence of pot, prescribed or otherwise?
RIGHT TO LIFE: 14 GOOD REASONS TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP !
As some of you know, I do not like abortions, especially those that are performed simply because the expectant mother does not want a(nother) child. But I also believe that the government has no business interjecting itself in the abortioln matter. Obviously, I do not object to abortions for medical purposes. And when it comes to teenagers who get knocked up, I think a case can be made for abortions. It is easy to proclaim, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em!" But what about all the single pregnant women who do not have the means to support a(nother) child properly?
The Right to Life movement raises and spends tons of dollars lobbying state and national legislators to pass laws outlawing or restricting abortions. At the annual pro-life rally in Austin last January, the governor and other Texas politicians were present to support the demonstrators call for a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus. The pro-lifers are good and decent religious folks who believe that life begins at conception and must be protected.
This brings me to Nadya Suleman, the 33-year-old unemployed single mother who recently gave birth to octuplets. This nut-case already is the mother of six other children, three with disabilities, who has been living in her mother's house which is about to be foreclosed on. There is no way that Suleman will be able to care for 14 children once the octuplets are released from the hospital. She has no income and she cannot provide adequate living facilities and care for six children, and certainly not for fourteen of them.
The State of California is already stuck with several million dollars in hospital and doctor bills for the birth and care of the octuplets while they remain in the hospital. There is talk that child protective service authorities may not let Suleman have the octuplets. If they are going to be placed in foster care and put up for adoption they will surely be split apart and that would be a real tragedy. Here is my solution for the care of all the Suleman children.
In order for Nadya Suleman to properly care for 14 children, she will need adequate living facilities. By California standards that means a house costing upwards of a million dollars. The 14 children will require extensive and expensive medical care for the foreseeable future. The household will have a humongous monthly food bill. Baby supplies will also be expensive. The monthly utility bills will be high. So who is going to pay for all that? The State of California? Perhaps, but I have a much better alternative.
The Right to Life movement should spend some of all that money it rakes in to provide for all of the Suleman children's needs, including the purchase of an adequate home, medical expenses, food and baby supplies, utlities and whatever else may become necessary. And individual pro-lifers should volunteer in droves to personally assist nut-case Nadya, a fellow pro-lifer, in raising and caring for all the children. That would be putting their money and personal dedication to good use and ensure that all the siblings will be raised and remain together.
So to all of you well meaning pro-lifers, here are 14 good reasons for you to put up or shut up!
The Right to Life movement raises and spends tons of dollars lobbying state and national legislators to pass laws outlawing or restricting abortions. At the annual pro-life rally in Austin last January, the governor and other Texas politicians were present to support the demonstrators call for a bill requiring women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of the fetus. The pro-lifers are good and decent religious folks who believe that life begins at conception and must be protected.
This brings me to Nadya Suleman, the 33-year-old unemployed single mother who recently gave birth to octuplets. This nut-case already is the mother of six other children, three with disabilities, who has been living in her mother's house which is about to be foreclosed on. There is no way that Suleman will be able to care for 14 children once the octuplets are released from the hospital. She has no income and she cannot provide adequate living facilities and care for six children, and certainly not for fourteen of them.
The State of California is already stuck with several million dollars in hospital and doctor bills for the birth and care of the octuplets while they remain in the hospital. There is talk that child protective service authorities may not let Suleman have the octuplets. If they are going to be placed in foster care and put up for adoption they will surely be split apart and that would be a real tragedy. Here is my solution for the care of all the Suleman children.
In order for Nadya Suleman to properly care for 14 children, she will need adequate living facilities. By California standards that means a house costing upwards of a million dollars. The 14 children will require extensive and expensive medical care for the foreseeable future. The household will have a humongous monthly food bill. Baby supplies will also be expensive. The monthly utility bills will be high. So who is going to pay for all that? The State of California? Perhaps, but I have a much better alternative.
The Right to Life movement should spend some of all that money it rakes in to provide for all of the Suleman children's needs, including the purchase of an adequate home, medical expenses, food and baby supplies, utlities and whatever else may become necessary. And individual pro-lifers should volunteer in droves to personally assist nut-case Nadya, a fellow pro-lifer, in raising and caring for all the children. That would be putting their money and personal dedication to good use and ensure that all the siblings will be raised and remain together.
