Todd Willingham reportedly Belonephobic!

I scanned my fellow class members’ blogs for a topic to respond to. I chose class blogger Misty who gave one side of the death penalty http://www.01281985.blogspot.com/ . The D.P. is a hot button topic for sure, right up there with abortion, racism, Darwin’s theory, etc.. . People are either for it or against it. I have no desire to change someone’s mind on this subject any more than my mind can be changed.

The topic was about the State executing innocent people and she references Todd Willingham, a Texas man executed for frying his three children in a house fire. I don’t want to beat this case to death (no pun intended), but for every anti-death penalty website found, there is an equal and opposite pro-death penalty to counteract it. The information I read http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm shows he did it. Was he innocent? I don’t know, but at his execution, he repeatedly told his ex-wife who was present “I hope you rot in Hell, Bitch”. Willingham’s compassion for a grieving mother will be sorely missed along with his obvious potential as a productive human being. The truth is that Willingham was a repeat violent offender, his life littered with felony and misdemeanor convictions. I saw some comments on Misty’s blog that mentioned racism and wrongful convictions. For a proper perspective on racism, I refer you to the FBI crime statistics website http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html and pay special attention to the column that reports convictions by race. I know I know, the site is run by racist cops, blah, blah, blah. What I’m saying is that Texas death row is not filled with Magna Cum Laudes, philanthropists or guys working on how to split the atom. It’s filled with repeat offenders of All races who are career criminals. It’s hard to feel for them.

One other thing: Willingham’s own defense attorney agreed that his client was guilty and that Willingham should have been executed!!!! http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/local/2009/12/04/1204willingham.html. He waited to until after they juiced him to say anything. Perhaps this will end any other arguments about this particular case.

Misty reports there were 130 wrongful D.P. convictions. I agree with her that even one wrongful conviction is too many. However, 130 wrongful convictions from 35 States multiplied by the length of time the D.P. has been in place. It’s actually an outstanding percentage rate of good convictions.

The Texas death penalty serves a purpose. It reduces the crime rate. It means the executed ends his life of crime forever and can no longer rape, murder, or rob another person. Three quarters of this country also believe it’s a good idea since there are only 15 states that do not have a death penalty statute http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty. If there was a real push to abolish the D.P. in Texas, it would have been done by now. All it takes is a legislative act to repeal it, so an interested person or coalition could go through their state rep or Senator to get the process started. Good luck with that. If the death penalty really bothers someone in Texas, maybe they should move to another state. Remember, this is the state where folks are allowed to carry loaded shotguns and rifles in their trucks. The D.P. won’t be going away in Texas. Ever.

Al-Queda re-releases Hysteria under new label (BinLaden Records)

John Nichols of NPR.ORG wrote an interesting if not outlandish opinion about the Ft. Hood shootings. The article is titled “The Nation: Ft. Hood horror invokes Islamaphopia” . http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161052. Islamaphobia? I thought that was an album from 80’s metal band def Lepard, no wait that was “Pyromania”. Anyways, the article is entertaining, if not far-fetched. According to Nichols, because the shooter Maj. Nadal Malik Hassan is Muslim, there was a predictable outbreak of prejudice against any and all Muslims. Nichols quotes a few Imams, or Muslims religious leaders, who all said the right things such as the actions of Hassan do not reflect the feelings of the majority of Muslims who reject this type of violence. I do not question their sincerity but their response doesn’t make Mr. Nichol’s point.

Nichols mistakenly believes Americans are in a rush to judgment by lumping Hassan in with all Muslims. I think most people make the rational analysis that currently, the only major religion calling for the death of Americans happens to be certain Middle Eastern terrorists, all who are practicing Muslims. That doesn’t make all Muslims bad, only the ones who have declared a Jihad (Holy war) against this country. In an effort of fairness if the Pope ever declares a Jihad on America, I suggest US Customs cancel his Visa and have the CIA and FBI give him a closer look as well. Maybe they’ll do a better job on him that they did on Hassan.

