Found at the humorous blog of BartCop.
7 hours ago
Monday, November 16, 2009
Death Penalty Sentences Down In Texas
There's an interesting thing happening in the state of Texas these days -- something very unusual. It seems that juries are not giving out as many death sentences as they used to. In fact, Texas is now experiencing a 35 year low in sending new inhabitants to Death Row. Here are the death penalty sentences for the last 15 years:
1995...............43
1996...............37
1997...............35
1998...............43
1999...............47
2000...............28
2001...............30
2002...............35
2003...............28
2004...............25
2005...............15
2006...............11
2007...............15
2008...............9
2009...............9
As you can see, the number took a fairly sharp dive in 2005, and hasn't been above 15 since that year. Did something happen in 2005 that made a difference in the number of people being sent to Death Row? Many people say yes. That was the year that Texas passed the law allowing life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prior to 2005, even life sentences for Capital Murder could result in a parole after 35-40 years.
It is believed that juries gave death sentences to people prior to 2005 to assur they would never walk the street again. With the new law guaranteeing no parole, juries suddenly had an option to the death penalty that would also assure the convicted felon would never be released.
The chart above shows the difference between death penalty sentences for the years right before and right after the 2005 law for the five most heavily populated counties in Texas. Tarrant County (Fort Worth) showed a small decline after 2005, while Harris (Houston), Dallas (Dallas) and Bexar (San Antonio) counties showed a significant decline. Travis County (Austin) is a liberal bastion in Texas, and the 2005 law actually resulted in harsher sentences being given there (life w/o parole instead of just life).
I have no problem accepting that the 2005 law has significantly reduced the amount of death sentences. However, some believe there is another cause also. State Senator Eddie Lucio Jr. (D-Brownsville), author of the life w/o parole law, says, "It isn't life without parole that has weakened the death penalty. It is a growing lack of belief that our system is fair."
For several years now, we have been hearing of many people being unjustly convicted -- not only in Texas, but all across the country. Just in Dallas County alone, at least 19 people have been released from prison because DNA has now proved they were innocent.
There is also the case of Todd Willingham, who was executed a few years ago. At least three separate investigations by forensic experts have now shown that he was probably innocent of the crime he was executed for.
Are death penalties down because of a growing awareness of the unfairness of the justice system, or because of the 2005 law giving juries an alternative that would guarantee the person would never be released. I imagine the truth is that both have had an effect.
Whatever the reason, I'm just glad death sentences are down. I've never been comfortable with state-sanctioned killing.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Too Stupid For Words
Sometimes people will do something so stupid that you just know they would be dead if breathing wasn't an involuntary bodily function -- because otherwise there's no way they'd be able to breathe and walk at the same time. Consider this bit of idiocy in Paris, France.A new internet company thought they had come up with a great way to advertise their business. They heavily advertised that they would be throwing envelopes containing from 5 to 500 Euros from the top of a bus near the Eiffel Tower. When it came time for the publicity stunt, over 5,000 people had shown up (I'm surprised it wasn't more than that).
Sounding completely brain-dead, a spokesman for the company said, "We couldn't anticipate that there would be so many people." Really? You promise to give away free money in the middle of a world-wide recession, and you don't think thousands of desperate people will show up?
Then the police show they're not much smarter (if any) than the promoters of the event. They take one look at the crowd and decide they represent a "security threat". But instead of just calling for reinforcements, they convince the promoters to call off the event.
Now what do you think happened next? I probably insulted you with that question, because any third-grader would know that a riot was going to happen. How could it not? You now have thousands of very angry people in a small space.
The crowd started to break windows and turn over some cars. Finally, the riot police were called out, and at least ten people were arrested before they finally got control of the situation.
Everyone involved should have their asses kicked -- the promoters, the police and the crowd. I don't think there was a fully-functioning brain in the lot.
NOTE -- The promoters now claim they will give the money to some charity.