So to all of you well meaning pro-lifers, here are 14 good reasons for you to put up or shut up!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
CORRECTIONAL CODE OF SILENCE
Here we go again. Another "expert" on the horrors of the death penalty is weighing in from an unusual perspective. Ron McAndrew is described by the Houston Chonicle as "the former warden of three Florida state prisons and an expert in prison and jail issues throughout the South." Yesterday, he had an op-ed piece in the Chronicle in which he complained that a code of silence among correctional officers is keeping those awaiting execution from receiving a fair clemency hearing.
McAndrew claims that correctional officers throughout the country are afraid to break a code of silence that prevents them from speaking up in favor of death row inmates at clemency hearings, fearing that to do so would get them fired or even beat up by fellow officers. He alleges that the code is enforced by correctional supervisors and "employers."
McAndrew's op-ed piece zeroed in on Willie Earl Pondexter who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. McAndrew wrote that one "courageous" officer came forward and reported that "Pondexter is not a danger to anyone, stays calm even in challenging situations, does everything that is asked of him and 'could safely live out his days in a structured environment.'" In other words, according to McAndrew's "expertise," Pondexter has been "rehabilitated" and is no longer a threat to anyone, thus deserving of clemency.
Before going any further, here is the Texas Attorney General's description of Pondexter's crime: On Oct. 28, 1993, Pondexter and four other men discussed robbing Martha Lennox, an elderly woman. All five men went to Lennox’s Clarksville home. One of the men left the group, and the other four proceeded, with Pondexter kicking in the front door to Lennox’s home. The four men entered Lennox’s bedroom, where the 85-year-old Lennox was sitting on the bed. After taking Lennox’s money, James Henderson, one of the men, shot the woman in the head, then handed the gun to Pondexter, who also shot Lennox in the head. Henderson and Pondexter were tried separately, and both men were sentenced to death for the robbery and slaying of Lennox.
Rehabilitated my ass! All Pondexter has done is learned how to do his time: (1) "Hold your mud." (2) Don't give officers any shit. (3) Don't associate with troublemakers. (4) When the shit hits the fan, don't get involved - stay way back and enjoy all the head-knocking and ass-kicking as it takes place.
I have always maintained that prisons do not rehabilitate anyone (PRISONS CANNOT REHABILITATE CRIMINALS [11-28-07]) because, unlike society in the free world, prisons are "a highly structured institutional society." Many inmates can do their time and appear to be model prisoners, but when they re-enter the free world, it's often back to the old ways that got them into prison in the first place. The same may hold true for model death row inmates when they are transferred out to a less structured environment within the prison system.
McAndrew contends that death row officers get to know the condemned better than anyone else and are well qualified to judge whether or not they have been "rehabilitated." What utter nonesense! While on duty, correctional officers are imprisoned every bit as much as their charges. In fact, they are really held hostage by the inmates. Thus, the "Stockholm Syndrome" (a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage disregards his victimization and shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker) could come into play.
Pondexter, who insists that he did not kill Martha Lennox, has been on death row for about 15 years. During that time numerous appeals on his behalf have been heard by the courts. If there is, as Ron McAndrew claims, an enforced code of silence, could it be that the prison administration is merely trying to protect correctional officers from making fools of themselves because they are not actually qualified to give a clinical prognosis based solely on a long-time personal relationship within the very strictest of structured institutional settings?
McAndrew claims that correctional officers throughout the country are afraid to break a code of silence that prevents them from speaking up in favor of death row inmates at clemency hearings, fearing that to do so would get them fired or even beat up by fellow officers. He alleges that the code is enforced by correctional supervisors and "employers."
McAndrew's op-ed piece zeroed in on Willie Earl Pondexter who is scheduled to be executed after 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. McAndrew wrote that one "courageous" officer came forward and reported that "Pondexter is not a danger to anyone, stays calm even in challenging situations, does everything that is asked of him and 'could safely live out his days in a structured environment.'" In other words, according to McAndrew's "expertise," Pondexter has been "rehabilitated" and is no longer a threat to anyone, thus deserving of clemency.