This issue here is really about religious zealotry, not a class or group of people. Muslim extremists are in the same class as White supremacists’ who claim their race is a master race and that everyone else is inferior. The common thread among all zealots is that they belong to a group that is superior which makes everyone else inferior. The goal then becomes for the superior group to wipe out the inferiors. Some examples throughout history would be the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition, the Bosnian War, etc…

The real issue with this story is how the federal government dropped the ball on Hassan’s actions prior to the killings. It is well documented that Hassan’s peers and supervisors informed his chain of command about Hassan’s anti-American rants and they responded by doing nothing. Also, I would think that any uniformed officer who gets investigated by the CIA or FBI for terroristic activities would have been put through the administrative ringer by the Armed Forces since that person would be in a position to harm troops that might be in vulnerable positions.

So how can I tie in an 80’s hair metal band to a national news story? To quote Def Lepard’s song “Billy’s got a gun” from the Pyromania album: “…Billy’s got a gun….got evil in his eyes, got a reasons to despise, there’s danger in the air..” Told you Mr. Nichols confused Islamaphobia with Def Lepard.

I Can't Believe It's Justice

John A.M. blog had a recent post titled “Is the justice System Fair?” http://ournationalgovernment.blogspot.com/ Generally speaking, no it isn’t. Convicted criminals rarely get what they deserve. When one actually gets sentenced, you can take their sentence and divide by 3 and that’s the time they will end up serving assuming they don’t get paroled earlier. There aren’t enough bed spaces to hold all the convicts that should be incarcerated, so the prisons turn into revolving doors as the State attempts to maintain the appropriate balance of garbage in/garbage out.

Specifically speaking about the Yogurt shop murders, I would like to point out some things:

1. For the time being, Springsteen and Scott both got away with murder. A careful examination from District Attorney Lehmburg’s statement is that they have dropped charges at this time, not forever. She said “I remain confident that both Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott are responsible for the deaths at the Yogurt Shop but it would not be prudent to risk a trial until we also know the nature of the involvement of this unknown male.” She’s saying she wants to find out whom that DNA belongs to because she realizes it’s going to be a sticking point with the jury.

2. DNA found on one of the teens could mean anything. For example, it could mean she had willing sex with a known partner prior to entering the yogurt shop. It could also mean that an unknown suspect was with Springsteen and Scott during the crime. Just because the DNA is not theirs doesn’t mean they weren’t involved.

3. The fact that Springsteen and Scott knew details about the murder that only someone at the scene would know is very incriminating. Didn’t Scott confess to the whole thing??

For those wanting objective information about this case, please don’t go to Wikipedia. For one thing, Hector Polanco didn’t force confessions from Springsteen or Scott. He coerced them from a couple of Mexican nationals who later recanted their confession. Also, he wasn’t fired for his involvement in this case. He worked for many years at APD afterwards and got a fat, healthy retirement package. The Austin Chronicle mentions his retirement in this article http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A82897 Oh yes; he also sued the City on an unrelated discrimination case and won about $300,000. I’m sure he’s somewhere on a sandy beach knocking backing cold ones laughing at the whole thing. I’m not saying its right, I’m just sayin’….

Also, I wouldn’t consider some of thee Wikipedia’s references as exactly unbiased, especially the Texas Justice external link, whose website was designed by the defendant’s wife. I’m not saying Wiki is all wrong, but if they got the part about Polanco getting fired wrong, what else is incorrect information?

One thing I do agree with you is that the families of these young girls are suffering and that is a shame. The police investigators assigned to the case succumbed to immense public pressure and some of them acted shamefully which tainted a good portion of this investigation. Most juries would be justified in casting a wary eye at the police after some of the shenanigans they pulled. Springsteen and Scott are guilty as sin. Now that they're free, maybe they can team up with O.J. and look for the real killers.