Hutchison Cries "Uncle" In Governor's Race
A year or so ago, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison decided she wanted to become the governor of Texas. She knew it would not be easy, because she would have to beat the darling of the ultra-right-wing, Rick Perry, to get the Republican nomination. She said at that time that she would probably resign her senate seat around the end of the summer to concentrate on campaigning for governor.Most of us here in Texas know better than to take Hutchison at her word, and sure enough, a few weeks ago she did a bit of waffling and changed her resignation date to some time in November. Well, it's November now and Hutchison has changed her mind again. She now says she will keep her senate seat until after the Republican primary next March.
Announcing her plans to remain in the Senate, Hutchison said, "I am more determined than ever to become the 48th governor of the great state of Texas. But at the same time I must put what's best for my campaign aside and do what is best for our state. That is why I must stay in the Senate while running for the Republican nomination for governor."
That may sound good, but it's a huge load of crap. There's always something important going on in the Senate -- that's just the nature of the beast. The truth is she got a good look at the two latest polls that show her far behind Rick Perry, and she said "uncle". She saw that the odds were against her and she gave up.
She knows full well that she must come back to Texas and campaign full-time to have any chance of beating Perry in the primary. But if she resigns her senate seat and does that, she stands a good chance of being neither a senator or governor next year. So she has decided to keep the bird-in-hand and give up hope of snatching the one in the bush.
She'll keep spending her supporters' money and mouthing platitudes about wanting to be governor, but the race is now over. Rick Perry will be the Republican nominee for governor in the 2010 election. The only real question now is who'll be his Democratic opponent?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Ex-Rep. Gets Prison Sentence
In July of 2005, Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) was caught on tape by the FBI taking a $100,000 bribe. About $90,000 of that money was later found in his home freezer, and the FBI claimed Jefferson had been involved in 11 separate bribery schemes since August of 2000. He wasn't just a crook -- he was a big-time crook on a continuing basis.I think he really thought he was above the law. He even took the FBI investigation to the Supreme Court, claiming they didn't have the authority to search his office. He lost that case, and his life has been on a downhill slide ever since.
Last November, he lost his seat in Congress to a Republican (Joseph Cao), even though the district is largely a liberal Democratic one. Then three months ago, a jury convicted him of 11 out of 16 counts of bribery. Yesterday, he was sentenced to a significant prison term.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III (of Alexandria, Virginia) sentenced Jefferson (pictured) to a term of 13 years in a federal prison.
Personally, I think he deserved every year of that sentence and I hope he has to serve every day of it. I don't care which political party Jefferson is in, bribery is one of the most serious offenses a congressman can commit.
I hope every congressman of either party that is taking bribes, is caught and convicted and sentenced to at least 13 years.
Repubs Take Hypocrisy To A New Level
A few days ago, 176 Republicans joined a few blue dog Democrats in voting to attach the odious Stupak amendment to the Health Care Reform Bill passed by the House of Representatives. This horrid amendment made sure that poor and working class women would not be able to include the payment for voluntary abortions in their health insurance.
Of course, almost all of those voting for the amendment were men, who will never have to make the awful choice of having an abortion or an unwanted baby (which probably can't be cared for financially). This doesn't surprise me, because most Republicans believe women should be second-class citizens, and their bodies should be controlled by men.
That would be enough hypocrisy for a party that claims to believe in equality and freedom, but the Republicans have taken their hypocrisy to a new level -- a level I wouldn't have believed possible until now.
Politico has reported now that the health insurance policy provided by the Republicans Party actually includes payment for voluntary abortions. That's right, while they are telling the rest of America that abortions are an evil sin and should be outlawed, they are providing insurance that will pay for abortions for their own employees -- even though their party platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life." Is this not the epitome of hypocrisy?
Now some of you may be thinking this is a new policy and the Republicans didn't know what was in it yet. Wrong!!! They have had this same policy since 1991 -- that's eighteen years.
And the Cigna Company, who supplies the policy, said the provisions of the policy were explained to the Republicans when they bought it (and you would think at least a few of them would have read the policy by now). Republicans were given the chance to opt out of any provisions they didn't want in the policy, and they chose for 18 years to include the abortion provision.
