In recent news, but an old dispute, there has been talk of schism and separation within the Anglican Communion centered on the growing liberality of many parishes and dioceses in the Episcopal Church, USA. Many Episcopalians, over what they see as an unacceptable liberalization of their parishes and the Episcopal branch as a whole, have left their churches to form their own, join others, depart entirely, or re-join the parent Anglican Communion. One must understand that the Episcopal Church sees itself in a largely progressive light while the Anglican Church leans more towards tradition. There are two basic arguments behind these moves by individual and collective Episcopalians.
The stronger and more recent point of contention is the ordination of openly gay priests, first brought into view with the elevation of a gay priest to the rank of Bishop in the 1980’s. The Anglican Communion does not openly endorse this, but has refused to definitively call such actions apostate and heretical, preferring, apparently, to view this liberalization as an embarrassing behavior by younger family members. Many throughout the worldwide Communion, including other Episcopal bishoprics and dioceses, particularly in Africa and Asia, however, have called for renunciation and separation of the Episcopal Church, USA from the Anglican Communion.
The lesser argument preceded the one which now threatens to divide the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church, USA, in seeking to modernize and be progressive began ordaining women several decades ago. It was thought at the time, and proven true hence, that the ordination of women would lead to the apostasy currently practiced within the Episcopal branch. Specifically, when the first women were ordained, many traditionalists felt certain that this would lead to a broadening tolerance for other unscriptural acts, such as the ordination of the gay, which would inevitably lead to dissent and division. The traditionalists were proven right.
Churches which have wisely resisted reforms along these lines of liberality have done so with the same arguments presented here. The arguments come from Scripture Itself.
Homosexuality
Regarding the acceptance of homosexuals within the Church, the long tradition of not doing so is firmly rooted in Scripture, both old and new testaments. In the Old Testament, death is the certain reward for the discovered homosexual, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13. The New Testament posits that the kingdom of God does not await the homosexual, ”Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men.” I Corinthians6:9 Paul affirms the OT prohibition and Christ teaches nothing contrary to this law. As illustrated in Jesus’ saving of the sinful woman from the mob, salvation, forgiveness and grace can be granted to one who practices evil, but the act must be renounced and ended. In Christ’s own words, “Go, and sin no more.” Practicing homosexuals, like practicing prostitutes, are not welcome in Christ’s church.
Women in Ministry
Both the letter of scripture and the precedent of it refute the idea of women ministering as men do. Regardless of whether one sees the Bible as ideological metaphor or wholly accurate inspired Word of God, man is presented as the creation of God for God, while woman is the creation of God for man. In the Law of Moses, women are prohibited from the temple when menstruating, and during other similarly “female” conditions. Women are not viewed in the Old Testament as possessing the same right of relationship with God as men hold.. Nothing in Christ’s teachings suggest a change to the uneven ministerial ground of women. Jesus differentiated the ministry of women from that of men. Jesus did not use women in ministry in the same ways that He used men. Although the role of women in Christ’s ministry was significant, it was entirely different from the role of men. Christ upheld the OT prohibition against women acting as teachers or intercessory ministers for men. Jesus did not allow His culture to dictate that women were used in ministry. Modern culture is liberating women to the extent that no distinctions between men and women are tolerated in terms of their ministry and function. In the church one must obey the orders of God, regardless of what popular culture might have to say. Women are forbidden in Scripture to teach or to lead men (1 Tim. 2:11-12), and the church must obey, regardless of the demands of culture and women. Any church that permits the ordination of women is apostate and guilty of heresy, if that church likewise claims, and most do, to teach and believe the Living Word.
This analysis is not presented to expound upon the homophobic or chauvinist ideas of the writer, but shows how many, if not most, Christians in the US fail to read and understand their primary reference, the Bible. Most Christian denominations and individuals claim that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and that its words and tenets are divinely inspired. At the same time, much like our current Administration and its relationship with the law, most choose to selectively apply the Word and ignore the parts that they find uncomfortable or disagreeable. Having said that, it now becomes obvious how a gang of criminals willfully disregarding the law could maintain itself in a country of heretics willfully defying the Word. This writer is not Christian, and yet can see the amazing parallels.
