Have you ever wondered who first uttered the phrase: "You Gotta Be Shitting Me?"
Well, it just so happens to have originated through the Father of Our Country, way back when George Washington was crossing the Delaware River with his troops.
There were 33 (remember this number) in Washington's boat. It was extremely dark and storming furiously and the water was tossing them
about.
Finally, Washington grabbed Corporal Dix (remember this name) and stationed him at the front of the boat with a lantern. He ordered him to keep swinging it, so they could see where they were heading.
Corporal Dix, through driving rain and cold, continued swinging the lantern back and forth, back and forth.
Then a big gust of wind and a wave hit and threw Corporal Dix and his lantern into the Delaware.
Washington and his troops searched for nearly an hour trying to find Corporal Dix, but to no avail. All of them felt terrible, for the Corporal had been one of their favorites.
Sometime later, Washington and his troops landed on the other side, wet and totally exhausted. He rallied the troops and told them that they must go on.
Another hour later, one of his men said, 'General, I see lights ahead.' They trudged toward the lights and came upon a huge house.
What they didn't know was that this was a whore house, hidden in the forest to serve all who came.
General Washington pounded on the door, his men crowding around him.
The door swung open, and much to his surprise there stood a beautiful woman.
A huge smile came across her face, to see so many men standing there.
Washington was the first to speak, 'Madam, I am General George Washington and these are my men. We are tired, wet, exhausted, and desperately need warmth and comfort.'
Again, the Madam looked at all the men standing there, and with a broad smile on her face, said, 'Well, General, you have come to the right place. We can surely give you warmth and comfort. How many men do you have?'
Washington replied, 'Well, Madam, there are 32 of us without Dix .'
And the Madam said, 'You gotta be shitting me.'
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
MOVIE STUDIOS WOULD BE HARD PUT TO REPLICATE CHASE OF PAROLEE
3-1/2 hours? Shucks, after one hour, cops in Texas would have terminated the chase by shooting the bastard. Bob Walsh says: "That’s because in Texas they believe in law and order and public safety. California is much more into warm-and-fuzzy. I am a little surprised they didn’t just run him out of gas, but maybe they let him stop and fill up along the way. In California, you never know."
PAROLEE LED LAW ENFORCEMENT ON HIGH-SPEED, 160-MILE CHASE
Los Angeles Daily News
July 18, 2011
LOS ANGELES - The California Highway Patrol on Sunday released the name of the man who led several law enforcement agencies on a high-speed, 160-mile pursuit that lasted nearly three-and-one-half-hours and ended when CHP officers stopped his car with a spike strip on the Golden State (5) Freeway in the Grapevine.
Michael Andrew Martinez, 29, is a parolee, said CHP Officer Krystal Carter. He was booked on a felony evading charge into the Van Nuys jail, Carter said. Inmate records indicate that took place at about 3:30 Sunday morning. No court date has been set and Martinez is being held without bail.
The pursuit of the 2011 black Hyundai began as an attempted drunken driving stop by Los Angeles police at about 7:30 p.m. Saturday near the Topanga Canyon Boulevard offramp of the Ventura (101) Freeway, CHP Officer Saul Gomez said. The driver refused to pull over and the chase was on.
Los Angeles police units handed off the pursuit to the CHP around 8 p.m. as the driver headed eastbound on the Pomona (60) Freeway, just east of the northbound San Gabriel River (605) Freeway, said CHP Officer Anthony Martin.
A woman was a passenger in the suspect's vehicle, but Officer Doug Johnson of the LAPD's Valley Crime Task Force said she was not a hostage, as some family members had told police. The CHP took Martinez into custody, Johnson said, and then handed the pair over to the LAPD, Martin said.
Gomez said the pursuit hit almost every freeway in the region -- including the 101 Freeway, the San Bernardino (10) Freeway; the 605 Freeway, the 60 Freeway and the southbound Ontario (15) Freeway -- but not the San Diego (405) Freeway, which was partially closed this weekend.
The suspect even made it into Riverside County, then doubled back onto the Ontario (15) Freeway to Fontana, where he evaded a CHP PIT maneuver designed to stop him, Gomez said. The suspect then got on the 210 freeway and headed west to Los Angeles via the southbound 605 Freeway, the 10 Freeway, the southbound Santa Ana (5) Freeway, the southbound Long Beach (710) Freeway and the eastbound Glenn Anderson (105) Freeway, Gomez said.
The pursuit continued onto the congested northbound Harbor (110) Freeway near Staples Center, where the suspect squeezed his car along the shoulder, then worked his way back to the northbound Golden State Freeway for the last leg of his journey heading north to the Grapevine.
That is where CHP units laid the spike strip that finally brought the chase to an end at about 11:20 p.m., Martin said.
PAROLEE LED LAW ENFORCEMENT ON HIGH-SPEED, 160-MILE CHASE
Los Angeles Daily News
July 18, 2011
LOS ANGELES - The California Highway Patrol on Sunday released the name of the man who led several law enforcement agencies on a high-speed, 160-mile pursuit that lasted nearly three-and-one-half-hours and ended when CHP officers stopped his car with a spike strip on the Golden State (5) Freeway in the Grapevine.
Michael Andrew Martinez, 29, is a parolee, said CHP Officer Krystal Carter. He was booked on a felony evading charge into the Van Nuys jail, Carter said. Inmate records indicate that took place at about 3:30 Sunday morning. No court date has been set and Martinez is being held without bail.
The pursuit of the 2011 black Hyundai began as an attempted drunken driving stop by Los Angeles police at about 7:30 p.m. Saturday near the Topanga Canyon Boulevard offramp of the Ventura (101) Freeway, CHP Officer Saul Gomez said. The driver refused to pull over and the chase was on.
Los Angeles police units handed off the pursuit to the CHP around 8 p.m. as the driver headed eastbound on the Pomona (60) Freeway, just east of the northbound San Gabriel River (605) Freeway, said CHP Officer Anthony Martin.
A woman was a passenger in the suspect's vehicle, but Officer Doug Johnson of the LAPD's Valley Crime Task Force said she was not a hostage, as some family members had told police. The CHP took Martinez into custody, Johnson said, and then handed the pair over to the LAPD, Martin said.
Gomez said the pursuit hit almost every freeway in the region -- including the 101 Freeway, the San Bernardino (10) Freeway; the 605 Freeway, the 60 Freeway and the southbound Ontario (15) Freeway -- but not the San Diego (405) Freeway, which was partially closed this weekend.
The suspect even made it into Riverside County, then doubled back onto the Ontario (15) Freeway to Fontana, where he evaded a CHP PIT maneuver designed to stop him, Gomez said. The suspect then got on the 210 freeway and headed west to Los Angeles via the southbound 605 Freeway, the 10 Freeway, the southbound Santa Ana (5) Freeway, the southbound Long Beach (710) Freeway and the eastbound Glenn Anderson (105) Freeway, Gomez said.
The pursuit continued onto the congested northbound Harbor (110) Freeway near Staples Center, where the suspect squeezed his car along the shoulder, then worked his way back to the northbound Golden State Freeway for the last leg of his journey heading north to the Grapevine.
That is where CHP units laid the spike strip that finally brought the chase to an end at about 11:20 p.m., Martin said.
COLD BLOODED KILLER COPS
In almost all police shootings, there are going to be people who will say anything to make the cops look like cold blooded killers. This is especially true when the cop is white and the person he shot happens to be black.
In this particular case, 'witnesses' would have us believe that the cops gunned down an ‘unarmed’ choir boy.
YOU MEAN THE WITNESSES LIED?
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 18, 2011
There was a police shooting in the Bayview District of San Francisco on Saturday that had the potential to go a little bit sideways. The cops shot a guy who was both shooting at them and running away, or at least that’s what they said. I saw a couple of witnesses interviewed on TV who swore blind that the man was unarmed and the cops shot him down like a dog. It was a little awkward because the cops couldn’t find the gun, at least at first. Modern forensics are very good and I have no doubt it would have shown the suspect fired a gun recently, but for some people that isn’t good enough.
In any event someone sent some cell phone video to the cops that showed the gun. The news reports are a bit thin and sort of imply somebody picked the gun up at the scene and the cops have since recovered it from the person who “borrowed” it. It’s sad to think that there are people (a lot of people) out there who will lie on the cops just to cause trouble, but it seems to be true.
Turns out the dead guy, Kenneth Harding, 19, was a parolee from Washington who was wanted for two murders up there and was on parole for sex offenses. He was wanted in the murder of a 19-year old woman and her unborn child and the shooting of three other people in Seattle. Sounds like a nice guy, doesn’t he?
In this particular case, 'witnesses' would have us believe that the cops gunned down an ‘unarmed’ choir boy.
YOU MEAN THE WITNESSES LIED?
By Bob Walsh
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 18, 2011
There was a police shooting in the Bayview District of San Francisco on Saturday that had the potential to go a little bit sideways. The cops shot a guy who was both shooting at them and running away, or at least that’s what they said. I saw a couple of witnesses interviewed on TV who swore blind that the man was unarmed and the cops shot him down like a dog. It was a little awkward because the cops couldn’t find the gun, at least at first. Modern forensics are very good and I have no doubt it would have shown the suspect fired a gun recently, but for some people that isn’t good enough.
In any event someone sent some cell phone video to the cops that showed the gun. The news reports are a bit thin and sort of imply somebody picked the gun up at the scene and the cops have since recovered it from the person who “borrowed” it. It’s sad to think that there are people (a lot of people) out there who will lie on the cops just to cause trouble, but it seems to be true.
Turns out the dead guy, Kenneth Harding, 19, was a parolee from Washington who was wanted for two murders up there and was on parole for sex offenses. He was wanted in the murder of a 19-year old woman and her unborn child and the shooting of three other people in Seattle. Sounds like a nice guy, doesn’t he?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL BEMOANS 'BARBAROUS CONFINEMENT' OF CALIFORNIA CONVICTS
While Colin Dayan, a professor of English at Vanderbilt University, says he ‘visited’ the Arizona state prison at Florence back in 1996, I’ll bet he has never stepped inside Pelican Bay or any other California maximum security prison for that matter. This obvious left-wing bleeding heart English professor has never had to deal up close and personal with the violent and undisciplined thugs that populate this country’s maximum security prisons. If he were ever to walk in the shoes of a correctional officer, Dayan would sing a very different tune.
When Dayan says that “Many of these prisoners have been sent to virtually total isolation and enforced idleness for no crime, not even for alleged infractions of prison regulations” he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. It’s similar to the bogus crap liberals and the pro-pot crowd has been putting out about our prisons being full of inmates who are serving timer just for using marijuana. The truth is that everyone who is serving time in a maximum security prison is there for having committed a very serious crime and has proven to be extremely dangerous.
BARBAROUS CONFINEMENT
By Colin Dayan
The New York Times
July 17, 2011
NASHVILLE -- MORE than 1,700 prisoners in California, many of whom are in maximum isolation units, have gone on a hunger strike. The protest began with inmates in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison. How they have managed to communicate with each other is anyone’s guess — but their protest is everyone’s concern. Many of these prisoners have been sent to virtually total isolation and enforced idleness for no crime, not even for alleged infractions of prison regulations. Their isolation, which can last for decades, is often not explicitly disciplinary, and therefore not subject to court oversight. Their treatment is simply a matter of administrative convenience.
Solitary confinement has been transmuted from an occasional tool of discipline into a widespread form of preventive detention. The Supreme Court, over the last two decades, has whittled steadily away at the rights of inmates, surrendering to prison administrators virtually all control over what is done to those held in “administrative segregation.” Since it is not defined as punishment for a crime, it does not fall under “cruel and unusual punishment,” the reasoning goes.
As early as 1995, a federal judge, Thelton E. Henderson, conceded that so-called “supermax” confinement “may well hover on the edge of what is humanly tolerable,” though he ruled that it remained acceptable for most inmates. But a psychiatrist and Harvard professor, Stuart Grassian, had found that the environment was “strikingly toxic,” resulting in hallucinations, paranoia and delusions. In a “60 Minutes” interview, he went so far as to call it “far more egregious” than the death penalty.
Officials at Pelican Bay, in Northern California, claim that those incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit are “the worst of the worst.” Yet often it is the most vulnerable, especially the mentally ill, not the most violent, who end up in indefinite isolation. Placement is haphazard and arbitrary; it focuses on those perceived as troublemakers or simply disliked by correctional officers and, most of all, alleged gang members. Often, the decisions are not based on evidence. And before the inmates are released from the barbarity of 22-hour-a-day isolation into normal prison conditions (themselves shameful) they are often expected to “debrief,” or spill the beans on other gang members.