Personally, I don't see how anyone could have a health insurance policy and not know what it covers and doesn't cover. I know when I worked for the state and received employer-provided insurance, every employee was notified of the health insurance benefits (and given a copy of exactly what the insurance would and wouldn't pay for). Are we supposed to believe the Republican Party (or Cigna) didn't do that for their employees?
But that's exactly what the Republicans want everyone to believe -- that they didn't even know the benefits provided in their own insurance policy. Evidently no one in the party has the ability to read.
They are also saying that there is no proof that anyone ever had an abortion that was paid for by the insurance policy. Really? In eighteen years? Is that even near the realm of believability?
Spokesmen for the party say now that RNC Chairman Michael Steele has made sure the clause has been eliminated from the insurance policy. Can we believe that? After all, they've been talking out of both sides of their mouth for at least the last eighteen years. This whole mess just emphasizes the fact they they consider themselves to be above the rules they want to lay down for the rest of us.
By the way, the Democratic Party's insurance policy contains the same provision. But most Democrats support choice and opposed the Stupak amendment. And their party platform says the party "unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." No hypocrisy there.
How can anyone still vote Republican? They just can't be trusted.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Pervert Is Caught By His Wife
You've probably seen the NBC show Perverted Justice. It's where some adults pretend to be children on the internet to trap some perverts into revealing themselves. Then when they show up to have sex with the young targets, they are humiliated and arrested. The same sort of thing happened in Great Britain -- with an unusual and very funny twist.The pervert is 68 year-old David Roberts (pictured), a retired former pub owner. Roberts like to cruise internet chat rooms in search of young girls. He thought he's struck gold when a 14 year-old girl chatted with him and seemed to be interested in his advances. He performed some lewd acts for her on the internet, and then arranged to meet her to have sex.
There was just one problem. The 14 year-old girl wasn't 14 at all. In fact, it was his 61 year-old wife. She had become suspicious of him, and got on the internet to see what he was really doing. All the time he thought he was talking to a 14 year-old, he was actually chatting with his wife who was on a different computer in the next room.
After he performed the lewd acts and arranged to meet her for sex, she reported him to the police. It was several weeks before he knew he had been talking to and turned in by his own wife. Needless to say, they have now separated.
Roberts was arrested, and they also found some child pornography on his computer. He was given a three year community order (which we in America would call probation) and was banned from contacting anyone under 18, either in person or on the computer. He's lucky. If he'd been arrested here in the States, he'd be going to prison just for the child pornography on his computer, let alone the rest of it.
I just love the fact that he was caught and reported by his own wife. That has to be the ultimate humiliation. And I doubt it will help him in divorce court either. I don't know how British divorce courts work, but I hope she's able to clean him out. He deserves it.
Teacher Shortage Is Over
A few years ago, there was a nearly critical shortage of teachers in the United States -- especially among poorer and rural schools. But the recession in this country seems to have taken care of that. Instead of a shortage, there is now a glut of people trying to find employment as teachers.
In Texas, the Round Rock Independent School District recently had a need for 322 teachers. They received over 5,000 applications for those teaching jobs. They have also seen their pool of available substitute teachers double to around 1,200.
Why is this happening? The first reason is cutbacks in funds due to the recession. Many school districts are cutting back on the number of teachers they employ. The demand for teachers nationwide has declined in 60 out of 61 subjects. The only area in which jobs are still available is mathematics (although more special education teachers are also needed).
John Black, a deputy superintendent in Augusta (Kansas), says that not long ago "we were recruiting really, really hard just to get people to take a look at us and take a look at our profession. Now we have these great applicants wanting to teach, and we don't have jobs to offer them."
At the same time that schools are cutting back on teachers, many who had planned to retire or find other types of work are hanging on to their teaching jobs because of the recession. In addition, many who have been laid off from other jobs are trying to find teaching positions, and of course, the colleges are still pumping out education graduates. All of this has combined to create the current glut of teacher applicants.
I wouldn't expect the situation to get any better any time soon. The rest of the economy is still dumping more jobs each month, and even the most optimistic prognosticators expect the unemployment rate to keep rising for at least another year. This will just create even larger pools of applicants for the few jobs that are available.
