|
|
I hate party politics. I hate anything that is done because it is good for one party and its hold on power. Usually this is good for the parties, the politicians, and the power-brokers and bad for the peons – us ordinary people.
Ted Kennedy (D – MA) is terminally ill. That is sad but it is a fate that awaits us all. As a parting gift to the Democrats he is now trying to overturn a 2004 Massachusetts that took the ability of the Governor to appoint the replacement of a Senator who resigns or dies.
The Wall Street Journal puts this situation in perspective with one paragraph:
What Mr. Kennedy doesn’t volunteer is that he orchestrated the 2004 succession law revision that now requires a special election, and for similarly partisan reasons. John Kerry, the other Senator from the state, was running for President in 2004, and Mr. Kennedy wanted the law changed so the Republican Governor at the time, Mitt Romney, could not name Mr. Kerry’s replacement. “Prodded by a personal appeal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy,” reported the Boston Globe in 2004, “Democratic legislative leaders have agreed to take up a stalled bill creating a special election process to replace U.S. Senator John F. Kerry if he wins the presidency.” Now that the state has a Democratic Governor, Mr. Kennedy wants to revert to gubernatorial appointments.
In his letter advocating for the law change Kennedy trots out his supposed concern for citizens of Massachusetts “to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.” This is all very noble but the question immediately comes to mind: During his illness ho often has Sen. Kennedy been present to lend his voice and vote to the job he seems so concerned about? Well, in 2009 he has been absent for a staggering 97% of the votes. Of 270 roll-call votes he has been absent for 261. And these absences started last year.
Senator Kennedy, concern is not saying the right about a subject. Concern is doing the right thing. You say you believe “it is vital” the people of Massachusetts “have two voices” representing them in the Senate. Well, where has your concern been for part of 2008 and 9 months into 2009? Do they only deserve two Senators when it is politically convenient for you and your party? This is not leadership and, as a former constituent of yours, I am not surprised.
I stole that headline from the original article. Now to add a big “Duh”. Really, they needed to study that? Maybe they did, I would have thought it was closer to 80%. I am guessing, based on conversations I have overheard, that the same number of wireless phone calls are “pointless babble”. I have followed a few people on Twitter and ultimately found that they were a waste of time and a crashing bore. Some are informative, but very few.
The original study can be found at Pear Analytics.
I picked on Scalia in my original title because it was his dissent (found here) that offended my tender sensibilities. In it he said: the Supreme “Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
A “full and fair trial” is not a trial where 7 of the 9 witnesses later recant their testimony. Isn’t the effect of these recanted testimonies, perhaps, the same as finding that DNA evidence that shows that the convicted person did not commit the crime? Do we pretend that because all of the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed during the trial that the trial was therefore “fair”? Apparently that is what Scalia advocates.
In this blog’s previous life I had profiled exonerated death row inmates as they were realeased. Were it not for DNA evidence they would have been executed. In many cases testimony was either flat-out wrong or perjured. And in some of the cases the testimony was coerced by police and prosecutors. But no one pretended that they had a “fair” trial and should be executed anyhow. Maybe some did and that such people are involved in our “Justice” system scares me.
A guy goes on trial and, based on the testimony of 9 people, he is convicted. Some time passes and ultimately seven of the people recant and admit that they were lying. One of the reemaining two witnesses is now being pointed at as the actual perpetraitor of the crime. The crime is murder. Now you have to decide, based on all of this should the original defendant be executed for this crime?
Our Supreme Court was not asked to decide on the guilt or immocence of the defendant in this matter. They were being asked, essentially, if the lower court should take another look at this case. Sounds reasonable to me. But Justices Scalia and Thomas thought that this was anything but reasonable. Their argument was that courts and officials lower than them had not seen fit to reexamine the case and therefore the decision and the execution should stand.
The case is that of Troy Davis, who is on death row in state prison there for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer. You can read about it here and here.