The moral queasiness that we must feel about this method of extracting information from those in our clutches has all but disappeared these days, thanks to the national shame of “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Guantánamo. Those in isolation can get out by naming names, but if they do so they will likely be killed when returned to a normal facility. To “debrief” is to be targeted for death by gang members, so the prisoners are moved to “protective custody” — that is, another form of solitary confinement.
Hunger strikes are the only weapon these prisoners have left. Legal avenues are closed. Communication with the outside world, even with family members, is so restricted as to be meaningless. Possessions — paper and pencil, reading matter, photos of family members, even hand-drawn pictures — are removed. (They could contain coded messages between gang members, we are told, or their loss may persuade the inmates to snitch when every other deprivation has failed.)
The poverty of our criminological theorizing is reflected in the official response to the hunger strike. Now refusing to eat is regarded as a threat, too. Authorities are considering force-feeding. It is likely it will be carried out — as it has been, and possibly still continues to be — at Guantánamo (in possible violation of international law) and in an evil caricature of medical care.
In the summer of 1996, I visited two “special management units” at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence. A warden boasted that one of the units was the model for Pelican Bay. He led me down the corridors on impeccably clean floors. There was no paint on the concrete walls. Although the corridors had skylights, the cells had no windows. Nothing inside could be moved or removed. The cells contained only a poured concrete bed, a stainless steel mirror, a sink and a toilet. Inmates had no human contact, except when handcuffed or chained to leave their cells or during the often brutal cell extractions. A small place for exercise, called the “dog pen,” with cement floors and walls, so high they could see nothing but the sky, provided the only access to fresh air.
Later, an inmate wrote to me, confessing to a shame made palpable and real: “If they only touch you when you’re at the end of a chain, then they can’t see you as anything but a dog. Now I can’t see my face in the mirror. I’ve lost my skin. I can’t feel my mind.”
Do we find our ethics by forcing prisoners to live in what Judge Henderson described as the setting of “senseless suffering” and “wretched misery”? Maybe our reaction to hunger strikes should involve some self-reflection. Not allowing inmates to choose death as an escape from a murderous fate or as a protest against continued degradation depends, as we will see when doctors come to make their judgment calls, on the skilled manipulation of techniques that are indistinguishable from torture. Maybe one way to react to prisoners whose only reaction to bestial treatment is to starve themselves to death might be to do the unthinkable — to treat them like human beings.
When Dayan says that “Many of these prisoners have been sent to virtually total isolation and enforced idleness for no crime, not even for alleged infractions of prison regulations” he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. It’s similar to the bogus crap liberals and the pro-pot crowd has been putting out about our prisons being full of inmates who are serving timer just for using marijuana. The truth is that everyone who is serving time in a maximum security prison is there for having committed a very serious crime and has proven to be extremely dangerous.
BARBAROUS CONFINEMENT
By Colin Dayan
The New York Times
July 17, 2011
NASHVILLE -- MORE than 1,700 prisoners in California, many of whom are in maximum isolation units, have gone on a hunger strike. The protest began with inmates in the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay State Prison. How they have managed to communicate with each other is anyone’s guess — but their protest is everyone’s concern. Many of these prisoners have been sent to virtually total isolation and enforced idleness for no crime, not even for alleged infractions of prison regulations. Their isolation, which can last for decades, is often not explicitly disciplinary, and therefore not subject to court oversight. Their treatment is simply a matter of administrative convenience.
Solitary confinement has been transmuted from an occasional tool of discipline into a widespread form of preventive detention. The Supreme Court, over the last two decades, has whittled steadily away at the rights of inmates, surrendering to prison administrators virtually all control over what is done to those held in “administrative segregation.” Since it is not defined as punishment for a crime, it does not fall under “cruel and unusual punishment,” the reasoning goes.
As early as 1995, a federal judge, Thelton E. Henderson, conceded that so-called “supermax” confinement “may well hover on the edge of what is humanly tolerable,” though he ruled that it remained acceptable for most inmates. But a psychiatrist and Harvard professor, Stuart Grassian, had found that the environment was “strikingly toxic,” resulting in hallucinations, paranoia and delusions. In a “60 Minutes” interview, he went so far as to call it “far more egregious” than the death penalty.
Officials at Pelican Bay, in Northern California, claim that those incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit are “the worst of the worst.” Yet often it is the most vulnerable, especially the mentally ill, not the most violent, who end up in indefinite isolation. Placement is haphazard and arbitrary; it focuses on those perceived as troublemakers or simply disliked by correctional officers and, most of all, alleged gang members. Often, the decisions are not based on evidence. And before the inmates are released from the barbarity of 22-hour-a-day isolation into normal prison conditions (themselves shameful) they are often expected to “debrief,” or spill the beans on other gang members.
The moral queasiness that we must feel about this method of extracting information from those in our clutches has all but disappeared these days, thanks to the national shame of “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Guantánamo. Those in isolation can get out by naming names, but if they do so they will likely be killed when returned to a normal facility. To “debrief” is to be targeted for death by gang members, so the prisoners are moved to “protective custody” — that is, another form of solitary confinement.
Hunger strikes are the only weapon these prisoners have left. Legal avenues are closed. Communication with the outside world, even with family members, is so restricted as to be meaningless. Possessions — paper and pencil, reading matter, photos of family members, even hand-drawn pictures — are removed. (They could contain coded messages between gang members, we are told, or their loss may persuade the inmates to snitch when every other deprivation has failed.)
The poverty of our criminological theorizing is reflected in the official response to the hunger strike. Now refusing to eat is regarded as a threat, too. Authorities are considering force-feeding. It is likely it will be carried out — as it has been, and possibly still continues to be — at Guantánamo (in possible violation of international law) and in an evil caricature of medical care.
In the summer of 1996, I visited two “special management units” at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence. A warden boasted that one of the units was the model for Pelican Bay. He led me down the corridors on impeccably clean floors. There was no paint on the concrete walls. Although the corridors had skylights, the cells had no windows. Nothing inside could be moved or removed. The cells contained only a poured concrete bed, a stainless steel mirror, a sink and a toilet. Inmates had no human contact, except when handcuffed or chained to leave their cells or during the often brutal cell extractions. A small place for exercise, called the “dog pen,” with cement floors and walls, so high they could see nothing but the sky, provided the only access to fresh air.
Later, an inmate wrote to me, confessing to a shame made palpable and real: “If they only touch you when you’re at the end of a chain, then they can’t see you as anything but a dog. Now I can’t see my face in the mirror. I’ve lost my skin. I can’t feel my mind.”
Do we find our ethics by forcing prisoners to live in what Judge Henderson described as the setting of “senseless suffering” and “wretched misery”? Maybe our reaction to hunger strikes should involve some self-reflection. Not allowing inmates to choose death as an escape from a murderous fate or as a protest against continued degradation depends, as we will see when doctors come to make their judgment calls, on the skilled manipulation of techniques that are indistinguishable from torture. Maybe one way to react to prisoners whose only reaction to bestial treatment is to starve themselves to death might be to do the unthinkable — to treat them like human beings.
Monday, July 18, 2011
HAS ANYONE SEEN MY PIECE?
Cops have a passionate love affair with their guns. I remember a cartoon illustrating this. It shows a woman lying naked in bed waiting for a man to make whoopee with her. Nearby was a police uniform folded over a chair. He is standing naked by a window with his back to her, wearing a gun belt with his holstered gun. She yells at him, “Alright, alright, you can wear the damn thing.”
That’s why I was dumbfounded when I read in Saturday’s Houston Chronicle that according to a 2010 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report, DHS employees had 243 firearms lost or stolen between 2006 and 2008. Of those, 64 were lost because of circumstances beyond DHS's control — such as during an assault on an agent or officer — or despite having the weapons secured in safes or lock boxes.
But 74 percent, or 179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them," the report said. Officers left them in restrooms, vehicles and other public places, according to the DHSOIG report.
Even more astounding is the FBI inspector general’s 2007 report that the FBI lost 160 weapons from early 2002 through September 2005, including submachine guns and shotguns. It looks like we’ve been misled into believing that the FBI is America’s premier law enforcement agency. How in the fucking hell can you lose a submachine gun?
And then there is the Secret Service. C-dog, a PACOVILLA Corrections blog reader, wrote: The U.S. News and World Report did a piece on how many Secret Service agents lost their weapons, particularly in bars a few presidents ago. Nothing changes! To that I would add, if you’re going to lose your piece, a bar is as good a place as any.
During my thirteen years on the street, I can only recall at most a dozen instances in which an officer lost his gun. One of those incidents was somewhat comical. A district attorney investigator was transporting a prisoner from Palm Springs to Riverside when the man managed to jump out of the car near Whitewater. The investigator stopped the car and chased him into the desert. When the escapee ducked behind a scrub brush and turned to face his pursuer, the investigator stopped about 10 feet away and drew his revolver. But in a definite 'oh shit' moment, the gun slipped out of his hand and tumbled end over end right into the hands of the escapee. The investigator then said, “Can I have my gun back?” And surprise, surprise – the guy gave the gun back and surrendered.
I just don’t understand how DHS and the FBI managed to hire so many careless fucking idiots.
That’s why I was dumbfounded when I read in Saturday’s Houston Chronicle that according to a 2010 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report, DHS employees had 243 firearms lost or stolen between 2006 and 2008. Of those, 64 were lost because of circumstances beyond DHS's control — such as during an assault on an agent or officer — or despite having the weapons secured in safes or lock boxes.
But 74 percent, or 179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them," the report said. Officers left them in restrooms, vehicles and other public places, according to the DHSOIG report.
Even more astounding is the FBI inspector general’s 2007 report that the FBI lost 160 weapons from early 2002 through September 2005, including submachine guns and shotguns. It looks like we’ve been misled into believing that the FBI is America’s premier law enforcement agency. How in the fucking hell can you lose a submachine gun?
And then there is the Secret Service. C-dog, a PACOVILLA Corrections blog reader, wrote: The U.S. News and World Report did a piece on how many Secret Service agents lost their weapons, particularly in bars a few presidents ago. Nothing changes! To that I would add, if you’re going to lose your piece, a bar is as good a place as any.
During my thirteen years on the street, I can only recall at most a dozen instances in which an officer lost his gun. One of those incidents was somewhat comical. A district attorney investigator was transporting a prisoner from Palm Springs to Riverside when the man managed to jump out of the car near Whitewater. The investigator stopped the car and chased him into the desert. When the escapee ducked behind a scrub brush and turned to face his pursuer, the investigator stopped about 10 feet away and drew his revolver. But in a definite 'oh shit' moment, the gun slipped out of his hand and tumbled end over end right into the hands of the escapee. The investigator then said, “Can I have my gun back?” And surprise, surprise – the guy gave the gun back and surrendered.
I just don’t understand how DHS and the FBI managed to hire so many careless fucking idiots.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
EMPTY 'EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD' RUSTING AWAY WHILE COSTING MILLIONS
When Houston’s Astrodome opened in 1965 as the world’s first domed sports stadium it was called ‘The Eighth Wonder of the World.’ Except for its use in September 2005 as a shelter for thousands of Hurricane Katrina evacuees from New Orleans, the Astrodome has been empty and rusting away since 1999 when the Houston Astros baseball team left for a new stadium.
The Kingdome in Seattle and the RCA Dome in Indianapolis were demolished after their sports team tenants vacated the premises for new facilities. But in Houston a large number of idiots, citizens and politicians alike, demand that the unused Astrodome be kept around for nostalgic reasons. Numerous studies have been carried out over the years and several pie-in-the-sky 'do-over' proposals have been put forth, all to no avail, while the Astrodome, believe it or not, is still being paid off and several million dollars are spent each year just to keep the damn doomed stadium from falling down.
HARRIS COUNTY, OTHERS, COMMISSION $500K “STUDY” ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE ASTRODOME
by Kevin Whited
blog HOUSTON.net
June 26, 2011
"We have to make a decision" on the Dome, County Judge Ed Emmett said. "I wanted us to make our decision this year. They're going to look at every option there is and come back with the recommendation. It's about time we do that."
The county will contribute $50,000 toward a $500,000 study, bringing to $100,000 the total the county has spent in the past two years studying what to do with the aging Houston icon.