BARF-GHANISTAN

I read an article in the Austin American Statesman this Sunday on Monica Velez, a 30 y.o. from Lubbock who recently moved to Austin and planned to run at the Washington D. C. Marathon in honor of her two brothers, both who died in the Middle East http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/25/1025sister.html . One brother died in Iraq. The other committed suicide while serving in Afghanistan, distraught over his brother’s death. It’s a sad story that got me thinking about how inept Washington politicians are when it comes to U.S. ideology regarding foreign policy matters. Before I get started, let me get this out of the way: I served 10 years in the military and I served during Desert Storm. That doesn’t make me an expert on all military matters, but it doesn’t make me a communist either, because I’m about to say something that some military people will find offensive:

We need to quit being the World’s policemen.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the budget for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq this year is listed at $864 billion http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf , yes, that‘s billion with a “B” and for what, to continue the never ending “War on terrorism”? Somewhere around the turn of the 20 century, the U.S. government decided it needed to stick its Democratic nose in other people’s business which is fine, until Americans pay for it with their lives because that’s when I have a problem with it. The following are the only real good reasons to declare war or take military action:

1. Another country invades our country or territories (WWII,)
2. One country invades another country with no legitimate provocation (WWI, Kuwait 1991)
3. Anytime a communist country invades another country or sets up a puppet regime, which is akin to invading another country (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1980)
4. Anytime another country insults your mother (just kidding)

That’s it. There are no there are no other reasons to risk the lives of your sons, daughters, wives or husbands who are bravely serving in our military. I believe in a strong military that should be available and ready for legitimate needs, not for politicians who think they are ever going to find Osama Bin Liden. Forget about him. That guy has entered into the mythical category of legends like the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot. I’m sure one day we’ll see a grainy You Tube video of him walking through the California Redwood Forest or something like that.

Think of the billions of dollars we could be using elsewhere. Socialist President Obama could use some of those dollars to prop up his bogus health care reform program. I’d even rather see some of that money allocated to help fund social service programs, rather than fund a military action that is never going to end. In the history of the Middle East, please show me a time where the U.S. has come in or successfully propped up a democratic government? Not Iran pre-1978. Not Afghanistan 2001. In the meantime, I’ll continue to pray for the Marines and soldiers over there and also that our Washington leaders find their common sense soon.

Blog 4 Assignment

I reviewed a blog from a Mathew Yglesias who has a blog site named http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/. I read a blog he posted 10/13/09 at 2:31pm titled “Does Security do any good?” I skimmed through several of the author’s other blogs on this site and I could not get a fix on who is intended audience is. According to this course syllabus, his blog is listed as a liberal weblog, however, one of his articles clearly gives favorable marks to the Republican party on how it runs internal discipline amongst its congressional members (see blog: Republicans run their party the right way). Is the author credible? After clicking on the authors’ bio, the answer is clear: No. He has a degree in Philosophy and wrote one book, which means more than likely he’s a barista working at Starbucks who has nothing but spare time on his hands to work on his blog. My opinion is that he doesn’t like the hassle of going through security checkpoints. Too bad he failed to back up his argument up with any reasonable points.

According to Yglesias, American security agencies like TSA are worthless. He compares a recent trip to Europe and observed that not only is airport security more relaxed in Danish countries, they don’t make you take off your shoes when passing through the x-ray machine. His logic for the lack of any recent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil: Since many people in this country have access to some type of weapon capable of inflicting mass casualties to “soft’ targets at places where large numbers of people gather, there’s nothing really stopping someone from doing it regardless of any security that is present. So why have it in the first place since its costing the country billions of dollars yearly? Great point. While we’re at it, Why not disband all of the country’s police and fire departments because as we all know, any person could commit a crime or light a fire at any time and probably wouldn’t get caught. Oh I forgot, doing something like that would tear society’s fabric apart and have it spinning towards anarchy. Silly me.

Seriously, airport security programs are complex and complicated organizations that serve a vital purpose. They contain intricate intelligence gathering units and more than likely are not run by philosophy majors. Had the current airport security and intelligence systems been in place on 9/10/01, the twin towers would still be standing. While most people could cause a major terrorist event anywhere in the U.S. at any time and they don’t, it’s because the majority of society is not sociopathic, mentally ill, or into religious zealotry. Those are the folks the TSA people are looking for, not me or you. So Matthew, on your next blog, please attempt to use critical thinking instead of Platonic realism. Oh and next time, not so much mocha in my Venti triple-skinny-mocha-latte. It affects my writing by making my biting criticism seem sarcastic.