I am not a lawyer so this is just an ordinary person looking at a case from the outside. But you have to ask yourself where is the Justice when a case that has no physical evidence is not reexamined when the vast majority of the witnesses admit that they lied. Several say that they were intimidated by police into implicating Davis.
According to Time: “On Friday, Georgia Superior Court Judge Penny Haas Freesemann rejected Davis’s last-minute appeal, saying that the recanted testimony did not provide justification for a new trial. Georgia prosecutors have maintained that Davis has already had opportunities in court to present his evidence.”
On what planet or system of justice can a judge say that “recanted testimony did not provide justification for a new trial”? This is mind boggling. Where is the pride in our Justice system? Isn’t this antithetical to all it stands for? And what about the position of the prosecutor? He “had opportunities in court to present his evidence.” Yes, he did. But your “evidence” was perjured!
I am not saying that this man is innocent or guilty. But when the case against him is built on the perjury of over 77% of the witnesses I think that a new trial would be the only fair course. Or am I missing something here?
Justice would seem to demand that this should have not taken the intervention of the Supreme Court to get the state of Georgia to rethink this case. No thanks to Justices Scalia and Thomas those of us without money and power in this country can sleep better knowing that perjured testimony will not be allowed to stand in our courts.
According to an article in the New York Times: “Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.” And that is not good news.
While the article makes it clear that the ability to do this is not within the grasp of most people, it is still easy enough for “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.” That means that this is within the abilitiy tens of thousands of people. And that is a game-changer for law enforcement.
The good news is that the same company that developed the technique has also developed a test to determine if the DNA is natural or faked. But how long before someone takes the next step and compromises that test?
Someone has been papering Los Angeles with posters that depict President Obama as the “Joker” from “Batman. My first impression was that someone had too much time on his hands – ho hum. Others were not so unimpressed and the outrage has been flowing.
Here are some thoughts on the poster and the reaction to it.
As satire and political comment the poster misses the mark. Others have well explained that Obama is nothing like the Joker. Andrew Sullivan does the job with the help of some others, here and here. You can also see the poster there.
What really amuses me is the reaction of some people. People who had no problem when President Bust was depicted as the same Joker in Vanity Fair or as other deranged and demonic characters. One of the favorites was Bush-as-Hitler both in spoken word as well as in caricature.
 Bush As Hitler Here is one example. Do a Google search and you will find hundreds, if not
 Bush as Dracula thousands. On the right we have Bush as Dracula on the cover of the LA Weekly. I find it funny that Steven Mikulan was offended enough by the Obama poster that he opined that “The only thing missing is a noose.”
Steve, it is political satire. It may be bad satire but it does not, in spite of the white-face, contain a racist or racial element. And there is nothing about killing President Obama. That was an all too common theme of some who hated Bush but this poster is not in that camp. Your noose comment is unwarranted.
Predictably, some on the right are in heaven over this. Because the word “Socialist” is on the poster they somehow think that there is a grassroots reaction to Obama and his policies. Over at the “American Thinker” they said that “It is starting. Open mockery of Barack Obama, as disillusionment sets in with the man, his policies, and the phony image of a race-healing, brilliant, scholarly, middle-of-the-roader.” I will not debate their points here but I will say that “open mockery” has been the hallmark of some people since Obama announced his candidacy. And “open mockery” is not confined to one side of the political spectrum, nor is it a new phenomenon.
“Open mockery” is just a symptom of how cheapened the discourse in America has become. Facts and reasoned argument are replaced with name-calling, jokes, and crude depictions of our political leaders. Like them or not I think they deserve better. I think America deserves better.
No, you don’t need a gun!
How many pro athletes wander around with guns? My guess is more than should. This line of thought was brought about by the indictment Plaxico Burress, formerly a very well paid member of the New York Giants. Plaxico wandered into a New York nightclub on November 29th of 2008 carrying a handgun tucked into the waistband of his pants (a dumb thing in its self). The gun slipped down and when he retrieved it he shot himself in the thigh.
