16 days did not a rapist make

Sometimes you have to wonder if they really think before they react. On NPR this morning "Calif. Prison Early-Release Program Stirs Controversy":

The first sign of trouble came last week when the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department released 22-year-old Kevin Peterson, who has a record of violence, after he had served only half of a four-month sentence for violating his probation. Peterson was out for less than a day when he was arrested for attempted rape. Sheriff John McGinness said he had no choice but to release Peterson 16 days early.

Wait.....so what you are telling me is that had you waited 16 more days this........:

1. Would not have happened
2. Would still have happened but the Sheriff would not be at fault
3. Would still have happened but California Lawmakers would not be blamed
4. Would not be an issue because no one would have even known about it
   

16 days is early release? 16 days would have made the difference between rape and no rape? Complete rehabilitation was almost at hand but Arnold got a bit premature and let out a man with "a history of violence" 16 days early. This is supposed to be such an outrage not because he committed this crime but because he was released early and committed it.

News flash, guys with a violent past, guys who violate parole often will, more than not, go out and committ another crime. They don't call them repeat offenders because they have gas. 16 days had nothing - nothing - to do with this. Had he been kept five months instead of the four and committed the rape within 24 hours of release would we still be having this discussion? No.

The fault is not in early release, the fault is in the lack of control and concern this Peterson guy has for his fellow human beings. Better judgment may have been warranted in this case, and as often is the situation, the law is followed to the letter and not to what is best. 16 days was not too early, 16 days was not the issue, 16 days is not the Sheriff's fault, Sacramento's fault, or the Governor's fault.

16 days, 32, 64, 128.......unless you give all prisoners life without parole for any crime they commit you will always have some that go out and commit a crime. They never learn, don't care, are stupid, or lack good judgment and in some form or fashion will commit another crime 24 hours or 20 years from their release. Does it really matter? Its a crap shoot when you release someone regardless of how much time they have spent locked up. But like craps there are ways to place your bets that reduce your risk and increase your success. That's the issue that needs to be addressed, not 16 days.

But no, 16 days allows the "throw the key away" crowd the ability to say "see! this is what happens!" And the news, even NPR, picks up and runs with it never illuminating the real issue at hand. If we are to be a compassionate society then we must forgive. However, we must also take into consideration public safety. There is no crystal ball to look into to determine who will and who will not commit a crime once released. There will always be errors unless we want to be error free in which case you had better pray you never get locked up because you aint never going to come out. Win for society, win for the victim, win for the lawmakers! The only person that losses is the criminal, you know guys like Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash....

You get the picture.

And Liberty and Justice for all....except THEM!

A few days ago The Eagle ran a commentary by James Jay Carafano called Military Tribunals Work Just Fine. Dr. Carafano makes the statement that AG Eric Holder "could not come up with one compelling argument why trials in New York were superior to military tribunals in Guantanamo." I have not researched as to if this is true or not, but lets assume Mr. Holder was unable to answer. So I'll do it for him.

Lets go back.....way back.....to the Constitution. You know that silly piece of paper that - like Jesus - we tend to use only when it suits us and ignore when it gets in our way. Here is the thing I want to make perfectly clear - I take it ALL - the stuff I like and the stuff I don't like. That to me is what it means to be an American. I subscribe to the document because I see merit in what it was attempting to bring about - it is it's goodness and morality and humanity that I find worthy of my devotion.

Now I am no history buff, lawyer, constitutional scholar, or well read thinker. I do, however, know how to read - and - I do have an idea of what the Founders were trying to put together. Its that "more perfect Union" thing in the preamble to the constitution. It is beautiful, elegant, all encompassing, and a testament that these guys understood what it would take to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

So when some, Like Dr. Carafano, rail against the normalcy of our justice system they are, in fact, railing against what our founders felt was important for us to preserve and secure. The idea that the protections outlined in our constitution are not meant for some simply because of how we perceive them (non-citizen, terrorist, enemy combatant) or their crime smacks of a self-righteousness that the constitution and its amendments were trying to guard against. There is a reason that 235 some years these men addressed crime and punishment numerous times in both the Constitution and Bill of Rights (Amendments).