30 June 2008
29 June 2008
Supreme Court Paradox?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-06-26-yrendwrapup_N.htm
In the indicated article from USA Today, the author, Joan Biskupic, claims that the Supreme Court’s rulings this term have shown the ideological differences on the bench, as many of the most closely watched cases before the Court have passed by 5-4 votes. And yet, this same author notes that Court opinions have been more in accord on decisions such as favoring workers over their employers. Also noted by the author was the fact that this Supreme Court term has actually produced less obvious fraction than last term. There is then an analysis with questions regarding the Court’s justices moderating their political leanings in favor of consensus. That “moderation” is rebuffed in the analysis, which goes on to indicate that the Court has become more conservative with Justice Alito’s replacing of Justice O’Connor as of 2006. In this current Court it is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s, with an independent, unaligned view to the law, who frequently casts the swing vote.
To this writer, it seems that the Supreme Court finally has a make-up in its Justices that allows for the preservation of the Constitution and its core values. Now balanced in its alignment, due to the strong conservative and liberal leanings to either side, with an independent in the middle, the Court is forced to produce and understand both sides of the arguments and vote in favor of the Constitution and the individual. Now the Court has determined that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, but America does not have the power to hold people accused of nothing, as in Guantanamo Bay, nor are corporate bodies entitled to greater liberty than those they employ. Although dissensions from the bench have been scathing in their minority opinions, this Court has shown that flawed viewpoints, from either side, usually succumb. There is no paradox in all of this; the Court is ruling in accordance with the intention of the Framers of the Constitution and vigorously arguing the points for all sides while protecting the Constitution and the interest of the individual over corporate and government intrusion.
In the indicated article from USA Today, the author, Joan Biskupic, claims that the Supreme Court’s rulings this term have shown the ideological differences on the bench, as many of the most closely watched cases before the Court have passed by 5-4 votes. And yet, this same author notes that Court opinions have been more in accord on decisions such as favoring workers over their employers. Also noted by the author was the fact that this Supreme Court term has actually produced less obvious fraction than last term. There is then an analysis with questions regarding the Court’s justices moderating their political leanings in favor of consensus. That “moderation” is rebuffed in the analysis, which goes on to indicate that the Court has become more conservative with Justice Alito’s replacing of Justice O’Connor as of 2006. In this current Court it is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s, with an independent, unaligned view to the law, who frequently casts the swing vote.
To this writer, it seems that the Supreme Court finally has a make-up in its Justices that allows for the preservation of the Constitution and its core values. Now balanced in its alignment, due to the strong conservative and liberal leanings to either side, with an independent in the middle, the Court is forced to produce and understand both sides of the arguments and vote in favor of the Constitution and the individual. Now the Court has determined that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, but America does not have the power to hold people accused of nothing, as in Guantanamo Bay, nor are corporate bodies entitled to greater liberty than those they employ. Although dissensions from the bench have been scathing in their minority opinions, this Court has shown that flawed viewpoints, from either side, usually succumb. There is no paradox in all of this; the Court is ruling in accordance with the intention of the Framers of the Constitution and vigorously arguing the points for all sides while protecting the Constitution and the interest of the individual over corporate and government intrusion.
22 June 2008
Malfeasant Prosecution
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
The United States is famous for being the “land of the free”, but does that title hold true anymore? Has it ever? In this piece I will briefly examine reasons why the first question is a resounding “no” while leaving the second for others to ponder. The reasons for America no longer being entitled to the appellation “land of the free” should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news. An administration that runs roughshod over the civil rights and liberties, along with the human dignity of all people, not just its citizens has come into power, and remained in power, despite two elections where the people said “no”. Warrantless eavesdropping, court interference, no-bid pre-selected contracting, illegal war-fighting and violation of national sovereignties are but a few of the legitimate complaints that U.S. citizens, and the world in general, can raise against the idea of a free America. But these are not the issues I will discuss. My point in this transcends administrations and has been developing for more than six administrations.
In the “land of the free” today, the US government has now locked up, incarcerated, imprisoned more of its people than even the totalitarian communist regime of china. This does not include those held at Guantanamo Bay. China currently has a population of 1.322 billion, while the US has only about 302 million, meaning that China is first in the world population, while the US is 1/4th China’s size and ranks third, thanks to the disintegration of the former Russian empire known as the Soviet Union. For many years, about two decades, though the US failed to beat the Chinese in absolute numbers of those incarcerated, it still managed to lock up a larger percentage of the population than anyone since Hitler’s Nazi Germany. There are some misguided individuals who might ascribe this to the effectiveness of American law enforcement and criminology. There are some who have posited that our very freedom encourages people to act in ways that go beyond challenging social mores and terminate in criminal activity. These arguments are specious at best and are generally offered by those who have little knowledge or experience with the American legal system. If this were true then countries with even more permissive drug laws, like Holland and Denmark, would see greater degrees of drug related crime, while countries like Austria, where just about anyone can buy virtually any form of small arm at a schutzenfest would see more gun violence. The problem is not related to our freedoms, nor is it related to the efficiency of our police agencies. The problem, in fact is rooted in the adversarial legal process, the necessity of “wins” by elected officials, the control of evidence by the State, and the malfeasance of those representing the State’s interests in the courts.
