Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

Court rejects lethal injection challenge - USATODAY.com

As I suspected, the Court really did not absolutely clear up anything and more challenges are expected.

Interestingly, Justice John Paul Stevens raised the question that HE THINKS that a Constitutional challenge to the "death penalty" itself will and should be raised EVEN THOUGH he voted, this time, with the majority on this "narrow" issue about the death penalty.

I have never argued with the validity of the death penalty applied to cases and people that indicated justification for such an extreme penalty BUT...

I am now totally disenchanted with our justice system especially the office of the prosecutor. I am totally convinced by past and present examples, that many prosecutors are devoid of the notion of justice and fairness and only want to win and close cases in a bid for higher office.

Just the vast amount of inmates that have been released after many years in jail on DNA evidence proving that they did not commit the crime they were accused, tried and sentenced to jail for, proves our system is far from perfect and we cannot risk executing an innocent person until the system IS perfect!

Does that mean we should stop all executions? No but I would demand "absolute" proof of guilt including DNA evidence; I would never agree to the death penalty in cases where the evidence was only "circumstantial". Even "eye witnesses have been proven unreliable.

As far as the death penalty itself being unconstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual" punishment; that argument fails because in our history it was the "usual" and not "unusual" punishment for certain crimes and as far as "cruelty" is concerned; that has been defined differently throughout our history as to method of execution culminating today in the most genteel of executions.

If your argument is that causing "death" is "cruel" then I would agree and that is why the person that caused innocent death is suffering the same cruelty he or she caused.

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

Jan's Stinkin Blog: LETHAL INJECTION - too uncomfortable?

SUPREMES VOTE LETHAL INJECTION OK!

I originally wrote about this issue when it was first filed with the Supreme Court (November 12, 2007) - click on link above for text of blog.

The vote was 7-2 with Ruth Ginsburg and David Souter dissenting.

I will have to read the formal opinion to see the basis for the Court's decision but I remembered arguing in my initial comment that there ARE better methods of lethal injection than the 3-drug current method that appears to be hard to administer and may cause unintended "suffering".

The original case brought by two inmates from Kentucky was NOT to stop execution by lethal injection but to USE ANOTHER METHOD like the one-shot Barbiturate Overdose Method.

I am not sure the Supreme Court addressed that specific complaint and herein lies the problem; they don't want to judge what IS "cruel & unusual punishment" and so this issue will keep dragging on - a bullet in the back of the head causes death so fast that the inmate has no time to feel pain - so is it painless for the inmate but painful for us?

Send Iraq Supporters to Iraq / Bring troops home!

Just a quick note to all of you Iraq War supporter nutcases; the Iraq government fired 1,300 government soldiers and police because they deserted rather than obey orders to subdue the Shiite militia under the cleric al-Sadr.

This again shows you that an Iraqi government does not really exist and can never really exist. It is not even Shiite against Sunni; it’s Shiite against Shiite, secular vs. cleric and a civil war will happen whether we leave today or in a 100 years.

Bush just said that he will do nothing for now which means the asshole will leave HIS problem for the next president.

Bush started the war, killed over 4,000 U.S. troops and leaves his mess to the next president. I think all those that supported Bush in his Iraq adventure should be sent to Iraq (and you know who you are) and all the troops there now, allowed to come home for good – deal?

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Pope: 'Ashamed' of clergy abuse scandal - Yahoo! News

Well so far the Pope is doing the "right" thing by addressing the priestly sex scandal head on, apologizing for it and vowing to prevent it from happening again. He is getting good advice or just maybe he is following his own advice. So far, so good - read all about it!

The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Well I guess the Vatican listened to some of what has been talked about in the U.S. prior to the Pope's visit and now the Vatican has decided that the Pope WILL address the priestly sex scandal at least once during his visit - that's a positive sign!


The Pope's Sex Abuse Challenge - TIME

Hey, Lets Hear What The Pope Has to Say!

Hey Pope Benedict IVI is coming to the U.S. this Wednesday and much has already been written about him and he has not said a word yet.

The New York Times had one of their Catholic reporters write an article about what the Pope’s visit means to him and his Catholic family and he basically said that it means nothing to him and his seriously Catholic family.

He was more or less saying what many if not most American Catholics feel about THIS pope; nothing. Maybe they don’t know him and maybe this visit will change that.

One underlying sentiment about American Catholics that I am hearing is that they basically do what they feel is right despite what the Vatican thinks or even demands from them. I think the Pope knows this.