The remaining $450,000 for the latest study will be funded by the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, Houston Texans, Harris County-Houston Sports Authority and Aramark Corp.
It's been obvious for years that it's time to demolish the Astrodome (which continues to cost us several millions dollars every year the decrepit building is standing). We've heard fantastic tales that it will be profitably converted to everything from a convention center hotel to movie studios to a planetarium. There has been nearly no limit to the absurdity of the proposed boondoggles -- none of which have come to fruition (or will come to fruition without the commitment of taxpayer millions).
Astute Dem consultant Marc Campos wrote this about the $500,000 study: "If it truly is an honest assessment, then tearing down the Dome will be the most likely option so stay tuned!"
The problem is, it will not be an honest assessment. You (you being government, and other interested parties) don't spend $500,000 on a study to tell you what is obvious. You spend $500,000 to tell you how to sell a boondoggle to a skeptical public. We fully expect the cost of demolishing the Astrodome to be exaggerated, and the boondoggle options to be heavily promoted in the final report.
So BH will offer this friendly wager to Campos -- we'll bet a nice lunch at the restaurant of your choice that the "best" option in the final report will not be tearing down the Dome.
The Kingdome in Seattle and the RCA Dome in Indianapolis were demolished after their sports team tenants vacated the premises for new facilities. But in Houston a large number of idiots, citizens and politicians alike, demand that the unused Astrodome be kept around for nostalgic reasons. Numerous studies have been carried out over the years and several pie-in-the-sky 'do-over' proposals have been put forth, all to no avail, while the Astrodome, believe it or not, is still being paid off and several million dollars are spent each year just to keep the damn doomed stadium from falling down.
HARRIS COUNTY, OTHERS, COMMISSION $500K “STUDY” ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE ASTRODOME
by Kevin Whited
blog HOUSTON.net
June 26, 2011
"We have to make a decision" on the Dome, County Judge Ed Emmett said. "I wanted us to make our decision this year. They're going to look at every option there is and come back with the recommendation. It's about time we do that."
The county will contribute $50,000 toward a $500,000 study, bringing to $100,000 the total the county has spent in the past two years studying what to do with the aging Houston icon.
The remaining $450,000 for the latest study will be funded by the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, Houston Texans, Harris County-Houston Sports Authority and Aramark Corp.
It's been obvious for years that it's time to demolish the Astrodome (which continues to cost us several millions dollars every year the decrepit building is standing). We've heard fantastic tales that it will be profitably converted to everything from a convention center hotel to movie studios to a planetarium. There has been nearly no limit to the absurdity of the proposed boondoggles -- none of which have come to fruition (or will come to fruition without the commitment of taxpayer millions).
Astute Dem consultant Marc Campos wrote this about the $500,000 study: "If it truly is an honest assessment, then tearing down the Dome will be the most likely option so stay tuned!"
The problem is, it will not be an honest assessment. You (you being government, and other interested parties) don't spend $500,000 on a study to tell you what is obvious. You spend $500,000 to tell you how to sell a boondoggle to a skeptical public. We fully expect the cost of demolishing the Astrodome to be exaggerated, and the boondoggle options to be heavily promoted in the final report.
So BH will offer this friendly wager to Campos -- we'll bet a nice lunch at the restaurant of your choice that the "best" option in the final report will not be tearing down the Dome.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
SAFER AND HEALTHIER ENVIVRONMENT FOR BLACK MEN
Well, I’ll be damned! It appears that black men are safer, live longer and are healthier if they are in prison instead of back in the hood. On the other hand, white men are more likely to die in prison than on the outside. Now all those people screaming about the disproportionate number of blacks in prison can all shut up.
BLACK MEN ARE HALF AS LIKELY TO DIE IN PRISON THAN THEY ARE IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD, SAYS NEW STUDY
Mail Online
July 15, 2011
Black men are half as likely to die at any given time if they're in prison than if they are in the outside world.
A new study of North Carolina inmates shows that black prisoners are better protected against alcohol and drug-related deaths, as well as lethal accidents and certain chronic diseases.
White men on the whole are slightly more likely to die in prison than outside, according to findings published in Annals of Epidemiology.
Researchers say it's not the first time a study has found lower death rates among certain groups of inmates - particularly disadvantaged people, who might get protection against violent injuries and murder.
Hung-En Sung, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said: 'Ironically, prisons are often the only provider of medical care accessible by these underserved and vulnerable Americans.
'Typically, prison-based care is more comprehensive than what inmates have received prior to their admission,' said Mr Sung, who wasn't involved in the new study.
The research involved about 100,000 men between the ages of 20 and 79 who were held in North Carolina prisons at some point between 1995 and 2005.
Sixty per cent of those men were black.
Researchers linked prison and state health records to determine which of the inmates died, and of what causes, during their prison stay.
Then they compared those figures with expected deaths in men of the same age and race in the general population.
Less than one per cent of men died during incarceration, and there was no difference between black and white inmates.
But outside prison walls, blacks have a higher rate of death at any given age than whites.
Evelyn Patterson, who studies correctional facilities at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said: 'What's very sad about this is that if we are able to all of a sudden equalise or diminish these health inequalities that you see by race inside a place like prison, it should also be that in places like a poor neighbourhood we should be able to diminish these sort of inequities.
'If it can be done in prison, then certainly it can happen outside of prison,' said Patterson, who wasn't involved in the study.
As in the general population, cancer and heart and blood vessel diseases were the most common cause of death among inmates - accounting for more than half of deaths.
White prisoners died of cardiovascular diseases as often as expected and died of cancer slightly more often than non-prisoners.
Black inmates, by contrast, were between 30 and 40 per cent less likely to die of those causes than those who weren't incarcerated.
They were also less likely to die of diabetes, alcohol and drug-related causes, airway diseases, accidents, suicide and murder than black men not in prison.
All told, their risk of death at any age was only half that of men living in the community, Reuters reports.
For white men, the overall death rate was slightly higher, by about 12 per cent, than in the general population, with some of that attributed to higher rates of death from infection, including HIV and hepatitis.
When the researchers broke prisoners up by age, death rates were only higher for white prisoners age 50 and older.
'For some populations, being in prison likely provides benefits in regards to access to healthcare and life expectancy,' said study author Dr. David Rosen, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
But, he added: 'It's important to remember that there are many possible negative consequences of imprisonment - for example, broken relationships, loss of employment opportunities, and greater entrenchment in criminal activity - that are not reflected in our study findings but nevertheless have an important influence on prisoners' lives and their overall health.'
For Mr Rosen, one of the main messages from the study is the need to make the world outside of prison walls safer, and to make sure people living there have adequate access to healthcare.
BLACK MEN ARE HALF AS LIKELY TO DIE IN PRISON THAN THEY ARE IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD, SAYS NEW STUDY
Mail Online
July 15, 2011
Black men are half as likely to die at any given time if they're in prison than if they are in the outside world.
A new study of North Carolina inmates shows that black prisoners are better protected against alcohol and drug-related deaths, as well as lethal accidents and certain chronic diseases.
White men on the whole are slightly more likely to die in prison than outside, according to findings published in Annals of Epidemiology.
Researchers say it's not the first time a study has found lower death rates among certain groups of inmates - particularly disadvantaged people, who might get protection against violent injuries and murder.
Hung-En Sung, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said: 'Ironically, prisons are often the only provider of medical care accessible by these underserved and vulnerable Americans.
'Typically, prison-based care is more comprehensive than what inmates have received prior to their admission,' said Mr Sung, who wasn't involved in the new study.
The research involved about 100,000 men between the ages of 20 and 79 who were held in North Carolina prisons at some point between 1995 and 2005.
Sixty per cent of those men were black.
Researchers linked prison and state health records to determine which of the inmates died, and of what causes, during their prison stay.
Then they compared those figures with expected deaths in men of the same age and race in the general population.
Less than one per cent of men died during incarceration, and there was no difference between black and white inmates.
But outside prison walls, blacks have a higher rate of death at any given age than whites.
Evelyn Patterson, who studies correctional facilities at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said: 'What's very sad about this is that if we are able to all of a sudden equalise or diminish these health inequalities that you see by race inside a place like prison, it should also be that in places like a poor neighbourhood we should be able to diminish these sort of inequities.
'If it can be done in prison, then certainly it can happen outside of prison,' said Patterson, who wasn't involved in the study.
As in the general population, cancer and heart and blood vessel diseases were the most common cause of death among inmates - accounting for more than half of deaths.
White prisoners died of cardiovascular diseases as often as expected and died of cancer slightly more often than non-prisoners.
Black inmates, by contrast, were between 30 and 40 per cent less likely to die of those causes than those who weren't incarcerated.
They were also less likely to die of diabetes, alcohol and drug-related causes, airway diseases, accidents, suicide and murder than black men not in prison.
All told, their risk of death at any age was only half that of men living in the community, Reuters reports.
For white men, the overall death rate was slightly higher, by about 12 per cent, than in the general population, with some of that attributed to higher rates of death from infection, including HIV and hepatitis.
When the researchers broke prisoners up by age, death rates were only higher for white prisoners age 50 and older.
'For some populations, being in prison likely provides benefits in regards to access to healthcare and life expectancy,' said study author Dr. David Rosen, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
But, he added: 'It's important to remember that there are many possible negative consequences of imprisonment - for example, broken relationships, loss of employment opportunities, and greater entrenchment in criminal activity - that are not reflected in our study findings but nevertheless have an important influence on prisoners' lives and their overall health.'
For Mr Rosen, one of the main messages from the study is the need to make the world outside of prison walls safer, and to make sure people living there have adequate access to healthcare.
NO NEED FOR A TURD EXPERT
Hmm, I wonder what in the shit they pay Turd Experts? If there are such experts, I think I qualify. After all, I’ve gotten myself in a lot of shit over the years
IOWA COURT OF APPEALS NOTES “THE REMARKABLE VERSATILITY OF THE WORD SHIT”
Legal Skills Prof Blog
July 13, 2011
In this opinion (State v. Landis) filed by the Iowa Court of Appeals, the court had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the conviction of the defendant-prisoner for spraying a correctional officer with feces in violation of Iowa Code section 708.3B (which makes it a felony for inmates to assault prison employees with "blood, seminal fluid, urine, or feces").
The prosecution offered two types of evidence at trial; eyewitness testimony that the defendant sprayed a substance that looked, "felt" and smelled like feces and a statement by the defendant himself following the incident in which he said "I got you, [correctional officer]. I threw shit on you.”
Although the defendant argued that the state failed to prove its case because it didn't call an expert witness to establish that the substance in question was in fact feces, the appellant court concluded that the ability to identify feces is within the province of the average person:
__Indeed, it would be a rare person who had no personal experience with feces. We do not believe the identification of feces falls solely within the domain of expert testimony. Upon submission of the evidence, the jury was to decide whether the State had proved the elements of the crime charged and could use their common sense and daily experiences in determining whether the brown substance was feces.
. . . .
__Paraphrase of an old adage seems apropos under the circumstances: If it looks like feces, if it smells like feces, if it has the color and texture of feces, then it must be feces. No witness with a degree in scatology was required, nor was scientific testing required to establish the fact the substance was feces. Thus, Landis‟s conviction for assault on a correctional officer with a bodily fluid was supported by sufficient evidence.
With respect to the defendant's argument that his statement "I threw shit on you" was insufficient, by itself, to support his conviction, the court agreed noting the ambiguity of that word in a very detailed footnote:
__“Shit” is defined as excrement. Webster‟s Third New Int‟l Dictionary 2098 (1993). But, the word has also been defined as nonsense, foolishness, something of little value, trivial and usually boastful or inaccurate talk, and a contemptible person. Id. This now ubiquitous word has acquired numerous popular usages apart from its literal meaning. It has been used to describe people, places, and things and to express a wide variety of emotions such as disappointment, disgust, despair, resignation, amazement, awe, shock, anger, and surprise. ……… The remarkable versatility of the word “shit” is also demonstrated in George Carlin‟s “Filthy Words,” a verbatim transcript of which is set forth in full in the appendix to the United States Supreme Court‟s opinion F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 752-53, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 3042, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 1094 (1978).
State v. Landis may be the last and best word on the inherent ambiguity of "shit."