Before going any further, here is the Texas Attorney General's description of Pondexter's crime: On Oct. 28, 1993, Pondexter and four other men discussed robbing Martha Lennox, an elderly woman. All five men went to Lennox’s Clarksville home. One of the men left the group, and the other four proceeded, with Pondexter kicking in the front door to Lennox’s home. The four men entered Lennox’s bedroom, where the 85-year-old Lennox was sitting on the bed. After taking Lennox’s money, James Henderson, one of the men, shot the woman in the head, then handed the gun to Pondexter, who also shot Lennox in the head. Henderson and Pondexter were tried separately, and both men were sentenced to death for the robbery and slaying of Lennox.
Rehabilitated my ass! All Pondexter has done is learned how to do his time: (1) "Hold your mud." (2) Don't give officers any shit. (3) Don't associate with troublemakers. (4) When the shit hits the fan, don't get involved - stay way back and enjoy all the head-knocking and ass-kicking as it takes place.
I have always maintained that prisons do not rehabilitate anyone (PRISONS CANNOT REHABILITATE CRIMINALS [11-28-07]) because, unlike society in the free world, prisons are "a highly structured institutional society." Many inmates can do their time and appear to be model prisoners, but when they re-enter the free world, it's often back to the old ways that got them into prison in the first place. The same may hold true for model death row inmates when they are transferred out to a less structured environment within the prison system.
McAndrew contends that death row officers get to know the condemned better than anyone else and are well qualified to judge whether or not they have been "rehabilitated." What utter nonesense! While on duty, correctional officers are imprisoned every bit as much as their charges. In fact, they are really held hostage by the inmates. Thus, the "Stockholm Syndrome" (a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage disregards his victimization and shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker) could come into play.
Pondexter, who insists that he did not kill Martha Lennox, has been on death row for about 15 years. During that time numerous appeals on his behalf have been heard by the courts. If there is, as Ron McAndrew claims, an enforced code of silence, could it be that the prison administration is merely trying to protect correctional officers from making fools of themselves because they are not actually qualified to give a clinical prognosis based solely on a long-time personal relationship within the very strictest of structured institutional settings?
HOMICIDES AS NATURAL DEATHS
The Houston Police Department has on several recent occasions listed gunshot victims as having died of natural causes. HPD deliberately misrepresented those deaths in order to make Houston's homicide rate look a lot better than it really was. Seems like Kansas City, Missouri has a similar problem. But, KC was not trying to misrepresent homicides as natural deaths. The police and the medical examiner's office simply screwed up and it appears they've done it more than once.
Here is yesterday's report from The Wichita Eagle's Kansas.com:
POLICE SAID NATURAL CAUSES; FUNERAL HOME SAID GUNSHOTS
Associated Press
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man's death that police and a medical examiner had said was the result of natural causes has been ruled a homicide after a funeral home found three bullet holes in his body.
The Kansas City Star reported Thursday that the wounds -- two of them in Anthony Crockett's head -- were noticed by funeral home workers after the man's body was embalmed. The funeral home returned the 49-year-old Kansas City man's body to the Jackson County medical examiner's office, and police counted the death as a homicide.
It was the second time in 17 months that a Kansas City funeral home had to return a homicide victim's body mistakenly ruled a natural death by the medical examiner's office.
The other case was in September 2007 and involved Lorraine Grayson, 77, who had been beaten and sexually assaulted in her home. Police later found out that Grayson's purse was missing, and her 46-year-old neighbor was charged with her death.
"This kind of mistake is a pretty bad mistake," said Thomas Young, the former Jackson County medical examiner who now runs a private forensic pathology practice.
In Crockett's case, a homicide detective and an investigator from the medical examiner's office never visited his home to inspect his body. A paramedic told police he believed the death was natural after finding prescription containers for high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.
Crockett's girlfriend, who had called police after finding his body, told authorities that he had heart problems for years.
Jeph BurroughsScanlon, a Jackson County spokesman, said standard protocol was followed in Crockett's case, but he added that the county is concerned and looking into its practices.
Police also plan to study their practices.
"We're going to be reviewing how we handle these kinds of cases, to see if anything needs to be changed," said Capt. Rich Lockhart, a Kansas City police spokesman.
Police responding to the call from Crockett's girlfriend noted blood on his face, but victims can bleed from natural causes or have blood on them from a fall.