The other item or issue that I am hearing about is the lack of care by the Vatican about the “American” priestly sex scandals that have bankrupted a number of large parishes in this country. It appears that the Vatican thinks that by ignoring the problem people will soon forget about it. Or making it into an ONLY AMERICAN problem, world Catholics will just say “those crazy Americans, here they go again…”

I personally think the problem is worldwide and has been in existence from the beginning and the Vatican has done a great job hiding it through the centuries but is having problems in continuing to hide the problem of pedophile priests and I think the Catholics in the U.S. want the Vatican to take some responsibility, acknowledge that the problem exists and describe steps it has taken to address the problem.

I think the Pope has no plans to address the priestly sexual abuse scandal while in the States because the Vatican considers the matter “closed”. I think we may see some organized protests on the matter and why not.

Time Magazine also talked a lot about Benedict and the Americans. The magazine thought Benedict actually likes Americans and America and remembers all the good deeds we did for Europe after WWII.

The Wall Street Journal had a big piece about the President of Notre Dame and what he thought about the Pope’s visit. He is looking forward to it especially the speech the Pope will make to leaders of Catholic education. Notre Dame is not known for sticking to official Vatican teaching instructions.

Benedict is a smart man – I am looking forward to hear what the man has to say.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

More thoughts on the “2nd Amendment” issue before the Supreme Court; that’s the one that allows us to “bear arms”?

As I mentioned before, if you are going to interpret our Constitution in a constructionist way (as it was written and intended originally) you will have to know something about the issues back when it was being written.

The second amendment as written grants the right to bear arms to citizens ONLY as a regulated militia. I argued that since each state has a NATIONAL GUARD that takes the place of a State Militia, the amendment does not have any validity because it addresses something that DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

In cases where the Constitution does not address a specific issue, the matter is turned over to the States since it is now NOT a federal matter but a STATE matter.

BUT when I carefully studied the debate between the Federalists (pro-Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (against the Constitution) a big concern was the ability of the states to protect themselves from a too aggressive central government – yes that was a valid concern.

This issue was such a concern that for the Constitution to be ratified, the states demanded the inclusion of a BILL of RIGHTS into the Constitution to address those very issues.

So the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to grant the states a means of protecting themselves from an overbearing central government. Yes, they meant to “fight” the central government if they did not like what they were imposing on the individual states – hard to believe in today’s U.S.

In those days, the citizens of each state would comprise the state militia and could be called upon to serve in times of crisis – fair enough?

But here is the problem, the Constitution granted power to the central government to “nationalize” the state militia if the need arose – see a conflict?

Our state national guards who took the place of state militias have been nationalized by the central government in the past. Remember Alabama and the school segregation stand-off with Wallace, et.al? Well the state national guard that was blocking entrance to the school was nationalized and told to stand down and desist, in effect, over-ruling the state.

So the writers at that time were obviously aware of the fact that the central government can always “trump” the state government by just “nationalizing” their militia so what did they really mean for the 2nd Amendment to do?

It specifically grants the bearing of arms to individuals ONLY as members of a militia and for the protection of the state NOT individual property or person.

As much as I try to see what others want me to see (individual’s right to bear arms); it’s just not in the Amendment – sorry!

That does NOT mean (and I again repeat) that individuals DO NOT have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give them that right and the SUPREME COURT should say just that, excuse themselves and send the matter back to the STATE COURT who should decide the case based on the specific STATE CONSTITUTION.

Amen to that!

And the beat goes on and on and on...

How sad was it to watch general Petraeus come before Congress ONCE AGAIN with his hat in his hand, saying the same damn thing; we cannot pull out of Iraq right now because things are kind of fragile and it would be irresponsible and dangerous to do that right now. I suggest we wait another few months and see…

But sir, you have said the same thing every time you have come here and we have asked you – when is the war going to be over, when are we pulling our troops out, when will the Iraqis take care of themselves…

President Bush, predictably once again states that he will listen to the advice of the good general because the general is the one who knows the best course of action in Iraq at the present time…

The Wall Street Journal nods agreement and criticizes Democratic critics of the war as irresponsible politicos who don’t give a shit about anything except their own political future – what a crock of shit.

I read the Journal because I am a businessman but I have to question the sanity of its editorial board; any jackass, even Petraeus sees that the Iraqi factions are just playing us for more money and more time; rebuild everything, make us all rich and powerful and then get the fuck out.

This whole affair is beyond sad and pitiful; it is embarrassing. Even the soldiers in Iraq say get us the hell out of here – we are being used and abused for absolutely NOTHING (they are saying this on camera, on major networks).

