Thursday, June 28, 2012

DETROIT: Jury System Flawed here...




Detroit, as we all know, is a hot bed of corruption and has been for some time now. The former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was as crooked as they come and he had a host of buddies that profited from his crookedness, even his own father.

Bobby Ferguson got away with millions of tax payer money and was finally brought to trial with solid evidence all over the place, we are told, so his conviction was a slam dunk.

Before the trial, Ferguson’s lawyers complained that he was not getting a fair trial because he was not being judged by a jury of his peers. I knew right then and there, we were heading for a mistrial.

To me, being judged by a jury made up of my peers means that the jury is composed of people from my city, town, village or county. To Ferguson’s lawyers, his peers means his fellow blacks… which to me is an issue steeped in racism and has no place in how juries are chosen or how juries do their sworn duties; people on the juries are sworn to judge the evidence presented to them in a color-blind fashion; am I naïve?

Anyway, there have been cases in  recent history where the black defendant was absolutely guilty judging by the evidence presented and according to the men and women of the jury hearing the case EXCEPT for the lone black juror (usually female) who disregarded the evidence and instead blocked conviction because she just could not convict a fellow black on principle.

In the Ferguson case it appears that in the face of overwhelming evidence, one female black juror scuttled the entire effort of the prosecution on the grounds that she could not convict a fellow black. In this case there was at least one other black juror (male) who thought Ferguson was guilty and was disappointed at the lone holdout.

Our jury system is not perfect and I think we all know that but it is our system and our right to be tried by our peers but I suspect there is a cultural problem that is being exploited by conniving defense lawyers to the detriment of our system of jurisprudence.

We all remember the infamous O.J. Simpson case but there have been many other miscarriages of justice based on a culture of racism that has no place in our society today.

You can call it getting back at all the miscarriages of justice by all white juries in the South that found blacks guilty and sentenced to hang based on the color of their skin and not on any evidence but that has to stop at some time and the time is now.

All jurors are obligated to be impartial judges of the evidence presented to them and I feel there must be a process where a juror’s obvious obstinacy based on bias and not on presented evidence, must be identified and dealt with so as not to waste taxpayer money on expensive retrials.

I know I will be reminded of the great play and movie, THE TWELVE ANGRY MEN which is such a classic but even in that classic about one hold-out juror eventually convincing the other eleven of the defendant’s innocence, race was not an issue in the story and it should not be an issue in our story today.

Enhanced by Zemanta

JOHN ROBERTS OF THE SUPREME COURT: Why?????




Now for the big question about the Supreme Court’s passage of Obamacare and what made John Roberts do what he did.

John Roberts is a Republican conservative Catholic who always votes with his right-wing buddies so what happened this time.

Since his block-headed buddies wanted to declare unconstitutional the entire Obamacare plan, he must have thought that there were some benefits in the plan that should not be just shot down with the whole plan but preserved.

Since he had no choice; everything or nothing, he chose to pick everything and spin his decision in such a way that would allow him to still sound conservative.

Roberts, who is also a staunch Catholic and knew the mandates on contraception in the plan, opted obviously, to go against the Catholic leadership and stick with the nuns…interesting….more on that later.

The big sticking point was on the individual mandate or YOU MUST HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE part of the plan which was so important that the plan without it would just not work.

The conservatives said that the federal government cannot tell people what to do. They say that only when they feel that way, otherwise they don’t mind having the federal government order people around.

Obama’s people countered that they have the right under the inter-state commerce clause which allows the federal government to regulate commerce state to state but not within a state…get it? Since health insurance would be mandated nationally, it would be an inter-state issue and not an individual state issue.

Anyway, Roberts did not buy that argument BUT he did buy the constitutional FACT that allows the federal government to TAX the people; that was not always so in our history.

Under this “valid constitutional” argument, Roberts could say that the government is not forcing everyone to get health insurance, they are just taxing them if they don’t…get it?