But that's just for us peons. Remember, the recession is over for the rich (and the corporations)!!
Dallas Gets Some Bad News
Yesterday, Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle announced that he will retire in April of 2010. This verified what City Manager Mary Suhm had already told the City Council. This is not good news for the city of Dallas.
Chief Kunkle has been on the job in Dallas since May 2004. He was hired away from the city of Arlington, and has been a breath of fresh air when compared to the list of failures that preceded him. When Kunkle assumed the job, the crime rate was very high and many groups in the city felt like they were being picked on by police. There were a lot of bad feelings.
Chief Kunkle has turned all that around and provided the leadership to make the Dallas Police Department respected again. He has reached out to all groups in the city and convinced them they will have their concerns heard and addressed, and he has done it all in a low-key and respectful way.
During his five year tenure, he has presided over a 32% decrease in violent crimes and a 34% decrease in homicides. In addition, the department has had fewer deadly-force incidents and fewer in-custody deaths.
Chief Kunkle has done an excellent job for the city of Dallas. I hope his replacement is as competent as he turned out to be.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Pfizer exaggerates Drug Studies
To get a drug approved for use for a specific disease or condition takes years of critical studies which must convince the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug works well for the purpose it is meant to be used for. This is an arduous process, as it should be.But sometimes a drug will be prescribed by doctors for off-label use. That's when a study shows the drug is actually useful for something the FDA has not approved its use for. For instance, a drug approved for fever and headache use might be found to be effective for reducing swollen joints. The company cannot advertise the drug is good for the off-label purpose (reducing swollen joints), but doctors are not prohibited from prescribing the drug for that purpose.
That's why the drug companies will make these studies widely known, even though they have no intention of applying to the FDA to approve the drug for the new use. Using drugs for off-label purposes doesn't sound like a great idea, but it becomes even worse when the drug companies are not honest about a study's results.
And that's exactly what Pfizer has been doing. They have a drug called Neurontin, which was approved by the FDA to control epilepsy. But most of the drug's sales have been due to prescriptions for off-label use. The company released studies that showed the drug also worked for nerve pain, migraines and bipolar disorder.
Unfortunately, the company "doctored" the results of the studies, making the drug look like it was far more effective than it actually was. That meant the doctors that believed the fudged studies, were prescribing a medication that really didn't work for the use they intended it, and their patients were paying for a drug that provided them no benefit. The only real benefit was to provide more profits for Pfizer.
Researchers at the University of California at San Francisco and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health learned about this by critically examining the studies done by the drug company. Their report, which appears in the newest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, accuses Pfizer of releasing misleading study results in order to increase off-label sales of their drug.
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, head of health research at Public Citizen, says the company "maliciously manipulated the data to make a drug look more effective than it actually was." All of this comes on the heels of Pfizer being fined $2.3 billion for illegally marketing other drugs.
This doesn't inspire much confidence in Big Pharma does it? Are the other companies doing the same?
A.M.A. Changes It's Position On Marijuana
The largest group representing physicians in the country is the American Medical Association (AMA), which has over 250,000 members. Traditionally, they have accepted without question the government's position on marijuana, and have always supported the idea that marijuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance (like heroin or LSD).
Of course, this is a ludicrous stance since marijuana is non-habit forming and far less dangerous than many legal drugs. Now it looks like the AMA is starting to come to their senses -- sort of. At least they've taken the first step toward sanity.
On Tuesday, the AMA asked the federal government to reconsider their classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical use. Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, said, "Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis, insufficient to satisfy the current standards for a prescription drug product."
The AMA made it clear that they were not saying marijuana should be legalized or they support the state medical marijuana programs. They just think the drug needs to get a fresh look and perhaps some more research should be done on its medical efficacy. Still it represents a radical change from their previous stance.
The AMA also should be commended for defeating an amendment to their stance. The amendment said that "smoking is an inherently unsafe delivery method for any therapeutic agent, and therefore smoked marijuana should not be recommended for medical use."