AND the administration is asking for more BILLIONS to rebuild their police stations, etc. the same ones that they will blow up a few days after we build them…

Why are we as a people putting up with this? Are we just waiting for the elections – why, McCain is actually predicted to win and he WILL continue the war for another 100 years?

Our representatives in Congress have abandoned us and are trying to outdo each other in how much money will they give to each jackass that bought a home they could not afford – we are truly in a Twilight Zone!

Cardinal's Response Enlightened!

Thanks to Tom for sending a link to the Vienna Cardinal’s explanation as to why he approved the Hrdlicka exhibit at the Vienna Cathedral Museum with such “objectionable” material.

It is obvious that Cardinal Schonborn had no idea about any individual works to be displayed but generally, knew that Alfred Hrdlicka (80) was a well respected artist with some well known and praised pieces of art. The museum director was directly responsible for the pieces on display and I think, was responsible for selecting them in the first place as he was the curator of the show.

In any case, I found the Cardinal’s explanation, or if you prefer, his justification for the exhibit quite refreshing and oh so “enlightened”! Quite frankly, I was stunned.

He obviously rejected as inappropriate any works that “committed Christians” clearly viewed as blasphemous or pornographic but he held out his hand of encouragement to those artists that are not committed Christians but still feel the need to express themselves in their art on biblical issues. It’s as if the Cardinal welcomed a religious dialog with an unbeliever or a searcher, no matter how the subject was raised.

Number one, the Cardinal’s response was a huge antithesis to the response the Muslim clerics had to the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic clerics called for death and torture to the infidels that perpetrated this crime against Allah and his prophet, etc, etc……………..ad nauseam!

I swear it is like the clash of the Age of Enlightenment with the Dark Ages. On the one hand you have a cleric comfortable with his faith and his god and on the other, clerics that still treat their god as a puppet that needs to be dressed and fed daily and protected against people that may say bad things against him.

I hope my praise at the way this whole situation was handled is not premature. I am not sure if the same situation would have been handled with such civility in the United States. Remember the “Crucifix in a glass of Urine” debacle some years back; even some U.S. Congressmen threatened to remove all federal funding for the museum that displayed that piece of “art”.

I still have to examine my initial and probably lasting revulsion to the little I saw of the pieces. I can blame natural heterosexual revulsion instincts to homoerotic art even though I am in no way anti-gay. I can also blame no understanding for the artist’s message; maybe that will be explained to me.

Telling me that some of Hrdlicka’s works represent the “carnality of religion” does not really do much for my understanding of his message, if there is one but obviously, I will defend his right to express it – every time!

A Catholic Art Exhibit Gives Pause!

There was news of an art exhibit in Vienna, Austria at a museum attached to the Roman Catholic Cathedral there. The art works were by renowned Austrian artist Alfred Hrdlicka who was celebrating his 80th birthday with his show entitled “Religion, Flesh & Power”.

I saw a brief video of the pieces on exhibit and I read descriptions of the art works and I will tell you; I was a bit stunned.

Mind you, this exhibit was put on and therefore sanctioned by the Catholic Church in Austria and the museum curator is amazed at having to defend the exhibit.

I will hasten to say that one piece “The Last Supper” is basically a homosexual orgy of the Apostles – graphic to say the least. Another piece showed the crucifixion with a Roman soldier basically holding Jesus’ privates while whipping him. These are just short glimpses that I had. The video was done by GLORIA TV which is a Catholic web site.

There are a lot of themes playing here. Obviously, some Catholics cried “blasphemy” and were very confused how this exhibit came to be supported by the Church.

Others mentioned the Mohammed Cartoons in Denmark and how this was similar in the outrage it provoked – BUT NO ONE WAS RIOTING – YET – and we shall see if Austrians can show the Muslims what freedom of speech really means in Europe.

An Austrian Cardinal did yank the “Last Supper” off the wall but was quick to add that it was NOT CENCORSHIP but, in his words, “reverence for the sacred” – interesting!

I will follow this story a bit because it so intrigued me but also my own initial negative reaction to the exhibit intrigued me – why?

THE DEMOCRATS WANT A BAILOUT NOT A FIX!

As predicted, the Democrats do not want to overhaul the financial regulatory system to check the reckless financial behavior by people and institutions; no they want a bailout, plain and simple.

The Democrats want to let judges erase some mortgage debt for homeowners in bankruptcy. To me, you bought it, you pay for it – it is that simple. I suggested compelling lenders to re-negotiate payment terms but not to forgive the debt; that is plain insane.