A paramedic showed a police officer Crockett's medications and said he thought the death was natural.
The officer called a homicide detective and medical examiner investigator. The investigator called Crockett's doctor, who said she would sign the death certificate.
But physician Ghazal Shaikh told the Star that she never did sign the certificate and agreed to only after she was told the death was natural.
Here is yesterday's report from The Wichita Eagle's Kansas.com:
POLICE SAID NATURAL CAUSES; FUNERAL HOME SAID GUNSHOTS
Associated Press
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A man's death that police and a medical examiner had said was the result of natural causes has been ruled a homicide after a funeral home found three bullet holes in his body.
The Kansas City Star reported Thursday that the wounds -- two of them in Anthony Crockett's head -- were noticed by funeral home workers after the man's body was embalmed. The funeral home returned the 49-year-old Kansas City man's body to the Jackson County medical examiner's office, and police counted the death as a homicide.
It was the second time in 17 months that a Kansas City funeral home had to return a homicide victim's body mistakenly ruled a natural death by the medical examiner's office.
The other case was in September 2007 and involved Lorraine Grayson, 77, who had been beaten and sexually assaulted in her home. Police later found out that Grayson's purse was missing, and her 46-year-old neighbor was charged with her death.
"This kind of mistake is a pretty bad mistake," said Thomas Young, the former Jackson County medical examiner who now runs a private forensic pathology practice.
In Crockett's case, a homicide detective and an investigator from the medical examiner's office never visited his home to inspect his body. A paramedic told police he believed the death was natural after finding prescription containers for high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.
Crockett's girlfriend, who had called police after finding his body, told authorities that he had heart problems for years.
Jeph BurroughsScanlon, a Jackson County spokesman, said standard protocol was followed in Crockett's case, but he added that the county is concerned and looking into its practices.
Police also plan to study their practices.
"We're going to be reviewing how we handle these kinds of cases, to see if anything needs to be changed," said Capt. Rich Lockhart, a Kansas City police spokesman.
Police responding to the call from Crockett's girlfriend noted blood on his face, but victims can bleed from natural causes or have blood on them from a fall.
A paramedic showed a police officer Crockett's medications and said he thought the death was natural.
The officer called a homicide detective and medical examiner investigator. The investigator called Crockett's doctor, who said she would sign the death certificate.
But physician Ghazal Shaikh told the Star that she never did sign the certificate and agreed to only after she was told the death was natural.
Friday, February 27, 2009
OFFICER DUDLEY DOORITE IS ALWAYS OUT THERE
As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. That is especially true if officer Dudley Doorite is on the job. A Denver rapid transit bus driver and one of his passengers got out of his bus to help two old women cross the street safely. When he saw they were about to be hit by a pickup truck, he pushed the three out of the way, thus saving their lives. Unfortunately for him, he was struck by the truck and suffered some very serious injuries. Adding insult to injury, along comes officer Dudley Doorite of the Colorado State Patrol and issues him a jaywalking ticket.
Does that make any sense? Not to me! And I am not the least bit swayed by the Colorado State Patrol's valid argument that, since it leads to a lot of fatalities, jaywalking is a very serious offense. Where do they recruit some of these clowns? Don't they teach their recruits that an officer always has the discretion to issue or not to issue a traffic citation? Clearly, in this case, none should have been issued. The Dudley Doorites are the shameless lame-brained law enforcers who lack the ability to differentiate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And shame on the State Patrol's spokesman for defending Dudley Doorite, the fastest (ticket book) draw in the West.
The passenger who helped the bus driver escort the women across the street also received a jaywalking ticket. I guess Doorite just wasn't quick enough to cite the two old ladies. I'm surprised he hasn't called for a womanhunt to capture these two dangerous miscreants so that they too will get their just deserts - jaywalking tickets. And shouldn't Doorite also charge these old ladies with reckless endangerment for trying to get home by crossing the street?
Here is The Rocky Mountain News report describing this event:
INJURED GOOD SAMARITAN GETS JAYWALKING TICKET FOR HIS TROUBLE
by Bill Scanlon
Rocky Mountain News, February 24, 2009
He may have saved three lives, but RTD bus driver Jim Moffett got a jaywalking ticket anyway, along with broken bones.