IOWA COURT OF APPEALS NOTES “THE REMARKABLE VERSATILITY OF THE WORD SHIT”
Legal Skills Prof Blog
July 13, 2011
In this opinion (State v. Landis) filed by the Iowa Court of Appeals, the court had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the conviction of the defendant-prisoner for spraying a correctional officer with feces in violation of Iowa Code section 708.3B (which makes it a felony for inmates to assault prison employees with "blood, seminal fluid, urine, or feces").
The prosecution offered two types of evidence at trial; eyewitness testimony that the defendant sprayed a substance that looked, "felt" and smelled like feces and a statement by the defendant himself following the incident in which he said "I got you, [correctional officer]. I threw shit on you.”
Although the defendant argued that the state failed to prove its case because it didn't call an expert witness to establish that the substance in question was in fact feces, the appellant court concluded that the ability to identify feces is within the province of the average person:
__Indeed, it would be a rare person who had no personal experience with feces. We do not believe the identification of feces falls solely within the domain of expert testimony. Upon submission of the evidence, the jury was to decide whether the State had proved the elements of the crime charged and could use their common sense and daily experiences in determining whether the brown substance was feces.
. . . .
__Paraphrase of an old adage seems apropos under the circumstances: If it looks like feces, if it smells like feces, if it has the color and texture of feces, then it must be feces. No witness with a degree in scatology was required, nor was scientific testing required to establish the fact the substance was feces. Thus, Landis‟s conviction for assault on a correctional officer with a bodily fluid was supported by sufficient evidence.
With respect to the defendant's argument that his statement "I threw shit on you" was insufficient, by itself, to support his conviction, the court agreed noting the ambiguity of that word in a very detailed footnote:
__“Shit” is defined as excrement. Webster‟s Third New Int‟l Dictionary 2098 (1993). But, the word has also been defined as nonsense, foolishness, something of little value, trivial and usually boastful or inaccurate talk, and a contemptible person. Id. This now ubiquitous word has acquired numerous popular usages apart from its literal meaning. It has been used to describe people, places, and things and to express a wide variety of emotions such as disappointment, disgust, despair, resignation, amazement, awe, shock, anger, and surprise. ……… The remarkable versatility of the word “shit” is also demonstrated in George Carlin‟s “Filthy Words,” a verbatim transcript of which is set forth in full in the appendix to the United States Supreme Court‟s opinion F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 752-53, 98 S. Ct. 3026, 3042, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 1094 (1978).
State v. Landis may be the last and best word on the inherent ambiguity of "shit."
POLL: 64% OF AMERICAN JEWS STILL LIKE OBAMA, BUT ONLY 43% WILL VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN
I predict that in November 2012, the overwhelming majority of American Jews will vote to reelect Obama because they are liberals and, Israel’s survival aside, they will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Republican candidate.
U.S. JEWS OPPOSE DIVIDING JERUSALEM, ARE LOSING FAITH IN OBAMA
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 14, 2011
A bipartisan survey of American Jewish voters by McLaughlin & Associates found that an overwhelming majority oppose dividing Jerusalem as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
Nearly three-fourths (73%) of respondents believe Jerusalem must remain fully under Israeli control, even though the Palestinians have made it a "red line" demand that they receive control over the holy city's eastern half.
The poll results were somewhat surprising in this regard, as a majority of the American Jewish community is in favor of the "two-state solution" and the creation of a Palestinian Arab state as an end to the Middle East conflict.
But American Jewish views may be shifting as the community increasingly sees Israel as facing an existential threat that will eventually reach them as well.
Firm majorities said that both Iran and the Palestinians will continue their efforts to eliminate Israel regardless of whatever concessions they are offered.
Very few American Jews still believe a lasting and genuine peace is achievable via diplomatic means.
So, where does that leave American Jewish opinion regarding President Barack Obama?
Nearly half of those polled (43%) said they are no longer sure who Obama favors in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and less than half (46%) still think the president's policies are not putting Israel in danger. That leaves more than half of Jewish voters who are either unsure or certain that Obama's policies endanger the future of the Jewish state.
In fact, a sizeable portion of Jewish voters believes Obama is capable of outright lying when it comes to his relationship with Israel.
Obama and other members of his administration have made it clear that they will veto a resolution on unilateral Palestinian statehood expected to be presented at the UN this September. But 40 percent of Jewish voters don't trust the president to actually order the US ambassador to exercise that veto.
Sixty-seven percent are also concerned about Israel's future should Obama be re-elected, considering that he has called for a return to the pre-1967 borders and has opposed Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem.
Most American Jews are Democrats. And most (65%) of those polled voted for Obama in 2008. A 64 percent majority said they still have a favorable opinion of the president overall, but only 43 percent said they would vote for him again.
U.S. JEWS OPPOSE DIVIDING JERUSALEM, ARE LOSING FAITH IN OBAMA
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 14, 2011
A bipartisan survey of American Jewish voters by McLaughlin & Associates found that an overwhelming majority oppose dividing Jerusalem as part of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
Nearly three-fourths (73%) of respondents believe Jerusalem must remain fully under Israeli control, even though the Palestinians have made it a "red line" demand that they receive control over the holy city's eastern half.
The poll results were somewhat surprising in this regard, as a majority of the American Jewish community is in favor of the "two-state solution" and the creation of a Palestinian Arab state as an end to the Middle East conflict.
But American Jewish views may be shifting as the community increasingly sees Israel as facing an existential threat that will eventually reach them as well.
Firm majorities said that both Iran and the Palestinians will continue their efforts to eliminate Israel regardless of whatever concessions they are offered.
Very few American Jews still believe a lasting and genuine peace is achievable via diplomatic means.
So, where does that leave American Jewish opinion regarding President Barack Obama?
Nearly half of those polled (43%) said they are no longer sure who Obama favors in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and less than half (46%) still think the president's policies are not putting Israel in danger. That leaves more than half of Jewish voters who are either unsure or certain that Obama's policies endanger the future of the Jewish state.
In fact, a sizeable portion of Jewish voters believes Obama is capable of outright lying when it comes to his relationship with Israel.
Obama and other members of his administration have made it clear that they will veto a resolution on unilateral Palestinian statehood expected to be presented at the UN this September. But 40 percent of Jewish voters don't trust the president to actually order the US ambassador to exercise that veto.
Sixty-seven percent are also concerned about Israel's future should Obama be re-elected, considering that he has called for a return to the pre-1967 borders and has opposed Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem.
Most American Jews are Democrats. And most (65%) of those polled voted for Obama in 2008. A 64 percent majority said they still have a favorable opinion of the president overall, but only 43 percent said they would vote for him again.
Friday, July 15, 2011
CONTRIBUTING TO KOOKFORNIA'S FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
This is no way to relieve Kookfornia’s financial catastrophe.
PRISON DOCTOR GETS PAID FOR DOING LITTLE OR NOTHING
A California surgeon has mostly been locked out of his job: on paid leave, fired or fighting his termination. When he does work, it’s reviewing records. He made $777,000 last year, including back pay
By Jack Dolan
Los Angeles Times
July 13, 2011
The highest-paid state employee in California last year, a prison surgeon who took home $777,423, has a history of mental illness, was fired once for alleged incompetence and has not been allowed to treat an inmate for six years because medical supervisors don't trust his clinical skills.
Since July 2005, Dr. Jeffrey Rohlfing has mostly been locked out of his job — on paid leave or fired or fighting his termination — at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, state records show. When he has been allowed inside the facility, he has been relegated to reviewing paper medical histories, what prison doctors call "mailroom" duty.
Rohlfing's $235,740 base pay, typical in California's corrections system, accounted for about a third of his income last year. The rest of the money was back pay for more than two years when he did no work for the state while appealing his termination. A supervisor had determined that Rohlfing provided substandard care for two patients, according to state Personnel Board records.
Rohlfing won that case before the board and was rehired and assigned to "mailroom" work in late 2009.
"We want taxpayers to know we had no choice in this," said Nancy Kincaid, spokeswoman for the court-appointed receiver in charge of California's inmate healthcare. "If you are ordered to bring somebody back to work, and you can't trust them with patients, you have to find something for them to do."
Rohlfing, 65, could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Joseph Polockow, said his assignment is an attempt by prison officials to get him to quit.
"If you stick a doctor in a room for eight hours a day with no patients, you're making it very hard on him and trying to drive him away," Polockow said.
Rohlfing isn't the only doctor in California's cash-strapped prisons earning big money to shuffle paper. Dozens have been relegated to the chore in recent years, according to Kincaid, who said it's the standard assignment given to physicians when questions arise about their clinical ability. Some eventually return to treating patients, some quit and others are ultimately fired, she added.
Last year, a prison doctor who was fired for letting his license expire and was later reinstated by the Personnel Board received $313,610 in back pay, records show. Another, fired for "extreme departure from the medically accepted standard of care," was reinstated and collected $298,787 in lost wages. And a surgeon who had been fired, then put on three years' probation, for missed diagnoses that led to the deaths of two inmates and treatment that robbed another inmate of vision, collected $193,779 in back pay.
California's corrections system has a history of employing troubled doctors. When a federal court installed the receiver in 2006, judges noted that "20-50% of physicians at the prisons provided poor quality of care," and 20% had a black mark on their record when hired. Their shortcomings contributed significantly to the fact that a prisoner died "needlessly" every six to seven days in a state lockup, the judges said.
Rohlfing's difficulties date to at least 1996, when he suffered a psychiatric crisis while working at a hospital in Fresno, according to Medical Board of California records. After he engaged in "bizarre, irrational and delusional communications," co-workers called police. Rohlfing fled when they arrived, led a car chase through the streets and was caught at his house.
Two involuntary 72-hour commitments to psychiatric wards followed. The medical board, which licenses all doctors in California, placed Rohlfing on probation for five years, the board's records show.
In August 2000, while still on probation, Rohlfing began working on a limited basis for High Desert State Prison in Lassen County in northeastern California. The state hired him full time in May 2003. Two years later, after the death of an inmate in his care, Rohlfing's clinical privileges were revoked, effectively removing him from the practice of medicine.
A review of his cases by a supervisor noted that two patients with histories of heart trouble, who had gone to Rohlfing with chest pains and other signs of cardiac distress, had not been sent to an outside emergency room. The supervisor determined that they should have been transferred because the prison clinic lacked the equipment to perform necessary tests, according to Personnel Board records.
Neither patient died or suffered permanent injury. But the supervisor, Dr. Robert Chapnick, determined in both cases that Rohlfing's care had been "significantly substandard." Rohlfing was put on paid leave for 18 months. In 2007, he was fired.
Rohlfing appealed his termination to the state Personnel Board. It ruled that his examinations "may not have been textbook perfect," but they did not amount to the inexcusable neglect of duty needed to fire a prison doctor.
Rohlfing got his job back in November 2009, but medical supervisors decided he still was not ready to treat patients. Instead, he was put on records duty. He also participates in a retraining program designed to "evaluate clinical skills and provide feedback to the physician and the employer," Kincaid said.
The receiver believed that decisions by the Personnel Board were being based on an overly strict reading of state service rules, not on what might be best for patients, and successfully petitioned the court to order the board to hire outside medical experts for help with future cases.
PRISON DOCTOR GETS PAID FOR DOING LITTLE OR NOTHING
A California surgeon has mostly been locked out of his job: on paid leave, fired or fighting his termination. When he does work, it’s reviewing records. He made $777,000 last year, including back pay
By Jack Dolan
Los Angeles Times
July 13, 2011
The highest-paid state employee in California last year, a prison surgeon who took home $777,423, has a history of mental illness, was fired once for alleged incompetence and has not been allowed to treat an inmate for six years because medical supervisors don't trust his clinical skills.
Since July 2005, Dr. Jeffrey Rohlfing has mostly been locked out of his job — on paid leave or fired or fighting his termination — at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, state records show. When he has been allowed inside the facility, he has been relegated to reviewing paper medical histories, what prison doctors call "mailroom" duty.
Rohlfing's $235,740 base pay, typical in California's corrections system, accounted for about a third of his income last year. The rest of the money was back pay for more than two years when he did no work for the state while appealing his termination. A supervisor had determined that Rohlfing provided substandard care for two patients, according to state Personnel Board records.
Rohlfing won that case before the board and was rehired and assigned to "mailroom" work in late 2009.
"We want taxpayers to know we had no choice in this," said Nancy Kincaid, spokeswoman for the court-appointed receiver in charge of California's inmate healthcare. "If you are ordered to bring somebody back to work, and you can't trust them with patients, you have to find something for them to do."
Rohlfing, 65, could not be reached for comment. His attorney, Joseph Polockow, said his assignment is an attempt by prison officials to get him to quit.