• What part of "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury" do you not understand. Regardless of his standing this jury idea seems to me like it was pretty important to them.
• And why in New York? Valid question and fair, but the Constitution is implicit in its direction when it states "...but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."
• What part of "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." applies to guys we picked up in Afghanistan and are now locked up in Gitmo?
• What part of "habeas corpus" is not applicable here? I mean the mere fact that it is referenced in our constitution means it was important to the founders that the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action be implicitly mentioned. Isn't it wise and prudent for us to question our government over the detention of these men? Doesn't that "state action" they were referring to in the Constitution really mean us? This to me is exactly what ol' Pogo was referring to when he saw the enemy. The founders saw it too, that's why habeas corpus is not to be trifled with, unless you really don't give a shit about the Constitution and just want to do away with all them evil-doers.
• And what part of "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" does not apply here? And if it does not, why? Because they are not citizens, because they are enemy combatants? Because we are at war? Thats not how I read the 5th, but assuming I am reading it wrong, I think the message is clear: Before you lock someone away there should be due process. This applies to everyone, you know, that All Men are Created Equal thing....its the "All" part that sticks with me.
• And what about the "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ..... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence?" Do we throw that one out the window because these men were picked up and declared an enemy combatant? Does that simple act by "the state" make the 6th moot? My God Dr. Carafano, ins't it clear to you how important the protection of the accused was to our Founders? Are these men in Gitmo not accused or have they already been declared guilty by you and your ilk so why bother with all this bleeding heart trial fairness stuff?

So I will ask you the same question posed to Mr. Holder: "Give me your one compelling reason why military tribunals are superior to the method prescribed in our Constitution?"

I double-dog-dare-you to tell the truth. C'mon you can acknowledge the reason - be brave and tell it like it is - that a Military Tribunal will more likely than not present a verdict of guilty. You want a guilty verdict even if some may not be guilty. That's cool - wrong in my opinion - but you are entitled to your sense of decency and morality. But when you will unequivocally give the state the power to both accuse and convict you are messing with my constitution. I have complete confidence that the method prescribed by the Constitution will be superior to that of a Military Tribunal, even if I don't agree with the verdicts rendered. Better to let one or two guilty men off the hook for a technicality then trample on our two-century old Constitution.

If you don't like these protections then I suggest you go find somewhere else to live ....and take all your like-minded buddies with you as well.

Back in the saddle

Well took some time off blogging. Mainly for a couple reasons, WoW being the top reason, play WoW - don't blog. 2nd reason was finishing up my thesis, not that playing WoW was working on my thesis, its just that when I play I can put my mind on neutral (just ask my kids who play WoW with me "hey old man you paying attention!"

No, its just that writing, even a simple thing like my thoughts requires, well.... thought. I had the thesis monkey on my back and it stretched for one year longer than I wanted it to. Not from lack of effort but....lets be honest....lack of push on my end. So I buckled down and got it done.

They take a lot of work, these thesis things, especially if you want to do them right. I finally got it to a point where I felt it was good enough to put out there and if anyone reads it they will find it sound - even if they find fault in my methodology (hell I find fault in it, but you can't go back and ask for a mulligan). So today I defended - not my best public speaking, but good enough to get the signatures needed to graduate this May.

So now I can write for just the heck of it again. But since it is a new year I am going to try to make some changes to my blog-that-no-one-reads.

