Reading the news this morning I came across an article on several news sites about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If you don't know who this is by now I think you should get your head out of the sand (or your butt) and pay attention more.
Rev Wright is Barack Obama's former pastor. In a sermon (or speech...your choice) on Sunday in Detroit that the black church is mis-understood. That black churches just "do it differently".
He also stated that his words have been taken out of context to embarrass him and Obama.
No all of that may be true. I blogged when all this news first broke that this was not the man running for president and what he said during his sermons delivered to his congregation during a worship service should not matter when it comes to Obama. Many news outlets disagree with this view, and like me, they are entitled to their opinions.
That being said there is one basic flaw in Rev Wrights words from Sunday.
Let's change the scenario just a bit and make this a white minister in a white church and this minister was making statements against America and speaking. This pastor also makes statements against blacks. Would Rev Wright and others in the black community want this man removed from the pulpit like NOW.
If this pastor was also the pastor to a white presidential candidate would not Rev Wright, Rev Jackson and Rev Sharpton want this candidate to answer questions concerning his pastor?
Now I am sorry if this offends anyone but black or white you can bet that your answer to the above question is a resounding YES.
That is where the rub is with me. I am getting tired of certain people in this country wanting this issue both ways. Leave Rev Wright alone but jump on the band wagon if it happens to be a white minister.
Now that is not to say that there are not a few white ministers in this country that do engage in hateful speech when it comes to certain minorities in this country. However, the expectation is that the white community should throw this minister under the bus even if we do believe in what he (or she) is saying from the pulpit on Sunday morning.
Consider this Rev Wright...you say that we don't understand black churches. That may be true. In fact it probably is true. But when you expect change in white America and do not affect changes in black America in kind, I believe that to be discrimination sir. Not reverse discrimination...just plain old discrimination. Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what you are fighting against? Discrimination!!!
It matters not whether is it discrimination of whites to blacks or blacks to whites. IT IS DISCRIMINATION...period.
I am white and I found the comments that Imus made about the Rutgers Woman's basketball team offensive. I am the host for a show on NowLive.com (www.nowlive.com) and I co-host several others. If someone comes into one of those shows and drops the word "nigger" you can bet that the person will make a quick exit after being warned that the word in question is not used on our shows. This is the way it should be in my mind. Disc jockeys and others in the public eye have had plenty of time to take that word (and others) out of their on air language.
But as much as I have heard about people like Rev Sharpton speaking out about the use of words like "ho" by rap artists I have yet to hear any of these so called "ministers" ask that a recording by any of these artists be pulled from the shelves or that a recording label should cancel their contract.
As much as white America has had time to delete some of their language the black community has had the same opportunity to do the same.
Until I hear Rev Wright, Rev Jackson or Rev Sharpton start taking their own people to task for use of certain words and fighting ALL discrimination, I am sorry but I just cannot take them seriously.
Discrimination...you are either against it in ALL cases or you are just promoting it.
That is my opinion...what is yours?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Uniforms
Foxnews has a story that is being reported out of Osceola County, Florida that a member of the county school board has told parents to stop spending money on their vices and spend the money on the school uniforms for their kids instead.
Needless to say this has kind of pissed off some of the parents that live in that county in Florida.
Now on one hand I agree with the parents. We are currently living in some very tough economic times. Maybe this county school board member is out of touch with current reality. The economic hardship just to drive to where said parents would have to buy the clothes could be excessive. But beyond that we have a member of the local government telling people how to spend their money. Hey smart ass!!! I have a suggestion for ya. Why don't you buy the clothes for the kids out of your pocket? You obviously are well paid for what little you do.
But there is another side to this story. This public school system requires kids to wear uniforms to school. Now why would that be? Could it be because parents could not or would not take responsibility for their kids attire?
Just like the United States Congress gave up their Constitutional power to declare war to President Bush, so too have parents given up their responsibilities concerning their kids to the government. And just like Congress now they want to cry and complain about decisions that are being made.
If parents would have taken an active role in making sure that the clothes that the kids wore to school were proper, the idea of uniforms would have never come up. Instead you have parents that send their children to school inappropriately dressed and then the school system takes over.
There is also the fact that some are better off than others and can afford nicer things. Thus we have the start of class envy and that leads to kids beating the hell out of one another over a pair of jeans or shoes.
There is always someone that is going to be better off than you are. Its just a fact and its a fact that we don't seem to keen on accepting. Some people feel that if the Jones' can buy the $200 pair of sneakers than their kid deserves them to. That, I hate to say, is just plain BS. It is just a fact of how life is and has been for decades. I had to put up with it. My kids had to put up with it and my grand kids are going to have to put up with it. Nothing the government does is going to change that so you might as well learn how to deal with it. In doing so you teach your kids how to do the same.
No, instead we want to keep this kind of stuff going. When I lived in New Jersey they actually have formal graduations from kindergarden and 5th grade. The 5th grade graduation actually came with a certificate. You should have seen some of the clothes that parents bought to dress their kids in. This was especially true for the little girls. We are talking expensive gowns. For what? Kindergarden? 5th grade? I have never heard anyone ask to see a 5th grade graduation certificate when applying for employment.
Then there are the extravagant trips that parents pay for when their kids graduate from High School. Then I think about what happened to that Halloway girl in Aruba and wonder if as parents we have lost our minds.
Come on parents...don't want to pay for uniforms...then show the county that you can control the kids attire and maybe then you can shop where I did...the Goodwill Store.
That is my opinion...what is yours?
Needless to say this has kind of pissed off some of the parents that live in that county in Florida.
Now on one hand I agree with the parents. We are currently living in some very tough economic times. Maybe this county school board member is out of touch with current reality. The economic hardship just to drive to where said parents would have to buy the clothes could be excessive. But beyond that we have a member of the local government telling people how to spend their money. Hey smart ass!!! I have a suggestion for ya. Why don't you buy the clothes for the kids out of your pocket? You obviously are well paid for what little you do.