I reviewed an article featured in the Wall Street Journal by Eliot A. Cohen. I read the article in the Dallas morning News http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/. The article is about the recent discovery of a hidden nuclear processing facility in Iran. The author is a counselor for the U.S. State Department and has immense credibility because the topic that he wrote about is an area directly related to his work at the State Department. This type of editorial carries a lot more weight than from a weekly columnist from employed by the paper itself.

Cohen’s audience is a substantial portion of this country. It includes the men and women currently enlisted in the armed forces, the family members of those serving, taxpayers, and basically anyone who owns a car, motorcycle or uses public transportation. There. I just covered every person currently residing in this country and includes those crossing into our borders as I write. For those of you who have never considered this, the United States is not very concerned about real democracy in the Middle East and never has been. However, because the Good Lord likes to make things interesting, he decided to place the bulk of the world’s oil supply underneath the most barbaric, uncivilized countries that have been at war with each other ever since they have been able to pick up stones and rocks and throw them at each other. Oil is very important to this country because we are dependent on it for just about everything.

Cohen’s declaration is this: Force economic sanctions or military force against Iran. Cohen actually breaks down both options. He declares that economic sanctions won’t work because that requires buy-in from all countries and rightly suggests that the evil empires of Russia and China will provide much lip service to NATO, but will do something else like maybe sell even more uranium to the Iranians.

Military strikes against Iran would also be problematic. If the U.S. allows the Israelis to go into Iran for an airstrike, the rest of the Middle East would explode because Israel has so many enemies nearby who are waiting for any reason to invade them. This would be a great reason for any country who has a grudge with Israel, which is basically every non-Christian country in the region. If the U.S. did its own military strike, there would be backlash from other oil producing countries against the U.S. and then we all get to watch the price of gas shoot up, forcing me to use Light Rail, er……. the Cap Metro Shuttle.

Cohen’s solution is awesome, if not discreet. He suggests the U.S. break from past policy and “Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard.” I believe he is suggesting this government use the C.I.A. or U.S. Special Forces to go in and snuff out Iranian president Ahmadeninejad and do it old school like they used to in the 70’s. If so, I would be like the Russians, shaking my fist in outrage in public but privately saying “good riddance”.

Let's all laugh at the Statesman!

I decided to pick an editorial article from our local paper, the Austin American Statesman. I love to rip on the American Statesman. They’re an easy target mainly because they are such a left leaning liberal paper and they make a perfect compliment to the Peoples Republic of Austin, errrr…City of Austin. While it is somewhat sad that Austin is known as the “San Francisco of Texas”, it is clear that the Statesman fits Austin like a glove. I’ve lived in the Austin area for fifteen years and not much has changed when it comes to the Statesman’s approach to attract readers: write something negative about the Austin Police Department. I’m sure a weekly editors meeting goes something like this:
Editor: OK gang, sales are down AGAIN this week. What stories do we have lined up to get more paying readers?
Reporter: The Lake levels continue to decline
Editor: We’ve run that story to the ground. No good. What else?
Reporter: It’s very hot in Central Texas.
Editor: Thanks. No good. What else?
Reporter: I’ve got a negative story about the Longhorns…
Editor (with hands over ears): LALALALLALALALALALAL…can’t hear you!!!!
Tony Plohetski: Chief, I’ve got a story on how APD’s internal Affairs detectives are feuding with their bosses over the Quintana investigation, except that I’m short on evidence, facts, and my article is mostly opinion based….
Editor: PUT THAT PAGE 1!!!!! TODAY!!!
Plohtetski: But boss, it’s not really…
Editor: I don’t care!!! Print it!! Tony, as usual, you are gold!!
Seriously, the Editorial asks the question: If police complaints are made public, why shouldn’t the results be made public in cases where the Officer was cleared of any wrongdoing? The article goes on to whine about how the public should have access to information about all internal affairs investigations, regardless whether the officer was found guilty of any wrong doing. Although editorials are opinions, it’s a shame the writer doesn’t draw on facts to form his opinion.
The writer rails about how things should be, but doesn’t provide the reader with a plan on how to change the current laws that protect certain aspects of internal police investigations. So the reader is left with yet another griping article written by a bleeding heart liberal. Here’s the link: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/09/0909internal_edit.html.
This editorial is worth reading because it’s an excellent example of biased and opinionated reporting whose thinly based premise is not supported by any facts.