1. As Conan said - Don't be cynical. Easier said then done with Sarah Palin running around loose, but still my point should be always to make a point - or counter point. To add something to think about for anyone that may stumble upon my blog.
2. Stop calling Tea Party folk "tea baggers" That's not nice of me. "Tea bagger" will only be used to describe someone exhibiting the utmost stupidity, and no, that's not all Tea Party participants so don't even go there.
3. Present more why they think this way and why I think it is incorrect. I want to present all sides not create an argument. Only time I will veer off is when someone says something really stupid like "when you feed them they breed." Fair warning - stupid, callous, fragilistic soundbites like that from folks we have elected to govern us will be eviscerated on what ever sharp-pointy object I can muster.

And now to rest my brain.......Level 80 Destruction Warlock loaded and ready for mindless game-play. See y'all soon.

Kill the Messenger

The NPR story was about five young Muslim Americans who were detained in Pakistan that may have wanted to train in terrorist camps. "Making them the most recent Americans known to have been radicalized in the U.S. who then traveled abroad to act on their beliefs."

What is disturbing is not about the five becoming radicalized, but about how the blame is being placed on the messenger, that is, the Internet.

U.S. officials say the young men used the Internet — specifically the social networking site Facebook and videos on YouTube — to link up with extremist groups in Pakistan.

"Basically most of the noise on the Internet are the clarion calls to battle from the jihadis, the inspirational and motivational messages that they communicate," says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "And there has really been almost no concerted, systematic and strategic effort to counter those messages."

This case provides more evidence that radical Islam's Internet messages are effective.

My concern about all this is that we as a society will settle on the easy fix - ban thought and speech we do not agree with. We have a mechanism to do just that, if it is designed to incite violence it can be banned. But to do so misses the bigger question here. Why did these five make the transition? There are millions of other young people their age from the same background that are not motivated or persuaded to act out. What was ground zero here? It was not the words being spoken and heard, although words have the power to motivate, there must always be something else in play. The question is what?

One of the young men also left a video message for his parents. The head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, says he saw the 11-minute video. "I walked away with the feeling this was disturbing that young people think this way and they're angry [and] this may lead them to do something wrong," he said.

OK, they were angry - yes - but so are a lot of other people and they don't carry it to that end point. Is it something akin to suicide clusters? Something similar is in play here that if it could be quantified might just be the thing to focus on, to keep the switch to act out turned off, to find an alternative release for that anger.

But no, we'll take the easy way and blame the internet, video games, rock n' roll music, comic books or...... What we will not do is try to figure out the why. there is a why, and its not the messenger, their sex, or their religion, its something else that is in play and can be influenced by them. Even if you removed every form of speech that could be considered hateful or a cry for action, the genesis for radical destructive behavior will still be there.

Isn't it better to just ban it - you know give it that ol' zero tolerance? I don't think so, I mean after all Cane and Able came about way before the internet didn't they?

Mr. Pitts I Respectively Disagree...

Wow, not even a week went by........(my email today regarding his column on Sammy Sosa)


Mr. Pitts;

When you make the comment "you're not black" it does a disservice to people like me. I can be empathetic, reasonable, and understanding simply on the preponderance of the evidence.

We have two issues at play here, first is your assumption, which the email writer points out, that "Your column seemingly assumes he lightens his skin color out of shame and fails to recognize that he may simply be doing it out of vanity or his own sense of personal style." The second is how you see it, and that relates entirely to what we in public health call the greater good. Your point - and it is not lost to me because I am white - is that taken as a whole, these types of actions chip away at the self-image of blacks, especially children.

On the other hand, what one individual does or does not do may not always fall within the reasoning behind the actions of the whole. Why young black children see black as bad may have nothing to do with why Mr. Sosa wants lighter skin. Unless we can somehow get into his brain we can never know - and that is what the reader took issue with - you cannot paint everyone with the same reasoning brush, which is what you did.

Your fight is for the good of the whole, which like me, understands that there is an overall problem with self-image that needs to be addressed. Mr. Sosa and Mr. Jackson unfortunately have perpetuate this lighter is better attitude by their actions which may be from their dislike of being black or a result of using skin softeners. You take issue with this for reasons I can glean from your writing but alas can never fully know, not because I am white, but because I can never know with certanty what motivates you.