But there is another side to this story. This public school system requires kids to wear uniforms to school. Now why would that be? Could it be because parents could not or would not take responsibility for their kids attire?
Just like the United States Congress gave up their Constitutional power to declare war to President Bush, so too have parents given up their responsibilities concerning their kids to the government. And just like Congress now they want to cry and complain about decisions that are being made.
If parents would have taken an active role in making sure that the clothes that the kids wore to school were proper, the idea of uniforms would have never come up. Instead you have parents that send their children to school inappropriately dressed and then the school system takes over.
There is also the fact that some are better off than others and can afford nicer things. Thus we have the start of class envy and that leads to kids beating the hell out of one another over a pair of jeans or shoes.
There is always someone that is going to be better off than you are. Its just a fact and its a fact that we don't seem to keen on accepting. Some people feel that if the Jones' can buy the $200 pair of sneakers than their kid deserves them to. That, I hate to say, is just plain BS. It is just a fact of how life is and has been for decades. I had to put up with it. My kids had to put up with it and my grand kids are going to have to put up with it. Nothing the government does is going to change that so you might as well learn how to deal with it. In doing so you teach your kids how to do the same.
No, instead we want to keep this kind of stuff going. When I lived in New Jersey they actually have formal graduations from kindergarden and 5th grade. The 5th grade graduation actually came with a certificate. You should have seen some of the clothes that parents bought to dress their kids in. This was especially true for the little girls. We are talking expensive gowns. For what? Kindergarden? 5th grade? I have never heard anyone ask to see a 5th grade graduation certificate when applying for employment.
Then there are the extravagant trips that parents pay for when their kids graduate from High School. Then I think about what happened to that Halloway girl in Aruba and wonder if as parents we have lost our minds.
Come on parents...don't want to pay for uniforms...then show the county that you can control the kids attire and maybe then you can shop where I did...the Goodwill Store.
That is my opinion...what is yours?
Friends
In the Dog House with Baddog (www.nowlive.com/baddog) we got into a discussion in the last half-hour about the friends on NowLive (www.nowlive.com).
Most of the Dog House Crew are coming up on their one year anniversary on NowLive. The main characters on the Dog House all started their shows within about a week of each other. There is Baddog, Meroll and C-roll (www.nowlive.com/brotherlylove) myself and my wife smokinbeaver.
This group started together and have grown together. I'm just not sure that we have grown up together. Being with this group is like be with a group of very immature adolescents. But it is fun!!!
I got a comment yesterday from a recently added member of NowLive asking me why I haven't accepted the friendship request. I commented back the reason was that I didn't know them. I guess I struck a nerve and the individual got pissed at me.
You see I am not like most folks on NowLive. I don't just click accept for anyone who requests it. If I haven't met you in a show, then the chances are I am not going to accept. I usually leave them in my profile for a while to see if I notice the person actively taking part in a show that I am in. The other way to be approved is if I see certain other people on their friends list.
Friends in my mind are a gift from God and are to be cherished. I have been blessed with a great bunch of friends on NowLive. Most of them have actually become more than friends...they are family to me. So much so that two of them, Baddog and SexyShelly, are about to become real family. My son is marrying their daughter. Sounds like some real Jerry Springer shit don't it!!! Well we are rednecks after all!!!! Just wait, real soon you may see us all on an episode of Maury trying to figure out who the daddy is.
If you want to learn more about us and maybe find a way to become a member of this less than exclusive family, why not come to NowLive make a profile (its free...really) and join us. Then look for the fine programming that makes up the Redneck Radio Network:
Most of the Dog House Crew are coming up on their one year anniversary on NowLive. The main characters on the Dog House all started their shows within about a week of each other. There is Baddog, Meroll and C-roll (www.nowlive.com/brotherlylove) myself and my wife smokinbeaver.
This group started together and have grown together. I'm just not sure that we have grown up together. Being with this group is like be with a group of very immature adolescents. But it is fun!!!
I got a comment yesterday from a recently added member of NowLive asking me why I haven't accepted the friendship request. I commented back the reason was that I didn't know them. I guess I struck a nerve and the individual got pissed at me.
You see I am not like most folks on NowLive. I don't just click accept for anyone who requests it. If I haven't met you in a show, then the chances are I am not going to accept. I usually leave them in my profile for a while to see if I notice the person actively taking part in a show that I am in. The other way to be approved is if I see certain other people on their friends list.
Friends in my mind are a gift from God and are to be cherished. I have been blessed with a great bunch of friends on NowLive. Most of them have actually become more than friends...they are family to me. So much so that two of them, Baddog and SexyShelly, are about to become real family. My son is marrying their daughter. Sounds like some real Jerry Springer shit don't it!!! Well we are rednecks after all!!!! Just wait, real soon you may see us all on an episode of Maury trying to figure out who the daddy is.
If you want to learn more about us and maybe find a way to become a member of this less than exclusive family, why not come to NowLive make a profile (its free...really) and join us. Then look for the fine programming that makes up the Redneck Radio Network:
- Wakeup Call with Broken and Smokin - Saturdays at 9 AM ET/6 AM PT
- Dog House with Baddog - Monday through Friday at 7 PM ET/4 PM PT
- Brotherly Love - Look for schedule. They are currently taking a break
Friends are where its at folks. That is how I feel. What about you?
Friday, April 25, 2008
A politician makes stuff up? Are you Kidding?
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, released an Earth Day press release which contained a bible reference from the old testament. Below is the quoted text from her press release.
"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' "
Now bible scholars are saying that this quote does not only not appear in the old testament...it doesn't appear any where in the bible.
Now I am not a bible scholar in any way shape or form. I do however have a computer version of the bible that contains 12 different versions and I did a search to try and find any hint that this text was taken from the bible. I too cam up with nothing even remotely similar to the text Ms Pelosi quoted.
According to the bible scholars that are calling her on this little mistake, they cannot even find anything even remotely like that text.
Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theologial Seminary, calls it "fictional," saying, "It is not in the Bible. There is nothing that even approximates that.
So here we have a politician making things up to fit the need. Gee that never happens...does it?
Politicians do this all the time. The big problem here is that with the internet and its vast research capabilities it has become much harder for a politician to get this kind of trick past even the average US citizen. In fact I think it bears stating that whenever you hear a politician quote anything, especially the bible, it might be worth time to do your own internet search and see what you come up with.
A politician is a creature that says whatever they think the audience listening wants to hear. The politician does not want to lose their power. This means they do not want to lose the office they hold unless it is to move up the food chain.
It is time for all of us as responsible Amercians to start watching ALL politicians from whatever party and see if they are being truthful. If these scum will fabricate quotes they will sure as hell lie to all of us.
Remember that politicians want their power and that is power over you and me and the rest of us. Power to raise taxes...lower taxes...spend OUR money and pass ridiculous legislation that may not even give a damn about.
Its time for America to start watching politicians instead of blindly following them.
That is what I think. What do you think?
"The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, 'To minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.' "
Now bible scholars are saying that this quote does not only not appear in the old testament...it doesn't appear any where in the bible.
Now I am not a bible scholar in any way shape or form. I do however have a computer version of the bible that contains 12 different versions and I did a search to try and find any hint that this text was taken from the bible. I too cam up with nothing even remotely similar to the text Ms Pelosi quoted.
According to the bible scholars that are calling her on this little mistake, they cannot even find anything even remotely like that text.
Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theologial Seminary, calls it "fictional," saying, "It is not in the Bible. There is nothing that even approximates that.
So here we have a politician making things up to fit the need. Gee that never happens...does it?
Politicians do this all the time. The big problem here is that with the internet and its vast research capabilities it has become much harder for a politician to get this kind of trick past even the average US citizen. In fact I think it bears stating that whenever you hear a politician quote anything, especially the bible, it might be worth time to do your own internet search and see what you come up with.
A politician is a creature that says whatever they think the audience listening wants to hear. The politician does not want to lose their power. This means they do not want to lose the office they hold unless it is to move up the food chain.
It is time for all of us as responsible Amercians to start watching ALL politicians from whatever party and see if they are being truthful. If these scum will fabricate quotes they will sure as hell lie to all of us.
Remember that politicians want their power and that is power over you and me and the rest of us. Power to raise taxes...lower taxes...spend OUR money and pass ridiculous legislation that may not even give a damn about.
Its time for America to start watching politicians instead of blindly following them.
That is what I think. What do you think?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
More Government BS
As if I wasn't totally pissed off yesterday at FORMER president Carter and his apparent senility, now we have a government agency showing its collective asses to the masses.
Here now I present to you the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
There is a little micro brewery located in a little town called Weed, California. The company using a play on the town's name had a little saying on their bottle caps that has drawn the attention of the agency mentioned above. What is the saying you ask? Well it says; "Try Legal Weed." The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau said that the slogan amounts to a drug reference.
No I do not use weed in any shape or fashion. My wife has been known to use dandelion weeds as a vegetable for diner but that is the limit of our weed fascination. I work in an industry where the use of grass is illegal and getting caught on a drug test would mean an immediate dismissal. So I refrain from use of said product due to that and other personal reasons. But I am not going to ask anyone I know to refrain from its use. I just keep my distance from them to make sure I don't end up with a false positive.
But this ruling by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is pure bullshit.
We have people writing books and websites that exploit women and children. They tell of how to go about luring some kid into a sexual relationship. There are others that tell you how to make and use explosives to kill people. There are books and websites that tell you how to plan a murder and will even assist a person in locating a professional. All of those items are illegal activities and cause a hell of a lot more harm to the public in general than a bottle cap on a beer that says something about legal weed.
The other references above have all been protected by infringing on someones first amendment rights. Never mind that fact that websites tell adult males how to have sexual contact with young boys and scare these kids for life. That is free speech. But any reference to weed will obviously damn our kids to a life of hell and hardship.
May I also mention that this cap was on the bottle of a product that is not for sale to minors. Any minor can search on and get access to websites and books of the other subjects referenced above with no limits or legal issues involved.
Now if you want my opinion (and you probably don't) let me lay it out for you.
I believe in free speech. I believe it is sacred to a point. But whenever a book, website, media, magazine, newspaper, artist, etc gives instructions for breaking the law, they you can kiss your free speech rights good fucking bye. Now this means that this bottle cap might be considered against the law under my loose definition above but if the standard is equally applied to all of these situations then so be it.
But the federal government has better things to worry about than getting up the ass of some little micro brewery for a freakin bottle cap that says Try Legal Weed.
That is my opinion..what is yours?
Here now I present to you the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
There is a little micro brewery located in a little town called Weed, California. The company using a play on the town's name had a little saying on their bottle caps that has drawn the attention of the agency mentioned above. What is the saying you ask? Well it says; "Try Legal Weed." The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau said that the slogan amounts to a drug reference.
No I do not use weed in any shape or fashion. My wife has been known to use dandelion weeds as a vegetable for diner but that is the limit of our weed fascination. I work in an industry where the use of grass is illegal and getting caught on a drug test would mean an immediate dismissal. So I refrain from use of said product due to that and other personal reasons. But I am not going to ask anyone I know to refrain from its use. I just keep my distance from them to make sure I don't end up with a false positive.
But this ruling by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is pure bullshit.
We have people writing books and websites that exploit women and children. They tell of how to go about luring some kid into a sexual relationship. There are others that tell you how to make and use explosives to kill people. There are books and websites that tell you how to plan a murder and will even assist a person in locating a professional. All of those items are illegal activities and cause a hell of a lot more harm to the public in general than a bottle cap on a beer that says something about legal weed.
The other references above have all been protected by infringing on someones first amendment rights. Never mind that fact that websites tell adult males how to have sexual contact with young boys and scare these kids for life. That is free speech. But any reference to weed will obviously damn our kids to a life of hell and hardship.
