Jan's Stinkin Blog

Sunday, July 14, 2013

ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN...

As the trial of George Zimmerman was coming to a close I could see the desperation of the prosecutors in this case as they realized that they have not proven beyond doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder in the death of Trevon Martin.

A review of the case will show that the Florida prosecutor should have realized that they could not prove second degree murder and should have gone for the lesser charge of manslaughter but their egos took control over their brains.

They persuaded the judge, on the last day, to give the jurors the option of lesser charges such as manslaughter and even child abuse since Trevon was only 17 when he died; the desperation to convict Zimmerman on anything resulted in absurd legal maneuvering…the prosecutors should have known better.

I have never liked prosecutors because they are not about justice and fairness; they are there to convict at all costs and to use the publicity the trial brings to run for higher office; in this case they lost their asses and came out looking like total dumb asses.

Trevon Martin should not have died; he was returning home from a trip to the store.

George Zimmerman should not have been playing cops and robbers with a real gun; he should not have been there.

George Zimmerman is responsible for Martin’s death because George Zimmerman created the scenario that led to Martin’s death; if George Zimmerman was not doing what he was doing, Martin would be alive today.

We all have to agree that George Zimmerman was responsible for Martin’s death but was he “guilty” and here is where discussions and arguments will occur.

It is obvious that the all-female jury of six (6) could not, in good conscience, convict Zimmerman of even the charge of manslaughter; they asked the judge for clarification on this charge before deciding. Most lawyers asked how the jury will vote said that if the jury followed the letter of the law, they would vote not guilty and that is exactly what these women (5 mothers) did.

This verdict, even though predictable, is not sitting well with people; all people, not just African-Americans; he should be guilty of something…

Many will say that there was only one minority (Hispanic) on the jury but that is an absurd argument since black or white, minority or not, people should vote according to the law and not with racial emotion; the law is the law.

My wife has already been invited to protest the verdict but what is there to protest; the trial was legal and fair and the jury followed legal directives as to what constitutes a crime; there was nothing underhanded about the trial.

I am not sure a case could not have been made for involuntary manslaughter but I will wait to see how the analysis goes…

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

EGYPT: Will it ever get better?

This whole ARAB SPRING was nice and very promising but I am afraid trying to democratize a nation and a people that really have no idea what that means will be difficult and Egypt is a prime example.

A lot of people are having problems with the concept that the Morsi government was a democratically elected government. Deposing him and letting the military takeover is not how this should play out.

I will admit that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood started out OK but then, as many predicted, started turning things back into a theocracy (Iran) a religious dictatorship which appears to have been their goal all along.

Bush introduced democracy to Iraq and look where that stands. The slaughter continues… the sectarian conflict is not dying down; the country is more divided than ever; a civil war is sure to follow.

Egypt is in the same boat; it has the religious radicals trying to impose an Islamic state but it also has tons of young people raised on the internet with knowledge of how life could really be and they are not going to stand for some religious dictatorship telling them what to do, how to behave and what to wear…another civil war?

Syria’s civil war is a mess with just too many factions. I don’t think a clear winner in that war is possible.

Dictators kept the peace at least and made the trains run on time but democracy is a grand ideal and something that probably has to happen for the Middle East people to finally emerge out of the darkness and get to enjoy some of this much too short life of ours.

Is this the only way forward? We fought a war with England and then we had a very, very bloody civil war, maybe not about religion but about a way of life. We survived and we prospered; maybe Egypt and the rest have to suffer for a while before things get better.

Sunday, July 07, 2013

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS A CORPORATION?

There was a great article in the New York Times July 7^th by Frank Bruni and titled: THE CHURCH’S ERRANT SHEPHERDS.

Frank Bruni takes Catholic Church leaders (in this case Cardinal Timothy Dolan of NY) to task for handling the priestly sex scandal in the United States how a corporation handles charges against itself; by various legal means designed to protect itself and not to do what is just, honest and fair.

Diocese after diocese in the U.S. are having to deal with not only specific priests who sexually abused children but also with bishops and archbishops who tried to cover up those attacks, protect the priests committing the crimes and producing more victims by not stopping those sick ass priests dead in their tracks.

Bruni specifically mentions Cardinal Dolan because it was Dolan who actually transferred millions of dollars from the Milwaukee diocese into a “cemetery” fund that could not be touched by law suits against the diocese by victims of those priestly sexual abuses; Dolan behaved just like a CEO trying to cover his ass and keep the corporation out of harm’s way.