"If you stick a doctor in a room for eight hours a day with no patients, you're making it very hard on him and trying to drive him away," Polockow said.
Rohlfing isn't the only doctor in California's cash-strapped prisons earning big money to shuffle paper. Dozens have been relegated to the chore in recent years, according to Kincaid, who said it's the standard assignment given to physicians when questions arise about their clinical ability. Some eventually return to treating patients, some quit and others are ultimately fired, she added.
Last year, a prison doctor who was fired for letting his license expire and was later reinstated by the Personnel Board received $313,610 in back pay, records show. Another, fired for "extreme departure from the medically accepted standard of care," was reinstated and collected $298,787 in lost wages. And a surgeon who had been fired, then put on three years' probation, for missed diagnoses that led to the deaths of two inmates and treatment that robbed another inmate of vision, collected $193,779 in back pay.
California's corrections system has a history of employing troubled doctors. When a federal court installed the receiver in 2006, judges noted that "20-50% of physicians at the prisons provided poor quality of care," and 20% had a black mark on their record when hired. Their shortcomings contributed significantly to the fact that a prisoner died "needlessly" every six to seven days in a state lockup, the judges said.
Rohlfing's difficulties date to at least 1996, when he suffered a psychiatric crisis while working at a hospital in Fresno, according to Medical Board of California records. After he engaged in "bizarre, irrational and delusional communications," co-workers called police. Rohlfing fled when they arrived, led a car chase through the streets and was caught at his house.
Two involuntary 72-hour commitments to psychiatric wards followed. The medical board, which licenses all doctors in California, placed Rohlfing on probation for five years, the board's records show.
In August 2000, while still on probation, Rohlfing began working on a limited basis for High Desert State Prison in Lassen County in northeastern California. The state hired him full time in May 2003. Two years later, after the death of an inmate in his care, Rohlfing's clinical privileges were revoked, effectively removing him from the practice of medicine.
A review of his cases by a supervisor noted that two patients with histories of heart trouble, who had gone to Rohlfing with chest pains and other signs of cardiac distress, had not been sent to an outside emergency room. The supervisor determined that they should have been transferred because the prison clinic lacked the equipment to perform necessary tests, according to Personnel Board records.
Neither patient died or suffered permanent injury. But the supervisor, Dr. Robert Chapnick, determined in both cases that Rohlfing's care had been "significantly substandard." Rohlfing was put on paid leave for 18 months. In 2007, he was fired.
Rohlfing appealed his termination to the state Personnel Board. It ruled that his examinations "may not have been textbook perfect," but they did not amount to the inexcusable neglect of duty needed to fire a prison doctor.
Rohlfing got his job back in November 2009, but medical supervisors decided he still was not ready to treat patients. Instead, he was put on records duty. He also participates in a retraining program designed to "evaluate clinical skills and provide feedback to the physician and the employer," Kincaid said.
The receiver believed that decisions by the Personnel Board were being based on an overly strict reading of state service rules, not on what might be best for patients, and successfully petitioned the court to order the board to hire outside medical experts for help with future cases.
BACKLOG IN TESTING RAPE KIT EVIDENCE IS UNCONSCIONABLE
Crime labs all over the country have piled up a backlog of rape kits to be tested, some dating back to the 1990s. That is unconscionable and no excuses are acceptable! A rapist can continue to assault more victims as long as he remains undetected.
EVIDENCE IN TEEN’S 1995 RAPE LEADS TO NEW CHARGES
Key suspect Roland Ali Westbrooks already is serving time for a similar rape in 1997
By Anita Hassan
Houston Chronicle
July 12, 2011
In August 1995, a 16-year-old Houston girl was awakened in the middle of the night by a strange man standing in her bedroom doorway.
He walked over and put a pillow over her head. As she wept, he raped her, ordering her not to make a sound or he would kill her. Then he stole some money and left.
After calling police, the teen underwent a sexual assault examination. That rape kit evidence was placed in the Houston Police Department property room — and that's where it sat, untested for 12 years.
Last month, after a Houston Police Department investigator re-examined the case and requested the evidence be tested, the identity of the alleged rapist was uncovered: Roland Ali Westbrooks, 36, convicted and sentenced in 1997 for raping another Houston woman.
Westbrooks, serving a 28-year sentence in a Texas prison after pleading guilty to the 1997 rape charge, was charged Monday with aggravated sexual assault of the 16-year-old, according to court records.
This is the first such case to come to light since the Houston Chronicle reported last month that almost 4,000 sexual assault kits — some dating to the 1990s — sit in an HPD property room freezer awaiting testing.
HPD crime lab officials have said the slow process in testing the evidence is due to a lack of resources. In the past, HPD officials have declined to comment how the evidence is being processed by their crime lab personnel in cases that are considered to be active investigations.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, on Tuesday said the Westbrooks case is an example of how the backlog of untested evidence by HPD's crime lab can and has delayed justice for rape victims.
"What if they (HPD) had done their proper test in 1995?" said Whitmire, who has spoken on the issues concerning untested sexual assault evidence for years. "Maybe the 1995 (case) would have been solved in a timely manner and the 1997 (case) would have never occurred."
It is unknown at this time when or how long Westbrooks, who has a criminal history in Harris County dating to 1994, was entered into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, also known as CODIS, a national database used to store DNA profiles that includes convicted offenders.
In September 2007, a Houston police officer assigned to review the 1995 case discovered that evidence collected from the victim had "never been submitted to any laboratory for any analysis," according to court records. The officer in the case could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
The same month, the officer requested the evidence be tested. Two years later, she learned a forensic analysis recovered an unidentified DNA profile from evidence in the sexual assault kit, according to court records.
That DNA profile was then submitted to the DPS crime lab to be entered into CODIS, and nine months later yielded a match to Westbrooks.
After conducting a follow-up interview with the victim in the 1995 case, the investigator learned Westbrooks was in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility for the 1997 case. Another DNA sample was taken from the alleged rapist to compare it to the evidence from the rape kit.
On June 30, HPD crime lab results showed the DNA found on evidence from the sexual assault kit belonged to Westbrooks.
EVIDENCE IN TEEN’S 1995 RAPE LEADS TO NEW CHARGES
Key suspect Roland Ali Westbrooks already is serving time for a similar rape in 1997
By Anita Hassan
Houston Chronicle
July 12, 2011
In August 1995, a 16-year-old Houston girl was awakened in the middle of the night by a strange man standing in her bedroom doorway.
He walked over and put a pillow over her head. As she wept, he raped her, ordering her not to make a sound or he would kill her. Then he stole some money and left.
After calling police, the teen underwent a sexual assault examination. That rape kit evidence was placed in the Houston Police Department property room — and that's where it sat, untested for 12 years.
Last month, after a Houston Police Department investigator re-examined the case and requested the evidence be tested, the identity of the alleged rapist was uncovered: Roland Ali Westbrooks, 36, convicted and sentenced in 1997 for raping another Houston woman.
Westbrooks, serving a 28-year sentence in a Texas prison after pleading guilty to the 1997 rape charge, was charged Monday with aggravated sexual assault of the 16-year-old, according to court records.
This is the first such case to come to light since the Houston Chronicle reported last month that almost 4,000 sexual assault kits — some dating to the 1990s — sit in an HPD property room freezer awaiting testing.
HPD crime lab officials have said the slow process in testing the evidence is due to a lack of resources. In the past, HPD officials have declined to comment how the evidence is being processed by their crime lab personnel in cases that are considered to be active investigations.
State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, on Tuesday said the Westbrooks case is an example of how the backlog of untested evidence by HPD's crime lab can and has delayed justice for rape victims.
"What if they (HPD) had done their proper test in 1995?" said Whitmire, who has spoken on the issues concerning untested sexual assault evidence for years. "Maybe the 1995 (case) would have been solved in a timely manner and the 1997 (case) would have never occurred."
It is unknown at this time when or how long Westbrooks, who has a criminal history in Harris County dating to 1994, was entered into the FBI's Combined DNA Index System, also known as CODIS, a national database used to store DNA profiles that includes convicted offenders.
In September 2007, a Houston police officer assigned to review the 1995 case discovered that evidence collected from the victim had "never been submitted to any laboratory for any analysis," according to court records. The officer in the case could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
The same month, the officer requested the evidence be tested. Two years later, she learned a forensic analysis recovered an unidentified DNA profile from evidence in the sexual assault kit, according to court records.
That DNA profile was then submitted to the DPS crime lab to be entered into CODIS, and nine months later yielded a match to Westbrooks.
After conducting a follow-up interview with the victim in the 1995 case, the investigator learned Westbrooks was in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility for the 1997 case. Another DNA sample was taken from the alleged rapist to compare it to the evidence from the rape kit.
On June 30, HPD crime lab results showed the DNA found on evidence from the sexual assault kit belonged to Westbrooks.
CONGRESSIONAL CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST
Who is responsible for the financial mess this country is in? Congress has done it and both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. And now both are playing chicken with the debt ceiling for ideological reasons.
IRRESPONSIBLE LAWMAKERS MATCHING WALL STREET
By Loren Steffy
Houston Chronicle
July 13, 2011
Three years ago, Wall Street tried to destroy the global economy. Now, Congress seems determined to take its shot.
Two months ago, the U.S. hit its borrowing limit, and lawmakers have refused to raise it.
They say they're doing this because they want to control runaway federal spending, but they aren't fiscal conservatives. They are fiscal charlatans.
The current debt ceiling crisis results from spending that Congress already passed. Those who refuse to raise the debt ceiling are some of the same lawmakers who ran up trillions on the federal credit card. Now they don't want to pay their bill.
They have already permitted our government to spend about $118 billion more each month than it takes in, excluding interest.
Most of us would agree we should stop doing this, but we can't undo what Congress has already done.
Without borrowing, the government can't pay all its bills, and no one knows what will happen. Technically, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could avoid default by continuing to pay interest on existing debt, and then stop paying other obligations like Social Security and veterans' benefits.
But that's still likely to create the perception that the U.S. is in default. Either way, the likely conse- quences are ugly:
Soaring interest rates — think 30 percent or more - that would crush U.S. households, and make homes and cars unaffordable, plunging those industries back into chaos.
Further devaluing of the dollar, causing the price of petroleum products from gasoline to diapers to skyrocket even as oil-exporting countries abandon the dollar as a reserve currency.
A Black Monday-style stock market collapse that would wipe out whatever savings Americans managed to salvage from the recession.
Scores of small businesses, already struggling to find access to capital, wiped out because what loans are available will be too expensive for many to afford.
And widespread job cuts as a result of plunging consumer demand and sky-high interest rates.
Unable to borrow, the U.S. would be powerless to shield companies or individuals from the ferocity of the economic crisis. At least we couldn't complain about bailouts. The government wouldn't have the money to pay for them, but it wouldn't matter. The economic instability that is likely to follow default is the kind that causes nations to collapse.
It's an outcome so unthinkable that it makes the partisan dithering over taxes and spending cuts seem almost quaint.
In other words, our leaders have lost all perspective. Ideology in Washington has become a zero-sum game. The debt ceiling, once a pedestrian bureaucratic chore - Congress has raised it 74 times since 1962 - has become a political weapon.
As irresponsible as the current bickering is, it will get worse. The debt ceiling has been politicized. This summer's circus is likely to become a perennial political re-enactment, timed to maximize the advantage of one party or another.
Make no mistake: The U.S. debt is out of control. There's simply too much of it, from Washington to the average household. Reducing debt will be painful, but it can be done without plunging the world into chaos.
It's going to take a more courage and leadership than we've seen from either party in Washington. It's going to take our leaders telling us what we don't want to hear: that spending cuts, increased taxes and time are the only way out.
We can and should have a rigorous debate about how those cuts and increases should be implemented, but the first step is to separate the budget negotiations - money Congress wants to spend next year - from the debate over the debt ceiling - money that it already spent this year.
Instead, Congress is imitating Wall Street by attempting to shirk responsibility for the bad decisions it's already made.
IRRESPONSIBLE LAWMAKERS MATCHING WALL STREET
By Loren Steffy
Houston Chronicle
July 13, 2011
Three years ago, Wall Street tried to destroy the global economy. Now, Congress seems determined to take its shot.
Two months ago, the U.S. hit its borrowing limit, and lawmakers have refused to raise it.
They say they're doing this because they want to control runaway federal spending, but they aren't fiscal conservatives. They are fiscal charlatans.