May I also mention that this cap was on the bottle of a product that is not for sale to minors. Any minor can search on and get access to websites and books of the other subjects referenced above with no limits or legal issues involved.
Now if you want my opinion (and you probably don't) let me lay it out for you.
I believe in free speech. I believe it is sacred to a point. But whenever a book, website, media, magazine, newspaper, artist, etc gives instructions for breaking the law, they you can kiss your free speech rights good fucking bye. Now this means that this bottle cap might be considered against the law under my loose definition above but if the standard is equally applied to all of these situations then so be it.
But the federal government has better things to worry about than getting up the ass of some little micro brewery for a freakin bottle cap that says Try Legal Weed.
That is my opinion..what is yours?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hey Jimmie...stay the hell home
What ever happened to the days when ex-presidents went home to build their library and collect those enormously large speaker fees?
Oh how I long for those days.
Now I want to warn all readers of this blog that my language might be a little more...ummm...harsh than normal. Well I am just sick to EX-president Jimmy Carter and all his bullshit. Mr. Carter it is time for you to get you punk ass back to fucking Georgia and fuckin stay there.
Do you think that is clear enough or do I need to make it a little stronger?
I am a person who typically says that we are to respect our current and former presidents. You may not like them...but they ARE to be respected. You may not like George W Bush...but he IS the president and should be afforded respect.
I am having a very difficult time affording any respect to FORMER president Carter who seems to think that his ass is sitting in the chair in the oval office making decisions and getting sexual favors from interns.
You know what FORMER president Carter, I don't give a rats ass who said what to you about you little trip to see the leader of Hamas. You hear me...I don't fuckin care!!!! I don't care if the US put a big sign on the World Trade Centers with a bulls eye that says "Fly Plane Here"!!!! The simple fact of the matter is that these are kin to the people that setup that little stunt and are currently involved with the shooting of RPG's and rockets into Israel. The current administration has stated time and time again that we will not deal with Hamas. Is there some part of that simple statement that your peanut brain cannot figure out. Being a private citizen does not give you, in my opinion, the right to go off and act like an ass. To go and do things that you know are against the current policy of this administration and then play it off to the old "well nobody told me".
As much as you run your mouth sir I would think you actually read the fucking newspapers and/or listen to the news. Now I'm not sure that you don't qualify for the new No Child Left Behind series called Dr. Seuss Gives You the News.
You know FORMER president Carter, you had your 4 years in the sun. Why not do what all ex-presidents have done before you. Go back home...build your library...collect speakers fees and go quietly into the sunset.
I mean damn Jimmy, get some fuckin class will ya!!! Go build the homes for humanity like you were doing. That is a noble cause for a FORMER president.
But for God's sake please just shut the fuck up!!!!
Oh how I long for those days.
Now I want to warn all readers of this blog that my language might be a little more...ummm...harsh than normal. Well I am just sick to EX-president Jimmy Carter and all his bullshit. Mr. Carter it is time for you to get you punk ass back to fucking Georgia and fuckin stay there.
Do you think that is clear enough or do I need to make it a little stronger?
I am a person who typically says that we are to respect our current and former presidents. You may not like them...but they ARE to be respected. You may not like George W Bush...but he IS the president and should be afforded respect.
I am having a very difficult time affording any respect to FORMER president Carter who seems to think that his ass is sitting in the chair in the oval office making decisions and getting sexual favors from interns.
You know what FORMER president Carter, I don't give a rats ass who said what to you about you little trip to see the leader of Hamas. You hear me...I don't fuckin care!!!! I don't care if the US put a big sign on the World Trade Centers with a bulls eye that says "Fly Plane Here"!!!! The simple fact of the matter is that these are kin to the people that setup that little stunt and are currently involved with the shooting of RPG's and rockets into Israel. The current administration has stated time and time again that we will not deal with Hamas. Is there some part of that simple statement that your peanut brain cannot figure out. Being a private citizen does not give you, in my opinion, the right to go off and act like an ass. To go and do things that you know are against the current policy of this administration and then play it off to the old "well nobody told me".
As much as you run your mouth sir I would think you actually read the fucking newspapers and/or listen to the news. Now I'm not sure that you don't qualify for the new No Child Left Behind series called Dr. Seuss Gives You the News.
You know FORMER president Carter, you had your 4 years in the sun. Why not do what all ex-presidents have done before you. Go back home...build your library...collect speakers fees and go quietly into the sunset.
I mean damn Jimmy, get some fuckin class will ya!!! Go build the homes for humanity like you were doing. That is a noble cause for a FORMER president.
But for God's sake please just shut the fuck up!!!!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Poor Mr Clinton
Sorry I haven't blogged recently. We are going through an inspection at work and the last 10 days have been really busy.
But, what I want to talk about is former President Bill Clinton and the "open mic" incident that happened in Philly on Monday.
Well ain't this just a little twist of fate. You have to love it when someone gets caught on an open microphone running their flapper. And I don't particularly care whether you are a democrat, republican or independent. I don't care whether you like President Clinton (the former) or hate his guts. I just love it when a politician of any kind who will always take an opponents comments out of context and use them against them gets caught in the same web.
Now I will say, for the record, that I am not a fan or former President Clinton or his wife. Of course I am also not much of a George W Bush fan either. I will also state that I believe that the comments Mr. Clinton made about South Carolina were not meant to either demean Mr. Obama or his race, color or creed. They were taken out of context.
However, after watching the Clinton's use this very same tactic and then get caught with the same trick and wanting to complain about, I am not going to say that I don't find a bit of satisfaction in it.
So how does it feel Bill? Everyone was aghast at some of the open mic comments that President Bush has made when he thought he was speaking without his words being collected for general consumption..
I guess the difference with me is that I can take the comments made by President Clinton as being an oooops. A mistake. Nothing more and nothing less. But I guess the same can't be said for most of the population.