There have been some tests in the past where patients were given THC pills to control nausea, instead of smoking marijuana. The problem was that the pills did not work as well for many patients as smoking did. There may well be some calming effect in the actual smoking that the pills can never duplicate.
Someday, the recreational use of marijuana will be legal for adults. But old fears, however irrational, die hard and it may take many more years. In the meantime, I am consoled by the changing positions of organizations like the AMA and the American College of Physicians (who adopted a similar position last year).
America's Students Are Not Stupid
A while back, the conservative think tank called the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) hired a firm to conduct a survey of Oklahoma students -- ostensibly to see if they were being properly educated. The firm that conducted the survey was Strategic Vision LLC, and the results they released from the survey were nothing short of shocking.
Strategic Vision LLC said they gave high school students a 10 question open-ended test. According to the company, the test showed that only 23% of the students knew that George Washington was our first president, only 14% knew Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, only 28% knew the Constitution was the supreme law of our land, only 26% knew the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and only 43% knew our two major parties are the Republicans and Democrats.
The students didn't fare well on any of the 10 test questions. In fact, the only question where a higher than 43% got the question right was that 61% correctly identified the Atlantic as the ocean off our east coast. If this survey is valid, then Oklahoma students are downright stupid, and since they are educated much as students are educated in the rest of the country, by inference, American students in general must be stupid.
Thankfully, one Oklahoma legislator just could not accept the results of the survey. State Rep. Ed Cannaday, who had been both a teacher and school principal, thought there had to be something wrong with the survey and he set out to prove it.
Cannaday gave the same test with the same questions asked in the same way to 325 high school seniors in his district (House District 15 -- which is very representative of Oklahoma in general). The scores these seniors recorded were vastly different than those that Strategic Vision LLC had reported.
In Cannaday's test, 98% knew George Washington was the first president, 81% knew Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, 78% knew the Constitution was the supreme law of our land, 91% knew the first 10 amendments were called the Bill of Rights, and 95% knew the names of our two major political parties.
You can consult the above chart for the huge discrepancy on all ten questions between the results reported by Strategic Vision LLC and OCPA, and the results of the test given by Cannaday. Nate at fivethirtyeight.com, who is one of the best at examining polls and surveys and showing their shortcomings and strengths, believes the two results are too far apart to be accounted for by poor polling techniques or playing with the figures. He believes the survey released by OCPA was the result of outright fraud -- a complete fabrication.
I totally agree with him. American students are not stupid and American teachers are doing a good job (sometimes against terrible odds). Could our schools be doing a better job? Yes. But they are not doing anywhere near as bad a job as OCPA would have us think.
Thanks to Nate at fivethirtyeight.com and Rep. Ed Cannaday, this cruel hoax has been exposed.
Many Legislators Like This In Texas Too !
Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Time To Honor Our Veterans
I have put a picture of this beautiful flag at the top of this blog today, because it is a symbol of our country and the ideals of our country. Today is Veterans Day. It is the day we set aside to honor all of our Armed Services veterans who fought to defend this country and its citizens. Whether it was at Lexington or Bunker Hill, or the modern warriors in Afghanistan and Iraq, or those who fought in the many skirmishes and wars in between, they all deserve our respect. Thank you for your service and your sacrifice.
Term Limits Are A Good Idea
I seldom have much good to say about Republicans in Congress. In general, I think they are obstructionist and favor the giant corporations over the rights of individual citizens. But as they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and I think some Senate Republicans have found one of those times where they are right.Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and several colleagues in the senate are trying to revive the idea of term limits for those in Congress. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would limit service in the House to six years (three terms) and service in the Senate to 12 years (two terms).
De Mint (pictured) says, "Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."
I'm not a big fan of Senator DeMint, but there is little doubt that he is absolutely right about this issue. Far too often, we have politicians of both parties who act in their own interest rather than the interest of the citizens they were elected to serve (just look at a number of the blue dog Democrats).