Moffett, 58, was driving an RTD bus south on Federal Boulevard at 62nd Avenue at 9 p.m. Friday, the State Patrol said.
Two elderly women exited the bus and tried to walk across Federal to their trailer home on the east side, Moffett's stepson Ken McDonald said Tuesday.
With that light snowstorm, my stepdad didn't think they could cross the street safely," McDonald said. "So he got off the bus with another passenger, and they helped the ladies cross."
The four people had made it about halfway across Federal, and most of the northbound traffic had slowed to let them go the rest of the way, McDonald said.
But one pickup driver got impatient and passed in the left- hand turn lane," McDonald said. "He plowed right into my stepdad - but not before (my stepdad) pushed the old ladies and the other guy out of the way."
Moffett is at St. Anthony Central Medical Center with bleeding in the brain, broken bones in his face, a dislocated shoulder, a broken wrist and possible ruptured spleen and liver.
Eddie Moore, the passenger who helped Moffett assist the women, also was cited for jaywalking. The pickup driver, Steven C. David, was cited for careless driving causing injury.
The jaywalking citation should be dismissed and crosswalks should be installed, McDonald said. Ryan Sullivan, of the State Patrol, said that while Moffett's "intentions were good," jaywalking caused the accident.
Editor's Note: As of today, Bill Scanlon is out of a job. The Rocky Mountain News folded today, another newspaper that is the victim of declining revenues.
Does that make any sense? Not to me! And I am not the least bit swayed by the Colorado State Patrol's valid argument that, since it leads to a lot of fatalities, jaywalking is a very serious offense. Where do they recruit some of these clowns? Don't they teach their recruits that an officer always has the discretion to issue or not to issue a traffic citation? Clearly, in this case, none should have been issued. The Dudley Doorites are the shameless lame-brained law enforcers who lack the ability to differentiate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. And shame on the State Patrol's spokesman for defending Dudley Doorite, the fastest (ticket book) draw in the West.
The passenger who helped the bus driver escort the women across the street also received a jaywalking ticket. I guess Doorite just wasn't quick enough to cite the two old ladies. I'm surprised he hasn't called for a womanhunt to capture these two dangerous miscreants so that they too will get their just deserts - jaywalking tickets. And shouldn't Doorite also charge these old ladies with reckless endangerment for trying to get home by crossing the street?
Here is The Rocky Mountain News report describing this event:
INJURED GOOD SAMARITAN GETS JAYWALKING TICKET FOR HIS TROUBLE
by Bill Scanlon
Rocky Mountain News, February 24, 2009
He may have saved three lives, but RTD bus driver Jim Moffett got a jaywalking ticket anyway, along with broken bones.
Moffett, 58, was driving an RTD bus south on Federal Boulevard at 62nd Avenue at 9 p.m. Friday, the State Patrol said.
Two elderly women exited the bus and tried to walk across Federal to their trailer home on the east side, Moffett's stepson Ken McDonald said Tuesday.
With that light snowstorm, my stepdad didn't think they could cross the street safely," McDonald said. "So he got off the bus with another passenger, and they helped the ladies cross."
The four people had made it about halfway across Federal, and most of the northbound traffic had slowed to let them go the rest of the way, McDonald said.
But one pickup driver got impatient and passed in the left- hand turn lane," McDonald said. "He plowed right into my stepdad - but not before (my stepdad) pushed the old ladies and the other guy out of the way."
Moffett is at St. Anthony Central Medical Center with bleeding in the brain, broken bones in his face, a dislocated shoulder, a broken wrist and possible ruptured spleen and liver.
Eddie Moore, the passenger who helped Moffett assist the women, also was cited for jaywalking. The pickup driver, Steven C. David, was cited for careless driving causing injury.
The jaywalking citation should be dismissed and crosswalks should be installed, McDonald said. Ryan Sullivan, of the State Patrol, said that while Moffett's "intentions were good," jaywalking caused the accident.
Editor's Note: As of today, Bill Scanlon is out of a job. The Rocky Mountain News folded today, another newspaper that is the victim of declining revenues.
END THE WAR ON DRUGS ???