So get over it folks. Get back to the issues and leave this menial bullshit where it belongs. Of the front page and off the news...completely!!!
That is how I feel. How about you?
But, what I want to talk about is former President Bill Clinton and the "open mic" incident that happened in Philly on Monday.
Well ain't this just a little twist of fate. You have to love it when someone gets caught on an open microphone running their flapper. And I don't particularly care whether you are a democrat, republican or independent. I don't care whether you like President Clinton (the former) or hate his guts. I just love it when a politician of any kind who will always take an opponents comments out of context and use them against them gets caught in the same web.
Now I will say, for the record, that I am not a fan or former President Clinton or his wife. Of course I am also not much of a George W Bush fan either. I will also state that I believe that the comments Mr. Clinton made about South Carolina were not meant to either demean Mr. Obama or his race, color or creed. They were taken out of context.
However, after watching the Clinton's use this very same tactic and then get caught with the same trick and wanting to complain about, I am not going to say that I don't find a bit of satisfaction in it.
So how does it feel Bill? Everyone was aghast at some of the open mic comments that President Bush has made when he thought he was speaking without his words being collected for general consumption..
I guess the difference with me is that I can take the comments made by President Clinton as being an oooops. A mistake. Nothing more and nothing less. But I guess the same can't be said for most of the population.
So get over it folks. Get back to the issues and leave this menial bullshit where it belongs. Of the front page and off the news...completely!!!
That is how I feel. How about you?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Take responsibility!!
One of the biggest problems in the US these days are people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. Dr. Phil McGraw has been on TV with his talk show trying to get people to do exactly that.
Now it seems that Dr. Phil, or at least the staff of his show, refuse to practice what they preach.
We have all heard the story out of Polk County Florida where those 8 teenagers abducted and severely beat a 16 year old girl. The 6 girls and 2 boys were arrested and will be taken to court as adults for their actions. All 8 were given bail between $30,000 and $38,000.
Enter staffers from the Dr. Phil show hoping to get the leg up and get this on the show paid the bail for one of the young ladies. The bail was $33,000 which means that Dr. Phil and his show had to put up 10%, or $3,300 to get the girl released.
Rather than taking responsibility for this major screw up, a representative for Dr. Phil's syndicated show stated that staffers "went beyond" the shows guidelines in posting the bail.
Oh please!!! I find it very hard to believe that a staffer for the show had the authority, on their own, to put up the $3,300 plus whatever collateral was required for the remainder of the bail on their own. A staffer would not have the authority to put up $33,000 of company assets without the consent of the shows main producers.
While Dr. Phil bills his show as an above board show where people are shown the true nature of their screw-ups and take responsibility, the show over the past several months has been shown to be anything but that.
First was Dr. Phil going to see a certain famous female with the hopes of making a show out of her case (I don't even want to mention her name here). Then he proceeds to go on the air and run his flapper about it. The man is a doctor (or so it says in the show title) for heavens sake. What ever happened to patient-doctor privilege? Guess there ain't any when it comes to Dr. Phil.
Now we have this little episode where they try to secure a segment on the show by putting up bail for this girl and we are to believe that the producers knew nothing about it. Now Dr. Phil himself might not have anything to do with this. But some how I doubt it. I can just see good ole Phil going to some staff flunkie telling him (or her) to get their butt to Florida and secure a deal with at least one of these kids to appear. Yep...I think Dr. Phil is up to his folically challenged head in this mess.
Of course all of this has nothing to do with helping any of these kids that are in deep shit at the moment. It is all about TV ratings and ad revenue.
Personally, I think it's high time for Dr. Phil to leave the air and take up his new position as a client for the Hair Club for men. Hell...maybe he can even be the president of the company!!!
So that is my opinion. What do you think?
Now it seems that Dr. Phil, or at least the staff of his show, refuse to practice what they preach.
We have all heard the story out of Polk County Florida where those 8 teenagers abducted and severely beat a 16 year old girl. The 6 girls and 2 boys were arrested and will be taken to court as adults for their actions. All 8 were given bail between $30,000 and $38,000.
Enter staffers from the Dr. Phil show hoping to get the leg up and get this on the show paid the bail for one of the young ladies. The bail was $33,000 which means that Dr. Phil and his show had to put up 10%, or $3,300 to get the girl released.
Rather than taking responsibility for this major screw up, a representative for Dr. Phil's syndicated show stated that staffers "went beyond" the shows guidelines in posting the bail.
Oh please!!! I find it very hard to believe that a staffer for the show had the authority, on their own, to put up the $3,300 plus whatever collateral was required for the remainder of the bail on their own. A staffer would not have the authority to put up $33,000 of company assets without the consent of the shows main producers.
While Dr. Phil bills his show as an above board show where people are shown the true nature of their screw-ups and take responsibility, the show over the past several months has been shown to be anything but that.
First was Dr. Phil going to see a certain famous female with the hopes of making a show out of her case (I don't even want to mention her name here). Then he proceeds to go on the air and run his flapper about it. The man is a doctor (or so it says in the show title) for heavens sake. What ever happened to patient-doctor privilege? Guess there ain't any when it comes to Dr. Phil.
Now we have this little episode where they try to secure a segment on the show by putting up bail for this girl and we are to believe that the producers knew nothing about it. Now Dr. Phil himself might not have anything to do with this. But some how I doubt it. I can just see good ole Phil going to some staff flunkie telling him (or her) to get their butt to Florida and secure a deal with at least one of these kids to appear. Yep...I think Dr. Phil is up to his folically challenged head in this mess.
Of course all of this has nothing to do with helping any of these kids that are in deep shit at the moment. It is all about TV ratings and ad revenue.
Personally, I think it's high time for Dr. Phil to leave the air and take up his new position as a client for the Hair Club for men. Hell...maybe he can even be the president of the company!!!
So that is my opinion. What do you think?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Things that go BOOOOOM!!!
Good morning everyone.
How would you like to be these folks?