I know some of you may think that term limits would cause the Congress to lose some valuable experience. I disagree. That's why Senators and Representatives hire a competent staff. That staff is supposed to do the research so they can supply their bosses with the requisite expertise to deal with complicated issues.
I firmly believe that our Founding Fathers meant we should be governed by elected citizen representatives -- not by a class of professional politicians acting in their own interest. I also believe term limits might inspire some political courage (a quantity that is far too rare these days). Those in Congress might be more likely to vote in the interests of the citizens, knowing that they won't have a career in Washington however they vote.
I doubt if this amendment has much chance of success, because it must have the support of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress (and that's what killed it last time it came up). If it does fail, it'll be because the professional politicians voted to maintain the status quo.
I have no doubt that if the citizens could vote on this amendment, it would be approved by a huge margin.
Muhammad Is Executed
It's over. Only three years after his conviction, D.C. Sniper John Muhammad was executed by lethal injection. At 9:11pm on Tuesday night, the Virginia Department of Corrections declared he was dead. Muhammad made no final statement.
Yesterday, Muhammad's attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his execution, because of his "mental illness". The court rejected the request without comment. Today, Governor Kaine also refused to commute or delay the execution.
Gov. Kaine said, "Having carefully reviewed the petition for clemency and judicial opinions regarding this case, I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by the jury and then imposed and affirmed by the courts. Accordingly, I decline to intervene."
As regular readers of this blog probably know, I do not like the death penalty and would be happy to see it abolished. But to be honest, I'm having trouble working up any sympathy for Mr. Muhammad. His crimes were vicious, and his innocent victims were chosen at random.
I don't doubt the world is better off without John Muhammad in it.
Judge Bans S.C. License Plate
Right-wing politicians have no shame when it comes to pandering to their fundamentalist christian base. They don't mind violating the Constitution at all, if it'll get them a few more votes by playing the religion card.
Thank goodness our Founding Fathers foresaw the short-sighted and self-indulgent behavior of politicians (and many voters), and gave us the Bill of Rights to go with our Constitution. Otherwise, we would already be living in a theistic dictatorship rather than the secular constitutional democracy that was intended.
A good example of this is the recent action by state politicians in South Carolina. They decided to reassure their re-election by creating a special license plate to appease their fundamentalist voters. They designed and approved a speciality plate with a cross, a stained glass window and the words "I BELIEVE" on it.
Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said approval of the plate was a "free speech" issue. He said it was ridiculous that the state had 103 different speciality plates, and yet didn't have a plate for christians. But the truth is that the move actually restricts speech rather than insuring free speech.
That's because the state singled out the christian religion to be honored with a plate. They did not approve a plate to honor any other religion (or one to honor non-religious thought - atheism). Because they only created a christian plate, that amounted to the state sanctioning a single religion -- a clear violation of the United States Constitution.
And that's exactly what District Judge Cameron Currie said when she struck down the law and banned the christian-only license plate. She said the law amounted to a state endorsement of christianity.
Judge Currie went on to say, "Whether motivated by sincerely-held christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of it's implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary litigation."
It's a good thing we have honest judges to uphold the Constitution and protect our secular democracy.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Roeder Admits Murdering Doctor
The trial of terrorist Scott Roeder for the murder of Dr. George Tiller will not be held until about January of 2010, but Roeder may already have put the last nail in his own legal coffin. In an interview with the Associated Press yesterday, Roeder admitted killing the Wichita doctor.
Roeder is taking advice from his anti-abortion terrorist buddies, and will try to plead that the killing was justified. Roeder said, "I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them. Defending innocent life -- that is what prompted me. It is pretty simple."
But it may be even simpler that Roeder thinks. The Kansas Supreme Court, back in 1993, has already shot down that defense. The court said this was not a defense to breaking the law. The decision was in a trespassing case, but if it's not a defense for trespassing then it can't be used to defend a murder.
Roeder's terrorist supporters, three of whom are in prison for anti-abortion activities (Eric Rudolph, James Kopp and Shelley Shannon), have submitted a statement demanding that jurors in the Roeder trial be allowed to consider "when life begins".