They want the federal government go into debt counseling – why? There is enough self help information out there for free but if you need personal assistance, there are companies that provide that to – why should our government take those jobs from companies providing that service – we need every job out there.

The Democrats also want to give home builders tax breaks and somehow reverse falling home prices – how?

This is the fear I have of Democrats controlling Congress; they are socialists and closet Communists, they feel they can solve all problems by throwing more money at them. They want to coddle the population instead of teaching it to survive.

Please remember that during the Great Depression of the 1930, FDR tried many different ways to help the people and stimulate the economy (he gets an A for effort) BUT none of his gimmicks worked and only WWII brought an end to the depression.

We have come a long way since the 1930s and have learned what we did wrong back then so lets not repeat them! Listen to the economists that know what should be done and many say update the financial regulatory system to address modern financial problems so we don’t get blindsided again – take control and regulate accordingly but let the market heal itself like it has in the past.

As to the people and institutions in trouble right now; well there is really not much that can be done short of the Democrat’s imbecilic notion to forget and forgive debts. The Fed took some unprecedented steps with Bear Stearns to stop a potential dominos effect on Wall Street but the jury is still out on whether that was a wise move.

Fiscal Conservatives believe that people and financial institutions should be responsible for their financial actions and suffer the consequences of those actions and maybe learn a thing or two along the way.

I am not convinced at this juncture that we should do otherwise.

OUR ECONOMY IS A CHANGING...

Let’s talk a little about our economy and economics in general.

There are today, frantic calls from the public and politicians for the federal government to do something – immediately – to help the worsening economic situation in this country. This to me is a scary situation because when politics start playing a role in economics; things can quickly get out of hand.

Because our financial industry has changed dramatically over the last few years; we have no precedents to go by so economists need to study what is going on and make some serious and sober suggestions and not just “bail out” every person and every company that is in financial peril.

I will blame our government for the “foreclosure / credit” disaster we are now experiencing. When purchasing my first home I was told that there are very strict financial requirements that I need to meet or I would not be allowed to obtain a home loan. I needed 20% down, have money in the bank, a good job, a secure future earning capacity and a spotless financial record.

Obviously, all those strict rules were thrown out the window when non-banks were allowed to enter the mortgage market. These non-bank companies did not care if you could afford your house; they sold your mortgage (sub-prime) to an investor as soon as they closed on it. They made their money, screw the rest!

Why didn’t our government move in to regulate this new industry? People that never had a chance at owning their own home now could; isn’t that great! Money was being made hand over fist and the government was collecting a lot in taxes. Wall Street was happy as shit cause young millionaires were devising more and more, totally bullshit “investment instruments” based on these bullshit mortgages and generating revenue like mad!

Why in the hell would our government want to mess-up a great party like that?

Was anyone paying attention to what could happen to our economy if the inevitable happened; unqualified home buyers could not pay their monthly mortgages?

Now we all realize that YES there should have been regulation and rules but the BUSH administration is having problems with that because they don’t want to “over regulate”, in fact, they don’t want to regulate at all but somehow logic dictates that something needs to be done.

Now I am pretty conservative when it comes to finance and I would always want the “market” to regulate and control itself but since Wall Street has started inventing new money making schemes that can be reckless and irresponsible; some form of regulation or at least a “watchful eye” on their doings, would be very prudent at this time, especially when, as in the Bear Sterns case, they could not police themselves.

The mortgage industry definitely needs some control. I am not advocating going back to the old days where it was VERY hard to get a loan but look what NO rules created, a bloody mess so I think some “intelligent” regulation is in order.

Should we bail-out the people that are in foreclosure on their homes? That is a difficult question where obviously greedy lenders and stupid buyers are at fault.

No one really wins in a foreclosure except for the companies that do the paperwork, so it is in the best interest of both parties if a new, realistic mortgage could be agreed on. The bank gets their money back with interest and the homeowners keep their homes; the government can order lending institutions to negotiate in good faith.

Some politicians are calling for a bail-out where the government would buy the bad loans from the lenders and this would be a BIG mistake because our government, or we taxpayers, would be stuck with the bill.

I will have more on this because this week in Washington is when Congress will debate this whole issue and the Democrats, as always, want tax payer money to bail-out everybody.

Note: Now that our government bailed-out a Wall Street firm, the Democrats are saying, now bail-out the little guy.

THE CITY OF DETROIT IS DIVIDED IN HALF!

Some say that in polite society, one should not discuss sex, politics or religion; or for that matter, race.