If you've been reading my blogs, you must know that I advocate a hardline approach to the use of illicit drugs, including some jail time for the use or possession of pot. As the founder of the Texas Naroctics Officers Association, as a life-member of the California Naroctics Officers Association, as a former member of the board of directors of the International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association and as someone who spent half of his law enforcement street experience in California's war on drugs, I've earned the right to speak with some authority on this subject.
Lately, I've noticed an increasing number of columnists calling for an end to the war on drugs. When this call comes from recognized liberal columnists, I've considered it as just more of the same old liberal drivel that's been around forever. Legalize drugs and use the money wasted in the war on drugs to fight real crime. Tax drugs like we do alcohol and tobacco and our treasury would be overflowing with money to fund education, health care, welfare, social security, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, yeah! But when well known conservative columnists call for the legalization of pot, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., I cannot say that it's just more of the same old liberal crap.
In today's Townhall.com, Burt Prelutsky called for an end to the war on drugs. He is the latest among some conservative columnists to make this call. While I do not agree with Prelutsky's stance, here is the column he wrote:
THIS WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
by Burt Prelutsky
Townhall.com, February 27, 2009
I believe it is long past time to end the War on Drugs. That’s not because I approve of drug use or have any desire to encourage it. But this particular war has already gone on longer than the ones in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, put together, with no end in sight and far less to show for it.
I would not only decriminalize drug use, I would give it the same legal status as tobacco and alcohol, and with the same age restrictions. For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue. Also, it would free up jail space for non-drug related crimes.
With the legalization of drugs, the profits that currently accrue to dealers, who use a portion of their ill-gotten gains to pay off politicians, judges and corrupt cops, could go to American companies and American workers.
In Mexico, the majority of murders and kidnappings can be traced directly to the illegal drug trade. Here in the U.S., just in the past two years, over 700 drug-related kidnappings-for-ransom have taken place in Phoenix, Arizona, and those are just the ones we know about. That city can now boast that in addition to all that sunshine and all those golf courses, it is the number one drug gateway to America.
In spite of what the bleeding heart liberals would claim, it’s not poverty, but greed, that has turned most of our big cities into shooting galleries where innocent bystanders seemingly get plunked more often than the punks battling over drug turf.
I realize that among those people opposed to my suggestion are those who’d see it as the government’s endorsing drug use. Considering all the rotten stuff the government has been up to, ranging from the confiscation of private property to the redistribution of wealth, I don’t think many people look to the government for their moral guidance. I would suggest that such people are not only naïve, but dangerously shortsighted. First of all, the War on Drugs has been going on for decades, and the good guys aren’t winning. I wish we were, but that’s simply not the case. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s and it’s not working any better today. And as was the case 80 years ago, it only works to the advantage of the criminal class to keep the price of the product so much higher than it would be if the drugs were made legal.
One of the most irksome aspects of the War is that we Americans are always claiming the moral high ground, righteously condemning the poppy growers in Afghanistan, the drug czars in Colombia and the Mexican cut-throats, as if they all conspired to turn us into a nation of junkies. The fact is, if so many of us weren’t infantile hedonists who can’t even go 24 hours without snorting, shooting or smoking, this crap, the Afghanis would start planting potatoes and the Latino criminals would have to find another way to make a living.
Besides, when millions of us go through as much booze, nicotine and Prozac, as we do, we’re hardly in a position to be casting stones at someone else’s habit.
Furthermore, without the high cost that goes with the stuff being contraband, there wouldn’t be such a major campaign to hook school children. Actually, if the drugs were as legal as soda pop, a good deal of their present allure would evaporate. And not just for the kids, but for most of the overpaid louts in Hollywood and on Wall Street.
If drugs were legalized, we could all finally stop pretending that addiction is an illness, and that those who commit crimes while under the influence are automatically entitled to a Get Out of Jail Free card. Using drugs in the first place is a choice, not an imperative. By this late date, even 10-year-olds know that the damn things are addictive.
I would think that rational people, whatever their political affiliation, could agree that legalizing drugs would be beneficial. After all, Libertarians don’t think it’s anybody’s business -- let alone the government’s -- what people elect to do to themselves. Conservatives, who already believe in smaller government and individual responsibility, should also be delighted by the additional tax burden that would be carried almost exclusively by liberals.
But even for Democrats, there’s a huge upside to my proposal; namely that there would be far fewer laws for scofflaws to scoff at and, as a result, far fewer of these pinheads would be sent to prison. And, as a result, they’d be free to vote.