The current debt ceiling crisis results from spending that Congress already passed. Those who refuse to raise the debt ceiling are some of the same lawmakers who ran up trillions on the federal credit card. Now they don't want to pay their bill.
They have already permitted our government to spend about $118 billion more each month than it takes in, excluding interest.
Most of us would agree we should stop doing this, but we can't undo what Congress has already done.
Without borrowing, the government can't pay all its bills, and no one knows what will happen. Technically, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could avoid default by continuing to pay interest on existing debt, and then stop paying other obligations like Social Security and veterans' benefits.
But that's still likely to create the perception that the U.S. is in default. Either way, the likely conse- quences are ugly:
Soaring interest rates — think 30 percent or more - that would crush U.S. households, and make homes and cars unaffordable, plunging those industries back into chaos.
Further devaluing of the dollar, causing the price of petroleum products from gasoline to diapers to skyrocket even as oil-exporting countries abandon the dollar as a reserve currency.
A Black Monday-style stock market collapse that would wipe out whatever savings Americans managed to salvage from the recession.
Scores of small businesses, already struggling to find access to capital, wiped out because what loans are available will be too expensive for many to afford.
And widespread job cuts as a result of plunging consumer demand and sky-high interest rates.
Unable to borrow, the U.S. would be powerless to shield companies or individuals from the ferocity of the economic crisis. At least we couldn't complain about bailouts. The government wouldn't have the money to pay for them, but it wouldn't matter. The economic instability that is likely to follow default is the kind that causes nations to collapse.
It's an outcome so unthinkable that it makes the partisan dithering over taxes and spending cuts seem almost quaint.
In other words, our leaders have lost all perspective. Ideology in Washington has become a zero-sum game. The debt ceiling, once a pedestrian bureaucratic chore - Congress has raised it 74 times since 1962 - has become a political weapon.
As irresponsible as the current bickering is, it will get worse. The debt ceiling has been politicized. This summer's circus is likely to become a perennial political re-enactment, timed to maximize the advantage of one party or another.
Make no mistake: The U.S. debt is out of control. There's simply too much of it, from Washington to the average household. Reducing debt will be painful, but it can be done without plunging the world into chaos.
It's going to take a more courage and leadership than we've seen from either party in Washington. It's going to take our leaders telling us what we don't want to hear: that spending cuts, increased taxes and time are the only way out.
We can and should have a rigorous debate about how those cuts and increases should be implemented, but the first step is to separate the budget negotiations - money Congress wants to spend next year - from the debate over the debt ceiling - money that it already spent this year.
Instead, Congress is imitating Wall Street by attempting to shirk responsibility for the bad decisions it's already made.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
NOW WE HAVE A FEMALE O.J. SIMPSON (2)
Putting the Casey Anthony verdict in its proper perspective.
COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE CASEY ANTHONY VERDICT
LAPPL NewsWatch
July 13, 2011
So we are left with a situation reminiscent of Professor Dershowitz's infamous accomplishment, the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. But unlike in the Simpson case, in which abundant evidence was lawyered away before a blinkered jury, an attentive and open-minded jury waited for the evidence against Casey Anthony that was never presented. They were true to their oath and to the law when they voted to acquit. But it still feels rotten.
Anyone with a scrap of sense knows Casey Anthony killed Caylee just as he knows O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. We may not like the jury's decision, we just have to live with it. Maybe she'll pull a robbery in Las Vegas someday.
COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE CASEY ANTHONY VERDICT
LAPPL NewsWatch
July 13, 2011
So we are left with a situation reminiscent of Professor Dershowitz's infamous accomplishment, the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. But unlike in the Simpson case, in which abundant evidence was lawyered away before a blinkered jury, an attentive and open-minded jury waited for the evidence against Casey Anthony that was never presented. They were true to their oath and to the law when they voted to acquit. But it still feels rotten.
Anyone with a scrap of sense knows Casey Anthony killed Caylee just as he knows O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. We may not like the jury's decision, we just have to live with it. Maybe she'll pull a robbery in Las Vegas someday.
'THE CONFLICT IS ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL'
Why are right-wingers and Evangelical Christians seemingly the only ones who know that the destruction of Israel is the real goal of the Palestinians and their allies?
GLENN BECK WOWS ISRAELI LAWMAKERS
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 12, 2011
Popular and controversial American TV commentator Glenn Beck addressed a gathering of Israeli lawmakers on Monday and won overwhelming praise from nearly everyone present.
Speaking at a meeting of the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee at the invitation of committee chairman MK Danny Danon (Likud), Bech lavished love and praise on the Jewish state.
But, Beck warned that many of Israel's leaders, like his own in America, are either afraid or uninterested in telling the truth.
"We have created a system of politicians who are afraid to tell the truth. Instead they're telling people what they think they want to hear," said Beck, recalling that he mistakenly viewed Israel as a hostile, war-torn nation before actually visiting himself.
Beck made a surprise visit to Jerusalem in May to help Israel celebrate its 63rd Independence Day. He returned to the US with a newfound zeal for Israel's plight and its biblical mandate. But taking that kind of stand for Israel has come at a price.
"I got my first death threat, because I came back and said the truth – the conflict is about the destruction of Israel and the end to the Western way of life," Beck told his new friends in the Knesset.
In the face of such hostility, of such determination to not only discredit, but to bring about Israel's demise, Beck said it is easy to get discouraged or scared.
"What do we do? Tell the truth. Live our lives with honor, and integrity, and have courage," Beck encouraged the Israelis.
On August 24 Beck will host a "Restoring Courage" rally in Jerusalem. He said thousands are expected to attend, including 70 prominent world politicans and four US presidential candidates. Beck said he hopes the event will help the Israelis to see that they are not alone, even if the mainstream media tries to make it out as if they are.
"There are millions of people [who support Israel] that you don't see, because the media doesn't want to tell their story," said Beck.
A string of lawmakers present at the meeting spoke after Beck and thanked their American guest for his unwavering Bible-based support of the Jewish state.
"It isn't a coincidence that you're a religious person [and support Israel]," said Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, summing up the feelings of her colleagues. "This conflict isn't territorial. If it was, it would have been solved a long time ago."
Hotovely continued: "This is a religious battle led by Islam. We can't ignore this basic truth. It's important that we stand behind a historical truth: We're not just here because of Zionism, but because of the Bible."
Beck reportedly expressed positive surprise to his assistant over how much God and the Bible factor into politics and political debate in Israel.
But not everyone was 100 percent pleased with Beck.
MK Arieh Eldad (National Union) felt Beck wasn't right-wing enough in his political assessements. In particular, Eldad was displeased that Beck said in a later interview with Israel Channel 10 News that he is not necessarily opposed to a Palestinians state.
"I'm not against a Palestinian state. I'm not here for a political solution," Beck said in the interview. "There's something bigger than politics here."
Eldad retorted: "Israel belongs to the Jews. We need to end the occupation - the Muslim occupation of Israel that began 1,300 years ago."
GLENN BECK WOWS ISRAELI LAWMAKERS
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
July 12, 2011
Popular and controversial American TV commentator Glenn Beck addressed a gathering of Israeli lawmakers on Monday and won overwhelming praise from nearly everyone present.
Speaking at a meeting of the Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee at the invitation of committee chairman MK Danny Danon (Likud), Bech lavished love and praise on the Jewish state.
But, Beck warned that many of Israel's leaders, like his own in America, are either afraid or uninterested in telling the truth.
"We have created a system of politicians who are afraid to tell the truth. Instead they're telling people what they think they want to hear," said Beck, recalling that he mistakenly viewed Israel as a hostile, war-torn nation before actually visiting himself.
Beck made a surprise visit to Jerusalem in May to help Israel celebrate its 63rd Independence Day. He returned to the US with a newfound zeal for Israel's plight and its biblical mandate. But taking that kind of stand for Israel has come at a price.
"I got my first death threat, because I came back and said the truth – the conflict is about the destruction of Israel and the end to the Western way of life," Beck told his new friends in the Knesset.
In the face of such hostility, of such determination to not only discredit, but to bring about Israel's demise, Beck said it is easy to get discouraged or scared.
"What do we do? Tell the truth. Live our lives with honor, and integrity, and have courage," Beck encouraged the Israelis.
On August 24 Beck will host a "Restoring Courage" rally in Jerusalem. He said thousands are expected to attend, including 70 prominent world politicans and four US presidential candidates. Beck said he hopes the event will help the Israelis to see that they are not alone, even if the mainstream media tries to make it out as if they are.
"There are millions of people [who support Israel] that you don't see, because the media doesn't want to tell their story," said Beck.
A string of lawmakers present at the meeting spoke after Beck and thanked their American guest for his unwavering Bible-based support of the Jewish state.
"It isn't a coincidence that you're a religious person [and support Israel]," said Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, summing up the feelings of her colleagues. "This conflict isn't territorial. If it was, it would have been solved a long time ago."
Hotovely continued: "This is a religious battle led by Islam. We can't ignore this basic truth. It's important that we stand behind a historical truth: We're not just here because of Zionism, but because of the Bible."
Beck reportedly expressed positive surprise to his assistant over how much God and the Bible factor into politics and political debate in Israel.
But not everyone was 100 percent pleased with Beck.
MK Arieh Eldad (National Union) felt Beck wasn't right-wing enough in his political assessements. In particular, Eldad was displeased that Beck said in a later interview with Israel Channel 10 News that he is not necessarily opposed to a Palestinians state.
"I'm not against a Palestinian state. I'm not here for a political solution," Beck said in the interview. "There's something bigger than politics here."
Eldad retorted: "Israel belongs to the Jews. We need to end the occupation - the Muslim occupation of Israel that began 1,300 years ago."
OBAMA MAKES CONGRESS THE BOOGEYMAN NOW THAT BLAMING BUSH NO LONGER WORKS
Obama’s rhetoric has been fodder for young voters who don’t know any better and for the ignorant voters among us. Unfortunately, unless the economy continues to tank in 2012, his siren songs together with the prospect of a flawed Republican opponent are likely to get him reelected.
YOU’RE FIRED
By Monica Crowley
politicalmavens.com
July 13, 2011
A thought after watching President Obama’s class warfare extravaganza rehash today:
The president is supposed to be America’s CEO. He is supposed to lead, set the agenda, persuade, and manage. Obama has done none of this. In his two and a half years as CEO, he has pushed everything of note on Congress: writing the “stimulus,” writing ObamaCare, writing Dodd-Frank financial regulation, offering budget proposals and deficit reduction ideas. He’s never led. He has let Congress run wild and do all of the heavy lifting, and then he steps in at the midnight hour to scold everyone over the lack of progress.
Think of his failure to lead this way: Under the Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. So Congress is more like a bank, setting laws and conditions for authorizing credit and money. Sometimes, when a borrower has little or no revenue coming in, he is able to bully the bank with the threat of bankruptcy in which the bank loses much or all of the underlying source of repayment. But in this case, the government is an overleveraged borrower who still has plenty of revenue coming in to support the debt…and the CEO of the business is saying it’s the bank’s problem.
Making congress responsible for what should be the execution of the economy is ridiculous. Congress sets laws and approves money for budgets and rules around that money. It is the president as CEO who is responsible for then “managing.” His own budget, which proposed trillions in new spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97-0. Meanwhile, instead of fixing that situation with a budget Congress would approve, he punted onto them again. That’s like telling a bank “well, if you won’t lend to me then it’s your problem, and I’m going to keep spending all your money until you freak out.”
No CEO could or would do this. And the fact that some of the bankers support him and some don’t is nothing unusual either. Most companies borrow from syndicates and CEOs must do something that gets all (or a significant number) of the syndicate banks to approve. You can cry all you want that there are opposing banks, but it doesn’t get you the loan.
This is no different. Obama is a CEO dealing with his banks and is not doing what a prudent CEO would do. He would be fired elsewhere.
If you run a business and are overleveraged and the bank says “no more,” you go into “fix it” mode and set plans for how to adjust. Obama sends out Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to play the “threat of bankruptcy” card in a situation in which it doesn’t apply.
So not only is he playing games with our country, but he now seems primarily preoccupied with setting up the post-mortem crisis-management PR, in which he will try to switch the blame for all that is wrong with the economy on to the Republicans who wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling.
It is a game to manipulate the unaware younger voters and the ignorant to create a new bogeyman now that evoking President Bush no longer works. In the meantime, Obama is truly mismanaging our economy and ought to be fired.