Well, I beg to differ; it is time people did discuss race and I mean all people, white and black as a means of learning something about each other. Barack Obama, who is basically a white person in dark skin, knows both sides. He was abandoned by his Kenyan father at 2 and raised by his white mother and white grandparents - so is he white or black and why does he have to run as a “black” and not a “white” in dark skin? Is it how you look on the outside or on the inside that counts?

Anyway, the saga of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick raises a historic opportunity to see the changing face of race from the black side. Detroit is basically black with a smattering of Latinos and whites here and there but 80-90% black.

This morning’s papers reported that a recent poll found the city divided in half about the mayor’s case. One half supports the mayor and the other half want him gone. As I have suggested in my previous comments; this is a battle between the old school blacks and the new school blacks (I made up the designations for the purpose of identity).

The old school blacks met at the Shrine of the Black Madonna Church last night in support of the mayor. Speaker after speaker blamed the “suburbanites”, read “whites”, for trying to weaken if not destroy the mayor because he is a symbol of black power.

This theme has been echoed many times in the past when the “white” state of Michigan took over the Detroit Public School system because it was totally dysfunctional, run by corrupt and inept administrators who neglected the student’s (black) welfare to line their own pockets. You would think Detroiter’s would have thanked the State for stopping or trying to fix this abysmal situation. No, the cry went out that whites were trying to steal power from the black community to run their own affairs even if all evidence pointed to the fact that they could not run their own affairs.

The mayor’s supporters (including many prominent church pastors) along with city whites, ignored the fact that crimes have been committed by the mayor and painted him as the victim of a power grab by “others”. The mayor himself said that, and I paraphrase, others have done worse things and have remained free; in essence, minimizing what he did in relation to all the “good” that he has done and is capable of doing in the future.

A very diverse group of Detroit women also went on TV in support of the mayor saying he is a huge asset to the city and should not be compromised by these insignificant legal charges; just make them go away. The fact that this was an all-female group spoke to the infidelity charge; we forgive him, he is only a man like the rest of them and can’t help himself.

A special, very expensive public relations woman / firm was hired to orchestrate this whole charade and by the looks of things, she is doing a hell of a job which begs another question; who is paying for all this and what do they expect in return?


But enough about the old school blacks; what about the blacks on the other side, the ones I call new school? The way the media describes this group, they are a group that does not want to remain isolated by race, they want to be part of the greater society; a society that wants to eliminate race as a divider. In the case of this specific issue, they want to be known as just “responsible Detroiters” who will no longer put up with a politician and a political system in the city that mocks the law, mocks the citizens of Detroit and in a greater sense, insults the black community by intimating that blacks are somehow above or exempt from the rules that guide American society as a whole.

The above, I think, is a crucial point in this whole sad, sordid affair. I think the city of Detroit is at a juncture where things can remain the same which means sinking lower and lower or things can change, finally, for the better. Just getting rid of Kilpatrick will not solve all the problems right away but replacing him with someone that will not answer to or depend on the entrenched black city “mafia” would be a great start.

Does such a person exist? Well he or she probably does exist but is not visible at this point in time. This person will need to step up to the plate and announce themselves as a candidate to be the leader of a new Detroit. I have my fingers crossed.

Note: To the people that are squeamish about my views on race for whatever reasons they may have; I want to reiterate that I am a history nut, a religious history nut as well as an observer and commentator on our world as it passes by my window. I may not always see things as others do or even, for that matter, correctly but it is my view, based on my perceptions and my experiences and my erudition and as long as I am allowed to voice my opinions freely, I will do so but I will also welcome and embrace constructive criticism.

CANNOT WIN IRAQ WAR!

A quick note on our War in Iraq and why it cannot be won and why now after five (5) years and over 4,000 dead, we are no closer to a resolution there.

Today’s news carried stories of heavy fighting between the IRAQI SECURITY FORCES and the MAHDI ARMY of Moqtada al-Sadr.

Just so we are perfectly clear, both sides are IRAQI and both sides are mainly SHIITE.

We know that SUNNIS fight SHIITE but here we have two groups from the same religious camp BUT from different political groups.

In essence, the Iraq Security Forces are from the so-called Iraqi central government; the ruling body in Iraq. The other belongs to an anti-US cleric. They are fighting for control of territory; plain and simple.

If Shiites are fighting Shiites, how can we expect Sunnis and Shiites to co-exist in a single country with a single central government – they can’t and that is what I have been saying from the beginning.

DIVIDE THE COUNTRY INTO THREE (3) PARTS AND SHARE THE OIL REVENUE.

So simple, even a dumb-ass like Bush should be able to understand.