Anyway, I will be very interested to hear the speculation about why Roberts voted the way he did. His vote will go down in history, so was he aware of that or was he really voting his conscience?



Enhanced by Zemanta

OBAMACARE...PART 2



Now many of my friends are against Obamacare because they feel it is some form of socialism and it is what they hear their buddies say but I feel that people listen to their friend’s opinions instead of learning for themselves what the facts are.

Obamacare is a work in progress and can be tweaked as we move along. It is not a one-payer system which would be socialism but keeps the basic health insurance plans that are available today.

Just like the uninsured that will have to pay a 1% penalty tax to stay uninsured, employers with 50+ workers will also have to pay a modest penalty tax if they do not offer health insurance to their workers.

I have been an employer for over 30 years and have always offered health insurance. Only recently I had to ask workers to contribute to their health insurance premiums because insurance costs have gone thorough the roof and I can no longer afford to offer free health care insurance.

I know how important health insurance is to people so I don’t treat it lightly. I remember when I was working for someone else and my kids were getting sick every day, how much it really meant and my biggest fear when starting my own company was not having healthcare insurance and what a financial risk that was.

Knowing how important health insurance is to people, having a system where the insurance would travel with you from job to job is a great thing; you don’t have to be tied to an employer you hate just for the health insurance.

I have also worked in the healthcare industry for over 30 years; I know that the system has to be fixed and there are many areas that need improvement or at least national coordination. We can reduce the cost of healthcare by doing things in a smart way and believe me, there are many examples available of smart ideas in the healthcare industry…we just need a push in the right direction.

Remember that we do have the best healthcare in the world but we don’t always get the best healthcare in the world and many people fall through the cracks so we can do better…

So for all my friends that mock Obamacare…do you have a better plan? 

OBAMACARE: Supreme Court says YES!





Well I was pleasantly surprised that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare but it did so in a most unusual fashion; John Roberts, the chief judge and a member of the conservative block, was the swing vote and voted with the liberals which has NEVER happened…so what gives???

I have written many times about how our health system needs reform BIG TIME; it is unsustainable as it is today. I am not saying Obamacare is the absolute answer BUT it is a step in the right direction and we can always argue the fine points later. The Republicans have NO PLAN of their own; they just appose everybody else’s plan.

Romney is the inventor of Obamacare so it is silly listening him attack Obamacare which was based solely on Romney’s blueprint which he enacted in Massachusetts; how can you disavow your own invention?

The Constitution is like the Bible; you can find support there for basically all views, you just have to know how to spin it correctly.

The conservatives on the bench want a small federal government and prefer to allow individual states to have the power of deciding certain issue. The liberals prefer a strong federal government because individual states can’t be counted on to vote correctly, so take the power away from them.

In my opinion, our healthcare system is totally screwed up and very inefficient and can never be reformed on a state by state basis; there has to be a national effort.

In my opinion, the biggest waste of money in healthcare is treating the uninsured. Since the uninsured know that emergency rooms cannot toss them out if they have no insurance, but are mandated by law to treat them, they go there often and for every little thing; they have FREE medical care paid for by the taxpayers, over and over and over again.

Well enough is enough and if you don’t want to get health insurance than treat yourself! That is not a cold attitude on my part because many of the uninsured can absolutely afford health insurance but why should they pay for insurance when they can get treatment for FREE just by going to the ER and saying I have no insurance BUT you have to treat me…

Yes, many cannot afford it and that is why we have MEDICAID which will be enlarged to accommodate more people that are poor.

The young think they are invincible so why should they get insurance; invincible until they crash their car or bike or fall over in a drunken stupor…sorry, you also need insurance…you can stay on your parent’s policy till 26.

So the federal government is NOT forcing anyone to get insurance, no they can stay uninsured BUT they will have to pay a 1% tax on their income every year they remain uninsured. So no one is forced to do something against their will, they are just assessed a tax for not being uninsured and that is what John Roberts used as his argument for voting for Obamacare.