A family that lives 3 miles from the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal had quite a surprise. A fragment from an artillery shell crashed through their house and landed right in the middle of their daughters bed.
I found this reported on Foxnews this morning as I did my morning look at the news.
Almost every morning I sit and wonder what I am going to blog about. Usually a news story grabs me. To say that this one grabbed me would be an understatement.
How in the hell does the Army play around with a piece of ordinance that can throw shrapnel over 3 miles? No...check that...how in the hell can the US Army play around with ordinance that can throw shrapnel over three miles when there is a chance that said fragments could hit the home of a private citizen?
I am all for the US military testing ordinance but someones head needs to roll over this little blunder. Fortunately, the girl wasn't home at the time or this tragedy would have been much worse. As it was, the family cat was struck by the fragment and was killed. That has to be traumatic enough. Especially since you know the Army is not going to completely stop testing at that facility.
Someone connected with the US Army needs to explain this one. They also need to explain, in detail, what steps are taken to ensure that this NEVER happens again.
Accidents happen. I understand that. But with the technology that exists today where we can put ordnance right on the door step of the intended target I think this goes beyond an accident and into negligence on the part of the Army and those responsible for the testing.
What do you think?
How would you like to be these folks?
A family that lives 3 miles from the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal had quite a surprise. A fragment from an artillery shell crashed through their house and landed right in the middle of their daughters bed.
I found this reported on Foxnews this morning as I did my morning look at the news.
Almost every morning I sit and wonder what I am going to blog about. Usually a news story grabs me. To say that this one grabbed me would be an understatement.
How in the hell does the Army play around with a piece of ordinance that can throw shrapnel over 3 miles? No...check that...how in the hell can the US Army play around with ordinance that can throw shrapnel over three miles when there is a chance that said fragments could hit the home of a private citizen?
I am all for the US military testing ordinance but someones head needs to roll over this little blunder. Fortunately, the girl wasn't home at the time or this tragedy would have been much worse. As it was, the family cat was struck by the fragment and was killed. That has to be traumatic enough. Especially since you know the Army is not going to completely stop testing at that facility.
Someone connected with the US Army needs to explain this one. They also need to explain, in detail, what steps are taken to ensure that this NEVER happens again.
Accidents happen. I understand that. But with the technology that exists today where we can put ordnance right on the door step of the intended target I think this goes beyond an accident and into negligence on the part of the Army and those responsible for the testing.
What do you think?
Friday, April 11, 2008
Olympics
Good Morning all.
I was never a big fan of watching the Olympics. Yes...I do watch a lot of the ice hockey during the winter games but really that is about it. I also don't really follow the games and the medal count. So I may not be the best one to blog about what has happened to the games.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 Summer Games to China. I actually remember some reservations at the time by members of the IOC about holding the games in China. I also seem to remember that there were some understandings made between the IOC and the government of China concerning human rights violations that were occurring in China.
Now what we have is a situation that is as sticky as all those that Captain James T. Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Pickard went through when dealing with the Prime Directive (for those that are not Star Trek fans that was the non-intereference policy).
Well just as Kirk and Pickard found ways around the prime directive so to now must the IOC find ways around all its policies for the summer games that start August 8th.
Now I am not going to chose a side between those appalled with what goes on in China or the right the government of China has to run its own country. But it seems both sides here had better get some kind of agreement hammered out or this thing is going to be a powder keg.
The IOC knew what China was about when they awarded them the games. The government of China had to know that increased attention to things like the Tibet situation was going to happen. Yet it clearly seems that neither was clearly ready for the onslaught as the games got closer.
There are questions about media access to athletes, especially those from China. There are questions about what the athletes themselves can and cannot do in "protest" of the current affairs in Tibet. If you read news articles today all athletes are being warned not to "protest" in any arena or venue (that includes dorms). But no one has clearly defined what "protest" is. Which brings up an interesting dilemma for the IOC. Isn't limiting the athletes paramount to limiting free speech?
One must remember that an athlete who violates the rules can be expelled from the games...a.k.a sent home. They can also be stripped of any medals won and records set during the games. That can happen for just having the flag from Tibet hanging on the wall of their dorm room.
And in case you forget this whole thing started when two US athletes held up the black-power symbol during the medal ceremonies during the 1968 summer games.
You see just like major league sports the Olympics have become big business. Yes the government of China will have to pay out a lot of cash to build the Olympic venues. But there is also the huge cash rewards from all the travellers and media who come to the games.
We want to call the Olympics athletes amateurs. But just as in the outdated view of the NCAA with respect to athletes not being paid this whole thing has become a joke. The Olympics, in my view, should be about the best from this country taking on the best from that country. Its sports. We need to get all the BS out of it.
What do you think?
I was never a big fan of watching the Olympics. Yes...I do watch a lot of the ice hockey during the winter games but really that is about it. I also don't really follow the games and the medal count. So I may not be the best one to blog about what has happened to the games.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 Summer Games to China. I actually remember some reservations at the time by members of the IOC about holding the games in China. I also seem to remember that there were some understandings made between the IOC and the government of China concerning human rights violations that were occurring in China.
Now what we have is a situation that is as sticky as all those that Captain James T. Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Pickard went through when dealing with the Prime Directive (for those that are not Star Trek fans that was the non-intereference policy).
Well just as Kirk and Pickard found ways around the prime directive so to now must the IOC find ways around all its policies for the summer games that start August 8th.
Now I am not going to chose a side between those appalled with what goes on in China or the right the government of China has to run its own country. But it seems both sides here had better get some kind of agreement hammered out or this thing is going to be a powder keg.
The IOC knew what China was about when they awarded them the games. The government of China had to know that increased attention to things like the Tibet situation was going to happen. Yet it clearly seems that neither was clearly ready for the onslaught as the games got closer.
There are questions about media access to athletes, especially those from China. There are questions about what the athletes themselves can and cannot do in "protest" of the current affairs in Tibet. If you read news articles today all athletes are being warned not to "protest" in any arena or venue (that includes dorms). But no one has clearly defined what "protest" is. Which brings up an interesting dilemma for the IOC. Isn't limiting the athletes paramount to limiting free speech?