The Old Black School of Politics!

Everybody should have heard of our illustrious mayor’s (Kwame Kilpatrick) indictment for perjury and conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc. – it’s on all the channels locally and nationally and maybe even on some international stations. The coverage is non-stop.

The mayor has hired a top gun lawyer and is vowing he will be exonerated, vindicated and all the usual drivel coming from the accused. He is also refusing to resign despite a huge cry for resignation from the media and the citizens of Detroit. The mayor’s lawyer says he should not resign because he has not been tried in a court of law and therefore has not been found guilty of anything – presumed innocent?

It is here that I have a problem.

Text message transcripts prove that the mayor is guilty of all charges; he cannot be found innocent. His lawyer claims that the text messages were obtained illegally and will be inadmissible as evidence – without them, they have nothing!

The fact remains that text messages exist which is proof positive that he did commit the crimes he is charged with; how can he claim that he will be cleared of all charges?

I guess you can be guilty but if the prosecutor cannot prove your guilt to the jury then you are judged not guilty?

O.J. Simpson was guilty as hell of double murder but he was found not guilty; does that make him not guilty? Well in the eyes of the law I guess he is not guilty and the jury of his peers found him not guilty – that is how our legal system works - right?

So even if his smart lawyer can work magic and the jury does not somehow find overwhelming evidence of guilt and has to acquit him; everyone will know that he is still guilty but he beat the system. How does that make our system of jurisprudence look to the rest of the world?

Let me ask a hard question – is it a Black thing? I am talking about a cultural difference. The governor of New York just resigned after being discovered using a prostitution ring for personal service. He did not challenge the obvious facts; he knew he could no longer remain in his job or perform his job after his secret life was discovered – same for the governor of New Jersey.

How is the black mayor of Detroit different? How can he remain in office when the facts absolutely point to his guilt? Is “beating the system” ala’ OJ somehow the “cool” thing to do and if you can do it, you are OK to continue your life as if nothing has happened?

I think this may have been a truism in the past; a past many in the black community are trying to leave behind. Detroit is a black city and is mainly run by blacks. The prosecutor bringing the charges against the mayor is female and black. Citizens calling for the mayor’s resignation are black. The “man” is no longer the hated white man; if you beat the system, you are sticking it to a black “man” or in this case to a whole “black” city – who are you really hurting here?

Our mayor was raised in the old school of black politics; he is not used to the new, black school of politics, ala’ Obama, et. al.

Mayor Kilpatrick surrounded himself with black friends and associates from grade school, high school and family members from Detroit; insulating himself from the outside with a bunch of loyal to the core chums that would never go against him. He rewarded those chums with anything and everything they could get out of the city; provided so naively by the impoverished citizens of Detroit. After all, Coleman Young, the “famous” mayor of Detroit did it just that way; why not talented Mr. Kilpatrick.

Let us see if anything has changed in the city and in the black community at large; should be interesting.

SECOND AMENDMENT QUESTIONS!

The Supreme Court is hearing a “gun” case for the first time since the 30s. I find this very interesting since I have been studying the Supreme Court and especially how it deals with our Bill of Rights which was added to our Constitution to protect “our rights”.

The case involves the ban on handguns Washington, DC has imposed for the last 30 years. Some lady filed suit claiming it is her right under the Second Amendment to own a handgun to protect herself in her own home. OK?

We have a number of issues here but an important one, I think, is that Washington, DC does NOT ban rifles, shotguns or any guns other than handguns so all these non-handguns could ostensibly be used to protect your home if you so desired. I will admit that handguns are smaller and easier to keep around the house and I suppose, for a woman, much easier to handle when aiming at an intruder although a shotgun would be the weapon of choice for a shaky female.

My point in this blog is NOT whether a person has a right to own a gun(s); it is about whether the Second Amendment gives him that right which has been claimed by the NRA, etc. for many years.

The Supreme Court has judges that believe the Constitution should be interpreted and read just like the writers intended (strict constructionists) and judges that believe the Constitution is a “living” document and should be “liberally” interpreted with current conditions in mind and not how things were when the document was written.

Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” – that’s it folks!

Historians agree that the original intent was to give each state a means to protect themselves since the central / federal government may not have been, at that time, able to provide adequate security. Some historians say that this amendment could have been added to the Constitution as a means of Free States to protect themselves from an overzealous federal government?

A state militia, in those days, consisted of residents of the state that were usually required to have a weapon (gun) at home and to bring said weapon when an alarm went out from the state to muster and defend the state.