I guess Bruni was not saying that Dolan is himself guilty of cover-ups etc. but what he is saying that Dolan no longer behaves like a “priest”, dedicated to his “flock” and dedicated, as the representative of Jesus on earth, to the welfare of his “charges” that make up the body of the church.

No Dolan is a business man, a CEO, committed to preserving the church as a corporation and at all costs.

WHAT MAKES A SAINT?

An article in the July 6^th DETROIT NEWS was titled: INFLUENTIAL POPES CLEARED FOR SAINTHOOD BY FRANCIS by Nicole Winfield of the Associated Press. The subtitle read: Tradition relaxed for John Paul II, John XXIII.

The whole issue about “relaxing tradition” has to do with Pope Francis going ahead with the sainthood of John XXIII even without the traditional (and I thought mandatory) second confirmed “miracle” attributed to the pope being canonized.

I have trouble with the term “sainthood” and how it is being used and defined. To me a saint is someone like Mother Theresa who dedicated her life to the poor and sick of India; some one that gives one’s own life to others.

But do you become a saint because you changed history? I think if you change history for the common good you become a great man of history but a saint?

John XXIII has always been my favorite pope mainly because he called up VATICAN II; an ecumenical council that in my mind put the Catholic Church on a road to modernity and humanism something Benedict XVI tried so hard to undo.

John Paul II defeated Communism and liberated the country of his birth (Poland) from the 50 years of depredation under Communist dictatorship.

John Paul II did not stop priestly sexual attacks on children about which he most certainly must have known and maybe even tried to hide or cover up.

I am glad Francis did not go ahead and grant sainthood to Pope Pius XXII (the pope during WWII) because there are some real concerns about that pope being a little bit too friendly with the Nazis; Jews are challenging his nomination for sainthood.

I guess the Catholic Church can make saints out of whom they want but I feel it somehow dilutes the power of the title of saint when it is applied to popes or people who influenced history for the benefit of man but did not, in my mind, reach that level of “holiness” that to me defines a saint.

Mother Theresa, even though she turned away from her faith in the end, believing nobody listens to people’s prayers, her life’s dedication to the poor and sick, makes her a saint to me.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION ISSUE

In today’s New York Times (6-30-2013) was a full-page ad (costs a pretty penny) titled: DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION REMAINS AN ESSENTIAL NATIONAL PRIORITY. The ad was sponsored by a bunch of higher education schools, associations, professors, etc.; a lot of them.

I guess the purpose of the ad in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et. al. was to try to influence the 5^th Circuit Court which will review the university’s policy of using race in its admissions policy, to see if it complies with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

The big point in this ad is to argue the premise that student population diversity is an absolute educational benefit.

I will not argue that a diverse student population creates a realistic environment that helps students prepare for the real world outside academia…but I will argue against the way schools achieve that diversity.

As I have stated on many occasions, minorities are not prohibited from attending colleges and universities and many schools like my own Wayne State University has a highly diverse student population.

The issue at hand is admission to “elite” universities which have many applicants but only a few openings like our own University of Michigan. Does attendance at an elite university give you a better shot at a career? Maybe in certain professions but my feeling is that if you are smart and ambitious and are willing to work hard, you will have a great career no matter what school you went to.

Admitting students because of their race without examining other factors like educational background and performance, dooms those studenst to guaranteed failure and it is for this reason that many are arguing for an “economic” factor playing a role in admissions instead of race.

Allowing a “poor” but talented individual to attend an elite school adds to the diversity of the student population and will increase the amount of black students into the population without being unfair to other “poor” students who are not black. I won a 4-year scholarship to Wayne State University because my parents were poor and I performed well on tests a bunch of “poor” young people like me had to take to compete for the limited scholarships available.

The ad in the New York Times argues that diversity in higher education is a “national priority”. Well I would not take it quite that far. As far as education is concerned the national priority should be getting kids in kindergarten and elementary schools ready for high school and not worrying about diverse populations in elite universities; undereducated students have no place in elite universities.

So I am a little puzzled about all this hubbub about “forcing” diversity by elite universities; yes, diversity is good but don’t define diversity as based on only race; the outside world is not just white and black but also poor and rich, privileged and underprivileged.

I think many academics have been in school too long and need to go outside and see what the real world looks like…