That is even more ridiculous. It is not the jury's job to examine the beginnings of life, or to make any kind of decision regarding abortion. The jury's job is simple. They are to decide whether Roeder shot Dr. Tiller, or not. Roeder's confession yesterday should make that decision a rather easy one.
I look forward to Roeder's conviction for murder, and I hope he gets the life sentence he so richly deserves.
Stupid Is As Murdoch Does
I've always thought that Rupert Murdoch (pictured), as rich as he is, was not the brightest bulb on the tree. Now it looks like he's out to prove that by limiting access to the online sites of his news organizations like the Wall Street Journal and New York Post in America, and the Times and Sun in the U.K.He had already announced that his sites would begin charging for readers to access their websites. He had hoped to start that by June of 2010, but it now looks like that may be delayed. Now he wants to ban Google and other search engines from listing stories from his sites.
He says he thinks it is illegal for search engines to use his headlines or paragraphs, and he wants to ban the practice altogether. Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of search engines. They are not stealing his content, but instead are sending him a ton of readers. Evidently, he wants his sites to virtually disappear from the internet.
Personally, I wish him success in his insane venture. I hope he does start charging for visits to his sites. I also hope he gets his sites removed from all the search engines. Doing both of these two things would ensure that his internet sites will fail (and there will be less access to his right-wing slant on the news).
There are two things that are pretty much assured. Free access to news on the internet is going to continue (and probably expand), and search engines will continue to direct much of the internet traffic.
If Murdoch doesn't want to participate on the internet, I doubt he'll even be missed.
Don't Blame All Muslims
The shooting at Fort Hood was a real tragedy -- there is no doubt of that. But now it seems like some people want to compound that tragedy by taking it out on innocent people in the muslim faith.
Many right-wingers are now trying to blame all muslims for the actions of one man (who happened to also be a muslim). Fox News even had their rather scary pundits talking as though muslims in the Armed Forces should be treated differently than other Americans -- people who have or will risk their lives to defend all of us.
There are over 1.3 billion muslims in the world, and I'm convinced that 98% of them are as horrified by the shooting at Fort Hood as anyone else. I've known and worked with many muslims in this country, and I've found them to be among the nicest and most decent people I've had the pleasure to be around.
For example, consider the Islamic Society of North America. They have joined with other muslim groups (and with interfaith groups) to raise money for the families of the victims at Fort Hood. They don't care what religion the victims professed (or even if they professed any religion). They just want to help.
Trying to blame all muslims for the Fort Hood shooting would be like trying to blame all christians for the shooting of Dr. Tiller. It's not just unfair, it's downright stupid!
Let's be good Americans, and not turn a terrible tragedy into an even larger tragedy.
Monday, November 09, 2009
TCU Rises To #4 In BCS Standings
The TCU football team has now accomplished something that no other team not in a BCS conference has ever done. They have risen to the #4 ranking in the BCS standings. Until now, the best ranking for a non-BCS conference school was #6. The TCU Horned Frogs are also rated #4 by the Coaches poll and the Harris poll.
TCU has accomplished this by winning their recent games by huge margins and remaining undefeated. They have won their last four games by an average score of 44-8. Meanwhile, the #5 and #6 teams are also from non-BCS conferences -- Cincinnati and Boise State.
This is where the BCS gets unfair. No matter how good these teams do as they finish the rest of the season, the BCS is only required to include one of them in a BCS bowl game. Also, there is no way any of the three has a chance to play for the national championship, even though they have proven they can play with ranked teams.
It is time for major colleges to go to a playoff system for at least the top 16 teams. I realize TCU and the teams ranked below them might be considered "cinderella" teams with only an outside chance of winning, but who can say they couldn't do it? It reminds me of the excellent Utah team from last year that wasn't given a chance to prove themselves.
By the way, TCU's next game is against that Utah team. If TCU can convincingly beat them, can anyone really claim they wouldn't have a good chance to beat Florida, Texas or Alabama? Here are the top ten teams and their BCS ratings:
1. Florida----------.9842
2. Alabama----------.9516
3. Texas----------.9234
4. TCU----------.8620
5. Cincinnati----------.8580
6. Boise State----------.8126
7. Georgia Tech----------.7552
8. LSU----------.6138
9. USC----------.5922
10. Iowa----------.5745
Could Juice Be Worse Than Soft Drinks ?