YOU’RE FIRED
By Monica Crowley
politicalmavens.com
July 13, 2011
A thought after watching President Obama’s class warfare extravaganza rehash today:
The president is supposed to be America’s CEO. He is supposed to lead, set the agenda, persuade, and manage. Obama has done none of this. In his two and a half years as CEO, he has pushed everything of note on Congress: writing the “stimulus,” writing ObamaCare, writing Dodd-Frank financial regulation, offering budget proposals and deficit reduction ideas. He’s never led. He has let Congress run wild and do all of the heavy lifting, and then he steps in at the midnight hour to scold everyone over the lack of progress.
Think of his failure to lead this way: Under the Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. So Congress is more like a bank, setting laws and conditions for authorizing credit and money. Sometimes, when a borrower has little or no revenue coming in, he is able to bully the bank with the threat of bankruptcy in which the bank loses much or all of the underlying source of repayment. But in this case, the government is an overleveraged borrower who still has plenty of revenue coming in to support the debt…and the CEO of the business is saying it’s the bank’s problem.
Making congress responsible for what should be the execution of the economy is ridiculous. Congress sets laws and approves money for budgets and rules around that money. It is the president as CEO who is responsible for then “managing.” His own budget, which proposed trillions in new spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97-0. Meanwhile, instead of fixing that situation with a budget Congress would approve, he punted onto them again. That’s like telling a bank “well, if you won’t lend to me then it’s your problem, and I’m going to keep spending all your money until you freak out.”
No CEO could or would do this. And the fact that some of the bankers support him and some don’t is nothing unusual either. Most companies borrow from syndicates and CEOs must do something that gets all (or a significant number) of the syndicate banks to approve. You can cry all you want that there are opposing banks, but it doesn’t get you the loan.
This is no different. Obama is a CEO dealing with his banks and is not doing what a prudent CEO would do. He would be fired elsewhere.
If you run a business and are overleveraged and the bank says “no more,” you go into “fix it” mode and set plans for how to adjust. Obama sends out Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to play the “threat of bankruptcy” card in a situation in which it doesn’t apply.
So not only is he playing games with our country, but he now seems primarily preoccupied with setting up the post-mortem crisis-management PR, in which he will try to switch the blame for all that is wrong with the economy on to the Republicans who wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling.
It is a game to manipulate the unaware younger voters and the ignorant to create a new bogeyman now that evoking President Bush no longer works. In the meantime, Obama is truly mismanaging our economy and ought to be fired.
'CIALIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE'
Like the ad says: CIALIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. And when your manhood is ground up in a garbage disposal, Viagra won’t help either. Married just last December, the honeymoon didn’t last long.
POLICE: WOMAN CUT OF HUSBAND’S PENIS, THREW IT IN DISPOSAL
Catherine Kieu Becker drugged estranged husband before the grisly attack
Associated Press
July 12, 2011
GARDEN GROVE, Calif. — A Southern California woman was in custody Tuesday after authorities said she drugged her estranged husband, tied him to a bed, cut off his penis and put it through a garbage disposal.
Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said that Catherine Kieu Becker drugged a meal and served it to the victim, whose name was not released, shortly before the attack Monday night.
Nightengale said the 51-year-old man felt sick, went to lie down and lost consciousness. The 48-year-old Becker then tied the victim’s arms and legs to the bed with rope, removed his clothes and attacked him with a 10-inch kitchen knife as he awoke, Nightengale said.
“He was conscious when his penis was removed,” Nightengale said.
Nightengale said Becker put the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on.
Nightengale said Becker called 911 and indicated to arriving officers that the victim was in the next room. Paramedics found him tied to the bed, bleeding profusely.
Bail for Becker was set at $1 million after she was booked at the Orange County Jail for investigation of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse.
The victim underwent surgery and was in serious condition at the University of California at Irvine Medical Center in Orange. Nightengale said the man is expected to survive.
Becker was taken into custody without incident, although she would not talk to officers, Nightengale said.
Becker is due in court Wednesday. A telephone listing for her residence could not be located and no one was home in the apartment.
Neighbor Lourdes Painter told The Associated Press the couple had been married since December, did not have any children and seemed very quiet. Becker and her husband lived in a second-story condo in the working class complex. Painter lives in the unit below them.
The couple was reportedly in the process of a divorce.
Nightengale said a database search showed no previous calls to the house for any past problems. He didn’t know what kind of food the couple ate for dinner.
POLICE: WOMAN CUT OF HUSBAND’S PENIS, THREW IT IN DISPOSAL
Catherine Kieu Becker drugged estranged husband before the grisly attack
Associated Press
July 12, 2011
GARDEN GROVE, Calif. — A Southern California woman was in custody Tuesday after authorities said she drugged her estranged husband, tied him to a bed, cut off his penis and put it through a garbage disposal.
Garden Grove police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said that Catherine Kieu Becker drugged a meal and served it to the victim, whose name was not released, shortly before the attack Monday night.
Nightengale said the 51-year-old man felt sick, went to lie down and lost consciousness. The 48-year-old Becker then tied the victim’s arms and legs to the bed with rope, removed his clothes and attacked him with a 10-inch kitchen knife as he awoke, Nightengale said.
“He was conscious when his penis was removed,” Nightengale said.
Nightengale said Becker put the penis in the garbage disposal and turned it on.
Nightengale said Becker called 911 and indicated to arriving officers that the victim was in the next room. Paramedics found him tied to the bed, bleeding profusely.
Bail for Becker was set at $1 million after she was booked at the Orange County Jail for investigation of aggravated mayhem, false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, administering a drug with intent to commit a felony, poisoning and spousal abuse.
The victim underwent surgery and was in serious condition at the University of California at Irvine Medical Center in Orange. Nightengale said the man is expected to survive.
Becker was taken into custody without incident, although she would not talk to officers, Nightengale said.
Becker is due in court Wednesday. A telephone listing for her residence could not be located and no one was home in the apartment.
Neighbor Lourdes Painter told The Associated Press the couple had been married since December, did not have any children and seemed very quiet. Becker and her husband lived in a second-story condo in the working class complex. Painter lives in the unit below them.
The couple was reportedly in the process of a divorce.
Nightengale said a database search showed no previous calls to the house for any past problems. He didn’t know what kind of food the couple ate for dinner.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
PRESIDENT 'WHO NEEDS NUKES?' OBAMA
If Obama’s pacifist plan to eliminate nuclear weapons succeeds, only rogue nations, like Iran and North Korea, will have nuclear arsenals. That’s akin to passing laws prohibiting American citizens from possessing firearms. If that happened, the public would be left defenseless - only the cops and criminals would have guns. As it is though, other nations are not likely to go along with nuclear disarmament.
While the Russians, who are prone to cheat, and the U.S. may be reducing their nuclear arsenals, China is adding to its nuclear weaponry. Who knows what England and France are doing, but I’m sure they are not working to be nuclear free. You can bet that Pakistan is adding to its nuclear capability and, because of that, India is probably doing likewise. North Korea already has some nuclear weapons and is developing a long-range delivery system. And Israel would not exist today without its nuclear deterrent.
The U.S. will become a toothless tiger if President Obama achieves his pacifist goal of ‘no nukes.’
ANOTHER BAD ARMS-CONTROL IDEA
By Peter Brookes
politicalmavens.com
July 12, 2011
So now President “Who Needs Nukes?” Obama wants to re-engage the Senate on the once-rejected 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
It’s unclear why the administration believes a re-heated version of the treaty (which bans explosive nuclear-weapons testing) is any more palatable today than it was when it was first served up to the Senate in 1999.
Deepening skepticism will be the emerging problems with the US-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which the Obama team rammed through during the lame-duck Congress late last year. Senators likely won’t have much appetite for another helping of arms control anytime soon — especially last century’s leftovers.
It’s only been a few months so far, and Team Obama’s claims about New START are proving . . . let’s just say, overly optimistic. The Russkies are already giving us a hard time, insisting the treaty prevents us from developing missile defenses — and promising to break it if we don’t stop.
Also raising eyebrows are recently disclosed disparities in cuts under New START. On missiles and bombers, we have to dismantle some 180, while they can add almost 180; on warheads, Washington must cut 250, but Moscow can add nearly 25.
But as problematic as the bilateral New START is, the global test-ban treaty would arguably be far worse — potentially creating more problems than it would solve.
The treaty would further compromise our atrophied nuclear arsenal (which Obama isn’t sufficiently modernizing) by ending our ability to test our aged stockpile if necessary. (We haven’t tested since 1992.)
While we hope never to use a nuke, we want to make sure it will go “bang” if we do. We want others to believe that, too — especially to deter those who threaten us, and to comfort the folks in the 30 countries that find security under our extended nuclear “umbrella.”
Adversely, if the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is questionable — by friend or foe — it provides incentives for developing (or enhancing) their own nuclear capability, unleashing the spread of these incredibly powerful weapons.
Moreover, while the treaty bans nuclear testing in general, there’s a debate as to what “no testing” in the treaty really means. While the United States takes a literal view of “no,” there are questions as to how others see it, leaving loopholes.
For example, a country could conceivably conduct a “low-yield” test that might go undetected or be misidentified as an earthquake. This makes the treaty fundamentally unverifiable. (Some believe Russia and China are performing low-yield tests.)
Of course, Obama sees himself as the nonproliferation Pied Piper on the mythical road to a nuke-free world: He hopes that if we disarm, others will follow our example.
Someone should advise “Mr. Multilateral” to look around: North Korea isn’t shrinking its stockpile; Iran is perilously close to going nuclear; Pakistan is expanding its arsenal, and China and Russia are modernizing theirs. They’re clearly not moving in Obama’s intended direction.
Before we engage in more arms-controlling like the test-ban treaty, we ought to take notice of that stark, inconvenient fact. In the rough-and-tumble world we live in, it’s critical we have a capable strategic nuclear force to maintain our security and protect our interests. This means having a robust, modern — and testable — nuclear arsenal at our disposal.
While the Russians, who are prone to cheat, and the U.S. may be reducing their nuclear arsenals, China is adding to its nuclear weaponry. Who knows what England and France are doing, but I’m sure they are not working to be nuclear free. You can bet that Pakistan is adding to its nuclear capability and, because of that, India is probably doing likewise. North Korea already has some nuclear weapons and is developing a long-range delivery system. And Israel would not exist today without its nuclear deterrent.
The U.S. will become a toothless tiger if President Obama achieves his pacifist goal of ‘no nukes.’
ANOTHER BAD ARMS-CONTROL IDEA
By Peter Brookes
politicalmavens.com
July 12, 2011
So now President “Who Needs Nukes?” Obama wants to re-engage the Senate on the once-rejected 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
It’s unclear why the administration believes a re-heated version of the treaty (which bans explosive nuclear-weapons testing) is any more palatable today than it was when it was first served up to the Senate in 1999.
Deepening skepticism will be the emerging problems with the US-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which the Obama team rammed through during the lame-duck Congress late last year. Senators likely won’t have much appetite for another helping of arms control anytime soon — especially last century’s leftovers.
It’s only been a few months so far, and Team Obama’s claims about New START are proving . . . let’s just say, overly optimistic. The Russkies are already giving us a hard time, insisting the treaty prevents us from developing missile defenses — and promising to break it if we don’t stop.
Also raising eyebrows are recently disclosed disparities in cuts under New START. On missiles and bombers, we have to dismantle some 180, while they can add almost 180; on warheads, Washington must cut 250, but Moscow can add nearly 25.
But as problematic as the bilateral New START is, the global test-ban treaty would arguably be far worse — potentially creating more problems than it would solve.
The treaty would further compromise our atrophied nuclear arsenal (which Obama isn’t sufficiently modernizing) by ending our ability to test our aged stockpile if necessary. (We haven’t tested since 1992.)
While we hope never to use a nuke, we want to make sure it will go “bang” if we do. We want others to believe that, too — especially to deter those who threaten us, and to comfort the folks in the 30 countries that find security under our extended nuclear “umbrella.”
Adversely, if the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is questionable — by friend or foe — it provides incentives for developing (or enhancing) their own nuclear capability, unleashing the spread of these incredibly powerful weapons.
Moreover, while the treaty bans nuclear testing in general, there’s a debate as to what “no testing” in the treaty really means. While the United States takes a literal view of “no,” there are questions as to how others see it, leaving loopholes.