Now this is what the authors of the Second Amendment meant when they wrote it; every state has a right to defend itself through a “well regulated militia” not a bunch of yahoos with guns – kapish?

As time went on, state militias evolved into national guards like the Michigan National Guard, which were usually used when the governor of a state deemed necessary to protect the citizens of the state. The National Guard is well regulated by the state and uses weapons just like the federal military does – in essence, the citizen militia envisioned by the Second Amendment no longer exists; it is now a national guard made up of state citizens.

People who see the Second Amendment as a guarantee for Americans to own guns only read the part of the Second Amendment that they want “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. You may say that is “taking words out of context” which people have done with the Bible as well as other books throughout history and obviously, to this very day – BUT is that right?

Usually, if the Constitution does not address a specific issue, that issue is given over to the individual states to decide how to handle that specific issue. Since the Second Amendment obviously does NOT give individuals a right to bear arms but only “well regulated militias” – our National Guard – then the Supreme Court should say that they, as the interpreters of the Constitution, do not have a right to judge / decide whether individuals have a right to bear arms and send the issue to the states to decide.

The individual states may amend their constitutions to allow individuals to bear arms based on whatever rationale they want to use – protect the home is a good one.

I think the current Supreme Court members are too full of themselves to do the right and Constitutional thing to do – no – they want to be in the history books. The ironic thing about all this is that the conservative judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia, who usually are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, now will liberally interpret the Constitution just to suite their personal preferences – what a bunch of horseshit if you ask me.

Do I think people should be allowed to own guns, even handguns? Well, I think the citizens of each state should decide that. I know other countries have a strict ban on handguns (because they can be easily concealed) and, they say, they have less armed crime than the U.S. does, well OK but Americans are different and that may not work here.

I do believe that guns that are not suitable for home protection or hunting but more suited for the commission of crimes, should be banned.

I hope you understand my Constitutional point – many in this country, obviously don’t.

IRAQ WAR IS NOW FIVE YEARS OLD!

The Iraq War is now five (5) years old. John McCain and VP Chaney are there visiting while we speak. Both are claiming that the war is a success and progress is being made and I say bullshit to all of that.

Chaney is there to urge the government to go a little faster in taking over operations in the country but we all know that this is an impossibility since there are three (3) factions in Iraq that will not agree to a united government or even sharing power in one government.

McCain keeps harping on the fact that al-Qaeda will follow us home if we leave Iraq. That is so stupid it isn’t funny anymore. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we invaded Iraq; they were not in Iraq when Hussein was in charge; Bush allowed al-Qaeda to become a force in Iraq and this point must be hammered over and over again to emphasize over and over again that Bush & Chaney fucked up big time and need to pay for their mistake!

Leave Iraq and let the chips fall where they fall. We have already wasted 4,000 American lives there; how many more are we willing to sacrifice for a never ending war; at least if we allow one side to win, we will have an end to this debacle.

Bush does not want to divide Iraq like many have urged as the only realistic solution so someone else will need to step in and do what is right. This will not be McCain and so I am waiting to hear what Obama and Hillary will propose.

The Iraq War needs to become an issue again and American voters need to listen to each candidate’s plan for Iraq and vote accordingly. We need the money being spent on Iraq here at home.

If you haven’t noticed, our economy is taking a direct hit and will worsen a lot before it starts getting better. Billions going over to Iraq on a regular basis with nothing to show for those billions must stop as soon as possible – we cannot buy peace!

RACISM FROM THE BLACK SIDE!

The issue of “RACE” has been raising its ugly head and not in a way you would imagine.

Barack Obama’s Christian pastor was shown on a tape giving one of his sermons. The sermon was as racist as they come. He decried Hillary Clinton as a privileged white person that has never been called a “nigger” and therefore is somehow less suited to be president. The pastor went on to harangue the “white people” that run this country and how it’s time for “black people” to step in.

Barack had to quickly disavow the pastor’s words, thoughts and feelings but the damage has already been done, in my opinion.

I have been pleasantly surprised up to now that Obama has been able to get such a broad base of support in this country; it makes one think that race and racism may no longer be a factor in our politics. So you imagine my chagrin when the only blatantly racist remarks came from the black side and specifically from the Christian black side.

I was suspicious early on in the election process when 99.9% of blacks were voting for Obama. To me, that means they were not voting for the best candidate but specifically they were voting skin color with the hope that once in office, the black candidate would somehow help fellow blacks.

This voting pattern among blacks is dangerous to the Obama campaign when whites get it into their heads that Obama is a black candidate and not an American candidate.