A few years ago, the health nazis in this country decided that carbonated soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi were bad for children, and were contributing to obesity and health problems like diabetes and heart problems. They have even suggested that these soft drinks should be taxed at a high rate to discourage their use.
This caused many parents to switch their children from soft drinks to fruit juices. After all, the juices are "natural" and possibly even "organic" (two of the most misused and meaningless words in the English language). The thinking was that these natural juices must be healthier than soft drinks.
Now we learn that might not be true at all. Doctors and health officials now say the juices may actually be less healthy and contribute to the same health problems. It seems that the juices have just as much sugar as the soft drinks, and have even more calories.
Here are the figures for popular juices and soft drinks:
Orange juice...............112 calories
Apple juice...............114 calories
Grape juice...............152 calories
Coke...............97 calories
Pepsi...............100 calories
Now the same people who demonized soft drinks are trying to do the same to juices. At this rate, it won't be long before they restrict our children to nothing but water (and then they'll probably try to find something wrong with that).
I think the so-called health officials are looking at the problem the wrong way. They want us to believe there are good and bad foods, but I'm not at all sure I believe that. The problem is not what you consume (as long as you get the minimum requirement of vitamins and minerals), but how much is consumed.
For example, look at the French diet. It is very high in fats and sugar and other things our health officials say are bad, and yet that don't have near the obesity and health problems. Why? Because they consume these things in moderation. They don't feel like they need two or three portions of something just because it tastes good, while here in America we supersize it and then ask for more.
The point is that neither juices or soft drinks are inherently bad for children or anyone else, as long as they are consumed in moderation. Eat what you want to eat -- just don't be a pig about it.
Rep. Edwards Lacks Political And Moral Courage
House Democrats passed their version of health care reform on Saturday night. It was not the bill I wanted since I favor a government-run single-payer system, but it is not a terrible bill. It does accomplish some health care reforms that were badly needed such as doing away with "pre-existing conditions", allowing a person who changes his/her job to take their insurance with them, and stopping the practice of insurance companies dropping patients whose treatment proves to be expensive.It also includes a public insurance plan as an option in a healthcare exchange, where clients can go to find low-cost insurance. The bill is far from perfect, but it is an important step on the road to providing all Americans with decent affordable health insurance.
Every single Republican, with the lone exception of Rep. Cao from the 2nd District of Louisiana, voted against health care reform. That was expected. Far more disappointing is the fact that 39 Democrats (blue dogs) voted against fixing our broken health care system and providing health insurance for all Americans.
One of those blue dogs who voted against health care was Rep. Chet Edwards from the 17th District of Texas (the Waco area). Here is how he explained his vote, "After listening to thousands of my constituents and carefully reviewing the legislation, I have made a decision to vote no on the House health care reform bill. Given the huge federal deficits facing our nation, I believe there is too much new spending in this bill."
Could he really mean that? Could he really mean that human lives are less important that keeping federal spending and taxes for the rich abnormally low? I don't think so.
The fact is that Edwards (pictured) represents a fairly conservative district. If he had voted for the health care reform bill, there is the possibility that he would not be re-elected. So he had a choice. He could vote to do the right thing and save millions of lives by fixing our broken health care system, or he could vote to save his own political hide regardless of the pain that could cause millions of Americans.
I believe he made the wrong choice -- the choice of a political coward. Do we elect our leaders to protect themselves, or do we elect them to do the right thing for the American people and make this a better country for all Americans? I suggest it is the latter.
I expect elected officials to vote in the best interest of all Americans -- even if that means they may be committing political suicide. But Chet Edwards (and the other 38 blue dogs) disagree, and believe the highest political good is self-preservation. That shows a complete lack of political and moral courage.
I actually supported Edwards in the 2008 election. Today, that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, and it won't happen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