One must remember that an athlete who violates the rules can be expelled from the games...a.k.a sent home. They can also be stripped of any medals won and records set during the games. That can happen for just having the flag from Tibet hanging on the wall of their dorm room.
And in case you forget this whole thing started when two US athletes held up the black-power symbol during the medal ceremonies during the 1968 summer games.
You see just like major league sports the Olympics have become big business. Yes the government of China will have to pay out a lot of cash to build the Olympic venues. But there is also the huge cash rewards from all the travellers and media who come to the games.
We want to call the Olympics athletes amateurs. But just as in the outdated view of the NCAA with respect to athletes not being paid this whole thing has become a joke. The Olympics, in my view, should be about the best from this country taking on the best from that country. Its sports. We need to get all the BS out of it.
What do you think?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
You can't fix stupid!!
I am back after my 6 day vacation from blogging. Many have heard about the weather that went through the south last Friday and I was present where it all started. Finally got internet service back Tuesday night and have been catching up. But it is good to be back on line.
You would think that Wal-mart, being a rather large corporation, would have been smarter than this. But sometimes you just can't fix stupid.
A production company was hired by Wal-mart to video their share holder meetings as well as other high level meetings. Well, after taping these events for over 30 years the production company was told to take a hike back in 2006.
Now the production company is offering access to the video archives of all these Wal-mart meetings. The company charges $250/hour for video search services. There is an extra charge for making DVD copies of video footage. People are lining up at the door to obtain video from these meetings.
Now who would want to pay that kind of money for some lame Board of Directors Meeting footage? How about every lawyer that is currently engaged in litigation against the retail giant!! And they are finding a wealth of information that will aide their clients in their claims against the company.
Now on the surface of it one would have to wonder how this production company can get away with selling this kind of information. After all, Board meetings and the like are usually considered private and not for public consumption. Well the answer is both simple and ridiculous.
When Wal-mart hired the production company there were no contracts signed. They were asked to come in and tape the meetings and events. There was never a contract or agreement of confidentiality.
When Wal-mart pulled the plug in 2006 the company found itself losing about 95% of its business. Rather than going under they decided to make the video archive available for public consumption.
There is footage of male managers at an executive meeting parading around in drag and I am sure that there are more nuggets just waiting for someone to review the right video cassette.
Now I am not a lawyer and I didn't play one on TV. I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do question whether this little venture is legal. But we can leave that up to the courts to decide. Wal-mart for has offered to pay $500,000 for the entire collection. A number that the production company says is way to low for a collection that is worth millions.
Yes...I can see it now...coming to a theater near you and soon to DVD...Wal-mart:The Movie!!
You would think that Wal-mart, being a rather large corporation, would have been smarter than this. But sometimes you just can't fix stupid.
A production company was hired by Wal-mart to video their share holder meetings as well as other high level meetings. Well, after taping these events for over 30 years the production company was told to take a hike back in 2006.
Now the production company is offering access to the video archives of all these Wal-mart meetings. The company charges $250/hour for video search services. There is an extra charge for making DVD copies of video footage. People are lining up at the door to obtain video from these meetings.
Now who would want to pay that kind of money for some lame Board of Directors Meeting footage? How about every lawyer that is currently engaged in litigation against the retail giant!! And they are finding a wealth of information that will aide their clients in their claims against the company.
Now on the surface of it one would have to wonder how this production company can get away with selling this kind of information. After all, Board meetings and the like are usually considered private and not for public consumption. Well the answer is both simple and ridiculous.
When Wal-mart hired the production company there were no contracts signed. They were asked to come in and tape the meetings and events. There was never a contract or agreement of confidentiality.
When Wal-mart pulled the plug in 2006 the company found itself losing about 95% of its business. Rather than going under they decided to make the video archive available for public consumption.
There is footage of male managers at an executive meeting parading around in drag and I am sure that there are more nuggets just waiting for someone to review the right video cassette.
Now I am not a lawyer and I didn't play one on TV. I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do question whether this little venture is legal. But we can leave that up to the courts to decide. Wal-mart for has offered to pay $500,000 for the entire collection. A number that the production company says is way to low for a collection that is worth millions.
Yes...I can see it now...coming to a theater near you and soon to DVD...Wal-mart:The Movie!!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Have you heard this?
Air America talk show radio host Randi Rhodes has been suspended for has been described as an "appalling rant" at an appearance sponsored by an Air America affiliate in San Francisco. Appalling rant!!!!! Go listen to the 5 minute and 38 second clip that someone in the audience taped. Here is the link. Just be advised there is very strong language. I wonder if we can get this babe as a guest on the Dog House?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo
First off, on one hand this is funny. Air America is supposed to be the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity. That being conservative talk radio. But if you listen to the clip Ms. Rhodes is not taking aim at the conservatives. Nooo!!! She is taking aim at the liberal candidate, or at least Hillary Clinton. And it she calls Hillary a "whore", where does that leave ole Bill? I love it when either side starts to eat their own. It does make for great comedy.
But there is another side to this story that I think needs to be addressed. Geraldine Ferraro Ms. Rhodes should not be suspended...she should be fired. Don Imus got fired...she should get fired. Everyone should be treated the same.
Well Ms. Ferraro, how in the hell are they the same? Don Imus made his statements on the open air waves. Randi Rhodes made her comments at a public speaking engagement. Mr. Imus' comments went to millions listening via his syndicated radio show. Ms Rhodes comments were made in a private venue and would have remained that way had it not been for someone with a cell phone.
Were the comments she made beneath contempt? Yes I think they were. I don't like Hillary but I would not call her a whore. Now Bill is a different story...lol.
But this was done not as a part of her radio show but at a private appearance. If Air America wants to suspend or fire her, that is there right. But what she did was nothing like what Don Imus did.