Another big racial incident happened right here in Detroit. Everyone knows by now that our lying, cheating and generally despicable mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, is being investigated for possible illegal activities. In his speech to the Detroit people he loudly proclaimed that he is tired of being called a “nigger” and putting up with all these attacks on him and his family, ostensibly by white people.

Kilpatrick joined many prominent blacks in the area some time ago in sponsoring and attending a “funeral” for the “N-word”. I guess when your back is against the wall you play the “race” card; it has always worked in the past so why not now.

Yet another racial issue here in Detroit, concerned the City Council who passed a law mandating that 51% of the people serving on boards of charitable organizations engaged in helping Detroiters, must be from Detroit, in other words, blacks and not suburban whites.

The absurdity of this situation is just now slowly entering into people’s consciousness. The unpaid board seats at charitable organizations usually are generously filled with people that donate their time, expertise and money to better run these charities which benefit mainly Detroiters. So why in the hell would this council of blacks want to kick these generous suburban whites (not all are white) off the boards?



One black council member defended the council’s vote by saying they will not put up with this “master – slave” arrangement – huh? The unpaid boards members are masters and the people they are helping are slaves? What kind of fucked-up logic is that?

Just when I am thinking that red-necked racism may be dead or near dead, it raises its ugly head again but this time in the guise of red-necked blacks!

More later…

Back from Barbados!

Back from a week in Barbados. That is a former British colony handling the slave trade at that time and growing and harvesting sugar cane. The island is known for producing “Gay” rum (brand name). The island is still frequented by people mostly from the UK with a few Americans thrown in.

We pick a warm place every year about this time (February – March) to get away from the cold here in Michigan. This year has been especially brutal with constant freezing temperatures and constant snow – enough!

The resort in Barbados had all the requisite items that we demand at this time: hot temperatures, beach, ocean, and swimming pools, plenty of food and plenty of drink and entertainment.

The one thing that stood out at this specific resort was the lack if not the absence of “service”. We have seen this before in the Caribbean as opposed to Mexico: the people working at the resorts in the Caribbean resented working for the “white” people (slave masters). In Mexico, the people were grateful fore their jobs and provided service with a smile, hoping you will return to their resort and continue supporting their employment.

I will admit that the “all inclusive” resorts which basically supply everything for one price and therefore eliminating “tips” contributes to their service behavior even though “we” give tips when we feel the service was exceptional. But this does not happen in Mexico – cultural difference?

I think will shoot for Mexico in 2009.

ELIOT SPITZER was really screwed...

I am back from Barbados and will have blog and pictures about that a little later. But now there are a few things going on deserving of some mention.

Eliot Spitzer, the governor of New York and former prosecutor of Wall Street types has resigned his position because he was implicated as having availed himself of the services of a high priced call girl (prostitute). It appears he has been doing this for quite some time and spending large (+$80,000) – what did he have done?

Obviously, many politicos, etc. have been doing this for ever – its expected of them, so why the resignation. Well ole’ Eliot was a real pistol as a prosecutor. He was a holier than thou type and some say, went after anybody and everybody he liked without too much thought as to guilt or innocence. He also went after prostitution rings with gusto and quite frankly, if you paint yourself as a saint, you better behave like one or get the hell out of office- which he did.

I am a big proponent of legalizing prostitution and have been from the beginning. It is the world’s oldest profession and it will never go away because there is a need/demand for it. My suggestion has always been to regulate the profession, tax it and enforce strict health standards. Regulation would eliminate the abuse by pimps and “johns” would also be protected.

My suggestions are not new and some countries have had them in place for quite some time. In the U.S. it would be impossible to implement regulated prostitution because we are such religious prudes that we would never legalize something that we feel is a sin. This has not stopped the profession from thriving in this country and utilized by many of the same people that preach against it.

I am not sad to see Eliot get his comeuppance; he was a hypocrite big time and I have a problem with hypocrites – religious, moral or you name it!

I do have a problem with how this whole affair unfolded. I think he was set up big time. An article in the Wall Street Journal by Alan M. Dershowitz quotes Lavrenti Beria, Joseph Stalin’s head of the KGB, as saying “Show me the man and I will find the crime”.

Eliot Spitzer really did nothing wrong except use the services of a prostitute while aware that the act of prostitution is against the law; he paid for sex, if he received it for free it would be OK.

I think that someone that had his reputation ruined by Spitzer paid for retribution and got it. Some smart reporter will undoubtedly discover this fact sooner or later.

The fact that our government is involved in this whole affair makes me wonder who is really behind all this…