Why we behave in ways that unintentionally hurt others is a complex social issue beyond my understanding. But before you assume the motivation behind the action, you need to accept the fact that you just don't know. As Freud is quoted as saying "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Palin...a Rock Opera

My lame attempt at parody. With apologies to the Who’s Tommy, Weird Al, and the Capitol Steps. Real lyrics

Sung to the tune “Tommy’s Holiday Camp”

Uncle Hannity:
Good morning Tea Baggers!
I'm your Uncle Hannity
and I want you all in Palin’s political camp
We’re the movement with the difference
Never mind the hubris
When you come with Sarah
Its conservatives forever………..
Welcome!


Sung to the tune “We’re not gonna take it”

Sarah Palin:
Welcome to my Camp,
I guess you all know why we're here.
My name is Sarah
and I became a phenomenon this year

If you real Americans want to follow me,
We’ve got to play hardball.
So put on your lipstick...
....your dress from Neiman Marcus
You know where the tea bag goes!

Hey you Fags wanting to be married, so sorry!
Not on my watch.
Hey you listening to mainstream media!
You only need Fox!
Hey you un-American ACLU loving Mr. Liberal,
I’ve come to seal your fate.
‘Cause when I become the President,
I'll tear down that wall between church and state.

Democrats:
We're not gonna elect you,
Didn’t in 2008 and never will,
We're not gonna elect you,
Gonna work against you, gonna expose you,
let's get America to forget you better still.

Palin:
Now you can hear me,
‘cause I’m constantly being interviewed.
I get the chance to speak freely now,
but my voice is still so shrill.
You aint seen nothing yet,
And my brand of conservatism completes the scene.
Here comes Uncle Hannity to lead you to,
an ultra-right theocracy.

Democrats:
We're not gonna elect you.
Didn’t then and never will.
Don't want no Palin nonsense.
And as loud as we can yell.
We ain't gonna vote for you.
Not ever – no, never will.
We're not gonna make you our President.
We are embarrassed of you.
Let's get America to forget you better still.

Palin:
Buy my book.
Hear me speak.
I’ve gone rouge.
Don’t blame me.

Listening to me,
You get my viewpoints.
Gazing at me,
I’m still hotter than Hillary.
Voting for me,
Will get me elected.
I’ll stay a few years and then I’ll quit!

With my new book deal,
I will make millions.
With you,
I can become your leader.
With you,
I crave your accolades.
With you,
I can save my Party.

Call me...Mr. (white) Leonard Pits

There are very few people that I can truly relate to in terms of sharing my particular sensibilities. I see things very different then most of the folks I spend my day-to-day with.

I try to read as many different view points as I can. I force myself to listen to those who purposely , in my opinion, try to mislead. I am open to having my conventional wisdom challenged and am not afraid to change my mind. As my friend Marc puts it - "I go where the data takes me."

Without an exception, well maybe one time, the columnist Leonard Pitts has always articulated issues and events in a way that closely resembles my way of looking at it. Except he can write and defend it better than I can, oh yea, he has also won a Pulitzer Prize for doing it. But besides from all that we are almost twins, except he is black and I am white (Stevie Wonder song get out of my head!).

Why do I share a similar stream of consciousness with this guy? Is it because we are both the same age and are both from Southern California? But we grew up very different. I had a very stable family life, he did not. He was very smart and did well in school, I struggled. Then there is the black/white thing going on in how we lived, although it was not really that big of deal in California - at least for me.

So there is something in both our makeup that is unique to both of us. Something we share that transcends race, upbringing, geography, and culture. I am not sure exactly what it is, but I see it in his writing and I see it in mine. We seem to both be very pragmatic and empathetic to a fault. I find it comforting that there is at least one other soul out there that sees it like I see it.

When my blogging wins me a Pulitzer we will truly be equals. But for now I'll settle just for one reader. Crickets....Crickets.....