That is just my opinion. What is yours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo
First off, on one hand this is funny. Air America is supposed to be the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity. That being conservative talk radio. But if you listen to the clip Ms. Rhodes is not taking aim at the conservatives. Nooo!!! She is taking aim at the liberal candidate, or at least Hillary Clinton. And it she calls Hillary a "whore", where does that leave ole Bill? I love it when either side starts to eat their own. It does make for great comedy.
But there is another side to this story that I think needs to be addressed. Geraldine Ferraro Ms. Rhodes should not be suspended...she should be fired. Don Imus got fired...she should get fired. Everyone should be treated the same.
Well Ms. Ferraro, how in the hell are they the same? Don Imus made his statements on the open air waves. Randi Rhodes made her comments at a public speaking engagement. Mr. Imus' comments went to millions listening via his syndicated radio show. Ms Rhodes comments were made in a private venue and would have remained that way had it not been for someone with a cell phone.
Were the comments she made beneath contempt? Yes I think they were. I don't like Hillary but I would not call her a whore. Now Bill is a different story...lol.
But this was done not as a part of her radio show but at a private appearance. If Air America wants to suspend or fire her, that is there right. But what she did was nothing like what Don Imus did.
That is just my opinion. What is yours?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Judges
I thought I had posted this blog yesterday but it didn't show up when I looked this morning. So this is a day late I guess. But if you read my blog regularly you will get the idea.
My blog yesterday concerned Jessica's Law. I have received a few comments on that topic from yesterday and I felt it was time for a sequel.
One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.
Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.
Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.
Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.
There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.
The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.
It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.
For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.
My blog yesterday concerned Jessica's Law. I have received a few comments on that topic from yesterday and I felt it was time for a sequel.
One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.
Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.
Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.
Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.
There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.
The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.
It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.
For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
What to do?
My blog yesterday concerned Jessica's Law. I have received a few comments on that topic from yesterday and I felt it was time for a sequel.
One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.
Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.
Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.
Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.
There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.
The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.
It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.
For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.
One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.
Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.
But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.
Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.
Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.
There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.
The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.
It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.
For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Jessica's Law
If you are not familiar with Jessica's Law it was a law past in Florida in 2005 after Jessica Lunsford. She was a young girl who was brutally raped and murdered. Jessica's law has been introduced in many states and on a federal level. In short, the law requires mandatory prison sentences for child predators.
In total, 42 states have pasted some form of Jessica's Law requiring harsh punishments for those who sexually prey on children. Most forms of Jessica's Law call for these mandatory sentences when the child is 12 years of age or younger.
I know this law is controversial. There are law enforcement people and lawyers that don't like the law because it takes any kind of plea bargaining off the table. These people want the flexibility to place alternate forms of punishment or lighter sentences via plea bargins. Plea bargins, they say, are a method to reduce the number of cases that the already overloaded court system must hear.
Now whether you are for or against legislation such as Jessica's law, there is an interesting parallel that I would like to explore.
Gun control has been a hot topic in this country for many years. Many laws are already on the books and there is always an out cry for more. The recent rash of school shootings are the main reason for wanting tougher and stricter gun laws. Yet it is not the gun that does the killing. It is the person who pulls the trigger.
So many people want mandatory sentences and tougher laws, on something that by itself, commits no crime. But want to be flexible when it comes to prosecuting and punishing those that take advantage of young children. I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right allowed under the constitution of the United States. That point can be argued and is being argued. In fact oral arguments were just heard by the US Supreme Court about a Washington, D.C law. The results of that case are scheduled to be released in June. However, what argument can be made about child predators? We are not talking about someones constitutional right to rape or molest a child because that right does not exist.
In Massachusetts there is one judge who has let 6 sex offenders back on the street. The result, 3 of them are back awaiting trial for sex related crimes. One of them allegedly raped a 6 year old boy in a public library. The judge was told by several experts that this individual was a threat young children and the judge released him anyway and the rape of a 6 year old was the result.
Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to regulate something that by itself kills or hurts no one, yet we let people who have hurt children off with lighter sentences?
I will let you answer that question individually. For ultimately each of us are going to have to answer that question and then let our lawmakers and judges know exactly how we feel.
In total, 42 states have pasted some form of Jessica's Law requiring harsh punishments for those who sexually prey on children. Most forms of Jessica's Law call for these mandatory sentences when the child is 12 years of age or younger.
I know this law is controversial. There are law enforcement people and lawyers that don't like the law because it takes any kind of plea bargaining off the table. These people want the flexibility to place alternate forms of punishment or lighter sentences via plea bargins. Plea bargins, they say, are a method to reduce the number of cases that the already overloaded court system must hear.
Now whether you are for or against legislation such as Jessica's law, there is an interesting parallel that I would like to explore.
Gun control has been a hot topic in this country for many years. Many laws are already on the books and there is always an out cry for more. The recent rash of school shootings are the main reason for wanting tougher and stricter gun laws. Yet it is not the gun that does the killing. It is the person who pulls the trigger.
So many people want mandatory sentences and tougher laws, on something that by itself, commits no crime. But want to be flexible when it comes to prosecuting and punishing those that take advantage of young children. I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right allowed under the constitution of the United States. That point can be argued and is being argued. In fact oral arguments were just heard by the US Supreme Court about a Washington, D.C law. The results of that case are scheduled to be released in June. However, what argument can be made about child predators? We are not talking about someones constitutional right to rape or molest a child because that right does not exist.
In Massachusetts there is one judge who has let 6 sex offenders back on the street. The result, 3 of them are back awaiting trial for sex related crimes. One of them allegedly raped a 6 year old boy in a public library. The judge was told by several experts that this individual was a threat young children and the judge released him anyway and the rape of a 6 year old was the result.
Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to regulate something that by itself kills or hurts no one, yet we let people who have hurt children off with lighter sentences?
I will let you answer that question individually. For ultimately each of us are going to have to answer that question and then let our lawmakers and judges know exactly how we feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)