Burress now faces a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years. If his name were Paul Burress and he was an unknown factory worker with no criminal record there would be no-doubt that he would get the minimum. And that is what he should get.
For all of the other athletes or ordinary Joes out there I hope you learn from this.
The first thing you should learn is that there is no place in a bar or nightclub for firearms. Alcohol and guns don’t mix.
Second, if you are in such fear that you think you need to carry a gun into a nightclub or bar, maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to be in such a place. If you “need” to carry a gun you don’t need to be where alcohol can spark violence in a heartbeat. You may not be drinking (ha) but others are and they may not be the cool-headed type like yourself. If you frequent places where you perceive that there is the possibility of violence, even if you just go to that place once, you are asking for more than three years in the can.
Third, if you think that your celebrity makes you a target, think again. Have celebrities been murdered? Sadly, yes. John Lennon jumps to mind. But the instances of celebrities and athletes being killed are few and far between. If you have been threatened and the threat is credible – notify the police. Your team and league have an interest in seeing you protected and they will probably provide professional bodyguards. That is a perk that us average folks don’t have.
Fourth, remember: “The first thing you should learn is that there is no place in a bar or nightclub for firearms. Alcohol and guns don’t mix.”
It is sad but Burress will be spending 42 months in jail. The good thing is that neither he nor anyone else is dead because of this. And maybe, just maybe, someone will learn from this and other lives will be saved. Even if it is simply saved from jail.
 Soap Bubble In Space It looks like a soap bubble. It is called a planetary nebula. See a bigger picture and technical description at the NASA website: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081113.html
Science fascinates me and I vary from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour, on which branch excites me more. Right now it is astronomy. Unlike so many on both sides of the debate I do not see a battle between a belief in God and the study of science. I may be more simple-minded than some and therefore not able to see the issues properly.
I do not see a battle between my belief that the heavens declare the glory of God and my belief that modern science does a fabulous job of exploring and explaining the world and the heavens.
Read more about it here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.100
And an in-depth story on its discovery is The Story Behind the Discovery of “The Cygnus Bubble” PN G 75.5+1.7.
Mixed Martial Artist Jeff Monson was caught and eventually pled guilty to spray-painting an anarchist symbol on the Capitol of Washington state last year. According to the Cagewriter blog: “Monson, 38, is scheduled to be sentenced in October, with the prosecutor recommending 90 days in jail. He was also slapped with a $21,894 fine for restitution. However, the crushing blow for Monson is that he was forced to hand over his passport. He is reported to have fights scheduled in Russia and Japan in early 2010, and won’t be able to travel for them. When asked to turn the passport over, he asked the prosecutor, “Are you going to support my family now?”
 Monson, the Mixed Media Artist So now the Anarchist hero is worried about the consequences of breaking the law. Monson has a master’s degree in psychology and is an outspoken Anarchist. Apparently he thought that tagging the Washington State Capitol with the anarchist symbol would advance the cause. Just like it it has when thousands of teenagers have tagged other buildings that did not belong to them. That, of course, is the public face of Anarchism. No reasoned argument about the power and evil of the state – just juvenile vandalism and rebellion against anything that gets between the juvenile and whatever he desires.
Monson invited ESPN the Magazine along on his Mixed Media Arts adventure. This makes me think that he wanted some publicity (duh). And so the price of this publicity stunt is a fine for $21,894, 90 days in the can, and the restricted ability to travel. And this really surprises him. So surprised that he whines to the prosecutor, “Are you going to support my family now?” I find this comical.
I am sure that Monson has the ability to rationally argue on behalf of Anarchism. Maybe the publicity he got from this stunt caused some people to seek out more information. Maybe some teenager with a can of spray paint will try to understand what Anarchy is all about. Or maybe they will just vandalize other peoples property, break whatever rules suit them, and pretend that that is what Anarchy is all about.
|
|
Recent Comments