For example, a country could conceivably conduct a “low-yield” test that might go undetected or be misidentified as an earthquake. This makes the treaty fundamentally unverifiable. (Some believe Russia and China are performing low-yield tests.)
Of course, Obama sees himself as the nonproliferation Pied Piper on the mythical road to a nuke-free world: He hopes that if we disarm, others will follow our example.
Someone should advise “Mr. Multilateral” to look around: North Korea isn’t shrinking its stockpile; Iran is perilously close to going nuclear; Pakistan is expanding its arsenal, and China and Russia are modernizing theirs. They’re clearly not moving in Obama’s intended direction.
Before we engage in more arms-controlling like the test-ban treaty, we ought to take notice of that stark, inconvenient fact. In the rough-and-tumble world we live in, it’s critical we have a capable strategic nuclear force to maintain our security and protect our interests. This means having a robust, modern — and testable — nuclear arsenal at our disposal.
LAPD BLASTS DEATH PENALTY OPPONENTS AND A PROPOSED INITIATIVE ABOLIDHING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Attempts to abolish the death penalty by the opponents of capital punishment are not the only problem. Now the manufacturers and distributors of lethal injection drugs are refusing to make those drugs available to the states for execution purposes, thus nullifying the capital punishment laws in states that have the death penalty. Never mind that those state laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
INITIATIVE TO ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY IS A RED HERRING
By Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors
LAPPL Blog
July 11, 2011
In a predictable but no less galling move, death penalty opponents are seizing on the current state fiscal crisis as the latest reason to end the death penalty in California. Having failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the death penalty is unconstitutional, failed to convince voters it is immoral, failed to stop executions with attacks on lethal injections, opponents are now trying a different track. State Senator Loni Hancock has introduced a bill advancing the latest argument by opponents who steadfastly cling to only one principle – preventing execution by any means necessary.
Citing the death penalty’s financial cost to try to stop it is, frankly, an offensive argument. It is precisely penalty opponents in the Legislature and on the federal bench who have caused the cost to climb because of their deliberate – and to be blunt – dishonest efforts to thwart executions.
On average, five years pass before appellate counsel is appointed to death row inmates, and at least another five years pass before their first appeal is heard. These delays happen because death penalty opponents in the Legislature refuse to authorize market-rate pay for the attorneys, thereby creating a shortage of appellate lawyers for these cases. The Legislature also refuses to consider having California Appellate Courts hear the appeals, ensuring a lengthy wait before the backlogged California Supreme Court hears the appeal.
There is also the duplicity of the penalty’s fervent opponents who populate the federal bench in California and on the 9th Circuit. Five years have passed since Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel halted executions. Fogel issued a stay for Michael Morales because he objected to the qualifications of the staff administering injections. His indefinite hold on executions remains while he continues to mull whether the newly constructed execution chamber and new injection procedures meet his approval. Perhaps Senator Hancock could let us know the costs that have accrued while Judge Fogel takes his time to make a decision.
Finally, we have the 9th Circuit, a collection of judges who’ve repeatedly attempted to thwart executions in California. Who can forget the farce that was the execution of Robert Alton Harris, the first inmate executed since resumption of the death penalty? Four separate Justices of the 9th Circuit issued last-minute stays, each sequentially overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was then forced to issue an unprecedented order that the 9th Circuit have no further involvement in the case. Perhaps Senator Hancock could tally the costs associated with that case, too.
More recent evidence of the depths to which the 9th Circuit will sink to block executions can be found in the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wong v. Belmontes. The U.S. Supreme Court, for a third time, overturned a 9th Circuit reversal of the death penalty for Belmontes. The unanimous Supreme Court pointedly called out the 9th Circuit for its latest decision, which the Supreme Court wrote, had suddenly “changed its view of the evidence.” Perhaps Senator Hancock can let us know the cost of the bogus appeals in the Belmontes case as well.
We refuse to stand by silently when, as outlined above, death penalty opponents deliberately drive up the cost of implementing the death penalty, and then cite cost as a reason to stop executions. There is no doubt that cost and delay would no longer be an issue if we could substitute the Justices of the 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) for the 9th Circuit and have a legislature that would adequately fund the appeals process.
INITIATIVE TO ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY IS A RED HERRING
By Los Angeles Police Protective League Board of Directors
LAPPL Blog
July 11, 2011
In a predictable but no less galling move, death penalty opponents are seizing on the current state fiscal crisis as the latest reason to end the death penalty in California. Having failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the death penalty is unconstitutional, failed to convince voters it is immoral, failed to stop executions with attacks on lethal injections, opponents are now trying a different track. State Senator Loni Hancock has introduced a bill advancing the latest argument by opponents who steadfastly cling to only one principle – preventing execution by any means necessary.
Citing the death penalty’s financial cost to try to stop it is, frankly, an offensive argument. It is precisely penalty opponents in the Legislature and on the federal bench who have caused the cost to climb because of their deliberate – and to be blunt – dishonest efforts to thwart executions.
On average, five years pass before appellate counsel is appointed to death row inmates, and at least another five years pass before their first appeal is heard. These delays happen because death penalty opponents in the Legislature refuse to authorize market-rate pay for the attorneys, thereby creating a shortage of appellate lawyers for these cases. The Legislature also refuses to consider having California Appellate Courts hear the appeals, ensuring a lengthy wait before the backlogged California Supreme Court hears the appeal.
There is also the duplicity of the penalty’s fervent opponents who populate the federal bench in California and on the 9th Circuit. Five years have passed since Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel halted executions. Fogel issued a stay for Michael Morales because he objected to the qualifications of the staff administering injections. His indefinite hold on executions remains while he continues to mull whether the newly constructed execution chamber and new injection procedures meet his approval. Perhaps Senator Hancock could let us know the costs that have accrued while Judge Fogel takes his time to make a decision.
Finally, we have the 9th Circuit, a collection of judges who’ve repeatedly attempted to thwart executions in California. Who can forget the farce that was the execution of Robert Alton Harris, the first inmate executed since resumption of the death penalty? Four separate Justices of the 9th Circuit issued last-minute stays, each sequentially overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was then forced to issue an unprecedented order that the 9th Circuit have no further involvement in the case. Perhaps Senator Hancock could tally the costs associated with that case, too.
More recent evidence of the depths to which the 9th Circuit will sink to block executions can be found in the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wong v. Belmontes. The U.S. Supreme Court, for a third time, overturned a 9th Circuit reversal of the death penalty for Belmontes. The unanimous Supreme Court pointedly called out the 9th Circuit for its latest decision, which the Supreme Court wrote, had suddenly “changed its view of the evidence.” Perhaps Senator Hancock can let us know the cost of the bogus appeals in the Belmontes case as well.
We refuse to stand by silently when, as outlined above, death penalty opponents deliberately drive up the cost of implementing the death penalty, and then cite cost as a reason to stop executions. There is no doubt that cost and delay would no longer be an issue if we could substitute the Justices of the 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) for the 9th Circuit and have a legislature that would adequately fund the appeals process.
DEAR ABBEY
Dear Abbey – Every time I’m in the Friendly Tavern, I have one problem or another with an undesirable bar patron who wears a T-shirt with a Champion Boxing Club logo. What should I do?
When you see a person wearing these t-shirts you should simply buy them a beer. - Abbey
“NEO-NAZI” PICKS ON WRONG BLACK MAN
One man's crusade to keep Idaho saloons minority-free proves one's rights stop at the end of one's nose.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 12, 2011
It's never acceptable to judge a man by the color of his skin -- but sometimes it's wise to judge a man by the logo on his t-shirt.
Idaho police say a neo-Nazi picked a fight with an African American man and got knocked out with a single punch. Not surprising, considering the man who threw the punch was wearing a shirt from a Spokane, Wa. boxing club.
Daren Abbey, 28, threatened to stab 46-year-old Marlon Baker in a Bayview, Idaho bar on July 3 and told him "blacks are not welcome here," Kootenai County Sheriff's Office sources told NWCN.
Baker and his friend left the bar, with Abbey allegedly following behind shouting racial slurs. Then Abbey made "a motion like he was going to do something," Baker told KREM.
Baker threw a single punch, knocking Abbey to the ground, investigators said.
"[It was] just a straight right hand, that's all it was," said Baker. "It's really good that he stepped into it."
Abbey was treated for a possible broken nose. He is being held on $75,000 bond on charges of battery and malicious harassment.
When you see a person wearing these t-shirts you should simply buy them a beer. - Abbey
“NEO-NAZI” PICKS ON WRONG BLACK MAN
One man's crusade to keep Idaho saloons minority-free proves one's rights stop at the end of one's nose.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
July 12, 2011
It's never acceptable to judge a man by the color of his skin -- but sometimes it's wise to judge a man by the logo on his t-shirt.
Idaho police say a neo-Nazi picked a fight with an African American man and got knocked out with a single punch. Not surprising, considering the man who threw the punch was wearing a shirt from a Spokane, Wa. boxing club.
Daren Abbey, 28, threatened to stab 46-year-old Marlon Baker in a Bayview, Idaho bar on July 3 and told him "blacks are not welcome here," Kootenai County Sheriff's Office sources told NWCN.
Baker and his friend left the bar, with Abbey allegedly following behind shouting racial slurs. Then Abbey made "a motion like he was going to do something," Baker told KREM.
Baker threw a single punch, knocking Abbey to the ground, investigators said.
"[It was] just a straight right hand, that's all it was," said Baker. "It's really good that he stepped into it."
Abbey was treated for a possible broken nose. He is being held on $75,000 bond on charges of battery and malicious harassment.
ROBBER BOTH PUNISHED AND REWARDED AT THE SAME TIME
The Viagra diet must have worked because Victor’s intended victim gave him 1,000 rubles and let him go free.
ROBBER WHO BROKE INTO HAIR SALON IS BEATEN BY ITS BLACK-BELT OWNER AND KEPT AS A SEX SLAVE FOR THREE DAYS… FED ONLY VIAGRA
Mail Online
July 12, 2011
A Russian man who tried to rob a hair salon ended up as the victim when the female shop owner overpowered him, tied him up naked and then used him as a sex slave for three days.
Viktor Jasinski, 32, admitted to police that he had gone to the salon in Meshchovsk, Russia, with the intention of robbing it.
But the tables were turned dramatically when he found himself overcome by owner Olga Zajac, 28, who happened to be a black belt in karate.
She allegedly floored the would-be robber with a single kick.
Then, in a scene reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, police say Zajac dragged the semi-conscious Jasinski to a back room of the salon and tied him up with a hair dryer cable.
She allegedly stripped him naked and, for the next three days, used him as a sex slave to 'teach him a lesson' - force feeding him Viagra to keep the lesson going.
The would-be robber was eventually released, with Zajak saying he had learned his lesson.
Jasinski went straight to the police and told them of his back-room ordeal, saying that he had been held hostage, handcuffed naked to a radiator, and fed nothing but Viagra.
Both have now been arrested.
When police arrived to question Zahjac, she said: 'What a bastard. Yes, we had sex a couple of times. But I bought him new jeans, gave him food and even gave him 1,000 roubles when he left."
ROBBER WHO BROKE INTO HAIR SALON IS BEATEN BY ITS BLACK-BELT OWNER AND KEPT AS A SEX SLAVE FOR THREE DAYS… FED ONLY VIAGRA
Mail Online
July 12, 2011
A Russian man who tried to rob a hair salon ended up as the victim when the female shop owner overpowered him, tied him up naked and then used him as a sex slave for three days.
Viktor Jasinski, 32, admitted to police that he had gone to the salon in Meshchovsk, Russia, with the intention of robbing it.
But the tables were turned dramatically when he found himself overcome by owner Olga Zajac, 28, who happened to be a black belt in karate.
She allegedly floored the would-be robber with a single kick.
Then, in a scene reminiscent of Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, police say Zajac dragged the semi-conscious Jasinski to a back room of the salon and tied him up with a hair dryer cable.
She allegedly stripped him naked and, for the next three days, used him as a sex slave to 'teach him a lesson' - force feeding him Viagra to keep the lesson going.
The would-be robber was eventually released, with Zajak saying he had learned his lesson.
Jasinski went straight to the police and told them of his back-room ordeal, saying that he had been held hostage, handcuffed naked to a radiator, and fed nothing but Viagra.
Both have now been arrested.
When police arrived to question Zahjac, she said: 'What a bastard. Yes, we had sex a couple of times. But I bought him new jeans, gave him food and even gave him 1,000 roubles when he left."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)