The 1% tax penalty is bullshit since I don’t see how that can be enforced and 1% is no penalty; they should have a penalty with some teeth to get all those assholes to realize that it pays to be insured.

I will have more on this issue on the flip-side because it is truly a historic moment…


Monday, June 25, 2012

IMMIGRATION ISSUE: Supreme Court acts?





Well the Supreme Court is starting to pop out some of those momentous decisions on important issues of the day.

Immigration policy has been a hot potato between states like Arizona and Obama’s federal claims. Arizona and its interesting looking governor, Jan Brewer, were all for tough standards since they, as a state, have to contend with BIG immigration issues…just look at Arizona’s border with Mexico.

Arizona wanted to basically make it a state crime to be illegal and give Arizona police powers to apprehend and arrest illegals and I suppose punish them according to state law.

Obama argued that immigration law and policy is a federal matter and not a state matter so Arizona had no rights to deal with illegals.

Arizona had a great retort to Obama saying since the federal government has chosen to do NOTHING ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, we as a state are forced to address the issue…makes sense to me.

The court did not split down the great conservative / liberal divide as is often the case but the really radical right-wingers (Scalia, Alito & Thomas) who pretend to interpret the Constitution but really just vote their obvious biases, said whatever Arizona wants to do is fine with them.

Thankfully (or not) cooler heads prevailed including that of swing voter extraordinaire Anthony Kennedy and left immigration policy and regulation to the federal government since it is the federal government that is in charge of our borders even though Congress cannot decide what the hell to do with those borders.

Federal immigration law such as punishing employers for hiring illegals supersedes any state laws that make illegals looking for employment a crime.

The one big issue in the Arizona law was allowing state troopers to stop (read profile) people and ask for proof of citizenship or immigration papers (Gestapo tactics). The Supreme Court’s decision does not prohibit state troopers from stopping illegal immigrants; it prohibits them from arresting them since Arizona cannot make laws punishing illegals…get it?

Once the state trooper stops an illegal he is to call the Federales to handle the situation…really? How in the hell is that going to work?

In other words, this issue is not over by a long shot; expect more suits to be filed.

This issue could be put to rest if Congress would just decide on a comprehensive immigration policy but that ain’t gonna happen any time soon because it is all about politics and we are in an election year as you know and immigration remains a hot potato.

Romney once touted his SELF-DEPORTATION policy which means deny illegals everything so they will be forced to leave or self-deport…and now he just says he will do something…maybe. Obama is just pandering for Latino votes so he is throwing out executive orders that will allow young people that came here illegally when they were young, to delay their deportation if they register with the government…good luck with that one…who in the hell will register?

All I have to say is…WHAT A MESS…





Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, June 24, 2012

OBAMA VS ROMNEY: Which one is the lesser evil?




One political issue that I have been battling concerns the Republican fiscal philosophy (conservative) that I agree with, on the one hand and their social issues extremism on the other.

Many who voted for Republicans to straighten out the financial mess that many states found themselves in are now starting to regret their votes seeing how those Republicans are now showing their true colors by pushing conservative social issues that they were no elected to pursue.

Joe Klein in his article AN ELECTION OF LESSER EVILS in the July issue of TIME Magazine points this out as he travels in the Midwest asking voters what they think.

In Michigan, I voted for Rick Snyder, the Republican candidate for governor because I felt he was the man to get the state back into financial shape and I think so far, I have not been disappointed; I think he is GREAT!

The problem is that Snyder’s Republican victory also brought in other Republicans hanging on to his coat-tails but unlike Snyder himself who does not have any social issue agenda, the other Republicans do and it is starting to show.

These Republicans are no pushing anti-abortion legislation, attacking University of Michigan’s stem cell research and gagging a female legislator for using the word vagina on the house floor.