Lately, I've noticed an increasing number of columnists calling for an end to the war on drugs. When this call comes from recognized liberal columnists, I've considered it as just more of the same old liberal drivel that's been around forever. Legalize drugs and use the money wasted in the war on drugs to fight real crime. Tax drugs like we do alcohol and tobacco and our treasury would be overflowing with money to fund education, health care, welfare, social security, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, yeah! But when well known conservative columnists call for the legalization of pot, heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., I cannot say that it's just more of the same old liberal crap.
In today's Townhall.com, Burt Prelutsky called for an end to the war on drugs. He is the latest among some conservative columnists to make this call. While I do not agree with Prelutsky's stance, here is the column he wrote:
THIS WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER
by Burt Prelutsky
Townhall.com, February 27, 2009
I believe it is long past time to end the War on Drugs. That’s not because I approve of drug use or have any desire to encourage it. But this particular war has already gone on longer than the ones in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, put together, with no end in sight and far less to show for it.
I would not only decriminalize drug use, I would give it the same legal status as tobacco and alcohol, and with the same age restrictions. For one thing, this would provide a great source of new tax revenue. Also, it would free up jail space for non-drug related crimes.
With the legalization of drugs, the profits that currently accrue to dealers, who use a portion of their ill-gotten gains to pay off politicians, judges and corrupt cops, could go to American companies and American workers.
In Mexico, the majority of murders and kidnappings can be traced directly to the illegal drug trade. Here in the U.S., just in the past two years, over 700 drug-related kidnappings-for-ransom have taken place in Phoenix, Arizona, and those are just the ones we know about. That city can now boast that in addition to all that sunshine and all those golf courses, it is the number one drug gateway to America.
In spite of what the bleeding heart liberals would claim, it’s not poverty, but greed, that has turned most of our big cities into shooting galleries where innocent bystanders seemingly get plunked more often than the punks battling over drug turf.
I realize that among those people opposed to my suggestion are those who’d see it as the government’s endorsing drug use. Considering all the rotten stuff the government has been up to, ranging from the confiscation of private property to the redistribution of wealth, I don’t think many people look to the government for their moral guidance. I would suggest that such people are not only naïve, but dangerously shortsighted. First of all, the War on Drugs has been going on for decades, and the good guys aren’t winning. I wish we were, but that’s simply not the case. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s and it’s not working any better today. And as was the case 80 years ago, it only works to the advantage of the criminal class to keep the price of the product so much higher than it would be if the drugs were made legal.
One of the most irksome aspects of the War is that we Americans are always claiming the moral high ground, righteously condemning the poppy growers in Afghanistan, the drug czars in Colombia and the Mexican cut-throats, as if they all conspired to turn us into a nation of junkies. The fact is, if so many of us weren’t infantile hedonists who can’t even go 24 hours without snorting, shooting or smoking, this crap, the Afghanis would start planting potatoes and the Latino criminals would have to find another way to make a living.
Besides, when millions of us go through as much booze, nicotine and Prozac, as we do, we’re hardly in a position to be casting stones at someone else’s habit.
Furthermore, without the high cost that goes with the stuff being contraband, there wouldn’t be such a major campaign to hook school children. Actually, if the drugs were as legal as soda pop, a good deal of their present allure would evaporate. And not just for the kids, but for most of the overpaid louts in Hollywood and on Wall Street.
If drugs were legalized, we could all finally stop pretending that addiction is an illness, and that those who commit crimes while under the influence are automatically entitled to a Get Out of Jail Free card. Using drugs in the first place is a choice, not an imperative. By this late date, even 10-year-olds know that the damn things are addictive.
I would think that rational people, whatever their political affiliation, could agree that legalizing drugs would be beneficial. After all, Libertarians don’t think it’s anybody’s business -- let alone the government’s -- what people elect to do to themselves. Conservatives, who already believe in smaller government and individual responsibility, should also be delighted by the additional tax burden that would be carried almost exclusively by liberals.
But even for Democrats, there’s a huge upside to my proposal; namely that there would be far fewer laws for scofflaws to scoff at and, as a result, far fewer of these pinheads would be sent to prison. And, as a result, they’d be free to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)