I like Snyder as a businessman doing what needs to be done which is similar to who Romney is, a businessman, that knows how to get things done BUT they are still Republicans and it appears that they will ALLOW their party to take this nation backwards into the dark ages of social policy and I am not sure that I can let that happen.

I object to a lot that Obama does on the economic front and I have spoken up about my issues with his policies BUT I am sure I do not want to give Republicans the power to take away our freedoms just because they have a screwed up religious ideology where they think they are right and we all better bend to their way of thinking…hell no!

And as Joe Klein points out this may be an election of LESSER EVILS and who would do the least damage to this country and as I ponder this today, I would rather Obama get another four years than let the Republican hordes have their way with my freedoms.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NUNS ON THE BUS...go girls!





Sundays are my catch up on all my reading day and so I sometimes run into some interesting articles I want to share.

TIME magazine had an interesting article by John Cloud on SISTER SIMONE CAMPBELL and the lobbying group she runs called NETWORK.

She is making news as are many Catholic nuns these days because of the Vatican’s attack on their so called “liberal” views which do not always match the views that the Vatican is mandating all Catholics to hold.

Sister Campbell and her organization has organized a bunch of nuns into NUNS ON THE BUS tour where they travel to various congressional districts protesting what they call immoral budget cuts that hurt people who struggle, in essence, lobbying for the poor.

These nuns who have worked tirelessly among the poor also were very vocal in supporting President Obama’s healthcare plan which would be very beneficial to the poor and uninsured but their support also clashed with Catholic leader’s battle against the healthcare plan because it would mandate health insurers to cover contraception.

When asked about the pope’s attack on American nuns she said “I’ve been a faithful woman religious for over 40 years and some guy who’s never talked to me says we’re a problem? Ooh, that hurts.”

American bishops are all pissed off because the nuns are stealing, what they think is their thunder, in battling the contraception issue with Obama…really?

The Vatican’s attack on American nuns has not gone very well for the pope and nuns here are enjoying more support from American Catholics than ever before…you go girls!


Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Penn State & The Vatican: many ways alike!





The conviction of Monsignor William Lynn of failing to take steps to prevent priestly sexual abuse in Philadelphia is big; it is very big.

This is a first time that a Catholic cleric, not an abuser himself but in a position to prevent abuse by suspected pedophilic priests, was convicted by a civil (not religious) court of criminal liability in not protecting children from priests he knew were sexual abusers.

This is big and very important because it opens the door for other cities in the country to pursue similar cases of criminal liability by clerics who watched and did nothing. The next case to be tried in September is against Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City who failed to report a priest found with child pornography.

As I have said many times before, the Catholic Church talks a good game when it says it is doing everything possible to protect children from abusive priests but it is a blatant lie proven by case after case of child abuse allowed by the Church because the Church took no action, even now, to prevent that abuse.

Maybe when many bishops are sitting in jail will the Vatican finally do something about the problem it pretends does not exist?

It is interesting that just yesterday; Jerry Sandusky of Penn State was convicted of child abuse and probably will spend the rest of his life behind bars in solitary confinement.

Sandusky had a high ranking position as a football coach, which afforded him the respect and admiration of many young men. His position was similar to that of a priest; a position that also carried with it admiration, respect and most of all trust, especially from children.

Penn State was similar to the Vatican or the greater church hierarchy which looked out for the institution before it looked to the welfare of individuals.

Sandusky, as one man, brought down and probably killed the biggest name in college coaching history (Joe Paterno) and will demolish a proud university that chose to ignore the abuse just like the Catholic Church did.

The Vatican, just like Penn State, will have to be taken down step by step for not doing what is right. The only difference is that the Vatican claims to do God’s work on earth where Penn State is just a secular university with a once proud football program…goes to show that institutions, no matter who and what they represent, are run by men who are fallible, greedy and self serving…devoid of humanity.





Enhanced by Zemanta

CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS: Stay or Go...

Another subject that I feel needs some clarification because it is so divisive among us is the issue of Confederate Monuments, why they ...