Neither the Innocence Project nor the Center for Wrongful Conviction succinctly states the preceding allegation of abuse within our court system, but it becomes apparent that the cases on which they have worked most frequently reflect an abuse of the system itself, and all too often, that abuse is willful on the part of those who are supposed to be serving the public, rather than their own, interest. Both of these fine organizations have led the way in illustrating the errors allowed by our justice system and the apathy, if not outright malfeasance, of the system’s minions towards the rights of the accused and redress for the falsely prosecuted innocent. In far too many cases, the evidence presented at trial was demonstrably proven insufficient to legally bring an indictment, let alone a conviction. Yet, prosecutors pushed their agendas and their allegations, putting innocent men and women in harm’s way, introducing them to the penal system. Quite regularly, both Innocence Project and Wrongful Convictions have been able to secure exoneration for the convicted based solely on evidence available, but suppressed, ignored, or misrepresented, at the time of the trial. In most of these, the evidence did not in any way suggest guilt of the convicted person but, rather, proved innocence; yet, in our remarkable system, prosecutors have found ways to subvert the facts.
Our adversarial trial system allows both sides to present their side of the case, ostensibly to allow jurors or judges to weigh the evidence and make a finding. In the criminal court system, this is perverted by the fact that, most often, the State has the resources to conduct its investigations and gather its evidence, while the Defense is reliant upon the State for all of that information. In far too many cases, this has led to situations where the prosecution carefully chooses its release of discovery. This makes going to trial like unto a poker game wherein the dealer gets to choose the cards he deals. Most defendants are financially unable to supply for themselves the resources necessary to reliably counter the arguments made from the State’s stacked deck.
It has been shown that many convictions in serious crimes result from fabricated evidence, whether false, and frequently solicited, testimony or forced and forged confessions. I have personally seen both of these mechanisms at work. Then, too, there is the miraculous process for discovery of physical evidence. Fingerprints can, and have been, lifted and relocated. Shell casings can be replaced with ones that match the alleged weapon. DNA samples can be switched. Yes, all of this goes on even in the 21st Century in our criminal justice system. Inconvenient evidence, say, non-matching DNA, can accidentally disappear. Alibi witnesses can be “encouraged” to change their story or fail to appear.
In the course of their work, the Innocence Project and the Center for Wrongful Convictions have seen over 10 % of death row cases be overturned. These are capitol cases where the standards of evidence for the prosecution are supposed to be incredibly difficult; yet prosecutors have incredible records of success with them. If the most serious crimes, with the most stringent requirements for proof, are successfully prosecuted to the point that it is later proven, not shown, but proven, the persons convicted are better than ten percent likely to be factually innocent, what then are the percentages for false conviction in lesser crimes? That has not been studied extensively, as of yet, because the stakes are much lower and, usually, the innocent are eventually allowed to continue with their lives. Most often, glad to be free from the penal system, the falsely accused and wrongly convicted get on with their lives despite the millstone of felony conviction suspended from their necks.
The problem, as this writer sees it, is one of accountability. If America is to be truly the “land of the free”, then not one, not one, person, citizen or not, should be allowed to spend any time incarcerated, ever. Abraham Lincoln stated this principle when he said that he would rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent locked up. Mistakes happen. In the event of mistake, the State must own up and provide adequate and meaningful compensation for those wrongfully incarcerated. By adequate, the compensation must be sufficient to make up for lost wages, all resultant or incidental medical issues must be resolved at the States expense, and, the State must provide a sum sufficient to ensure the successful social re-integration of the wrongly imprisoned. The State, in incarcerating an innocent, does great harm to that person in many ways, and re-adaptation and –integration into society is frequently fiscally prohibitive unless the goal is mere subsistence, which is not fair. By meaningful, the compensation must be sufficiently damaging to public coffers that the State is divested of any interest in the successful, or even attempted, execution of malicious prosecution. Laws amounting to this address the issue of collective responsibility for wrongful prosecutions, but there is a personal responsibility that usually drives the collective responsibility.
That personal responsibility belongs to the judges, prosecutors and police who have corrupted the intent behind the development of our criminal justice system. These people must be held accountable for converting the criminal justice system into a system for personal, social, professional, financial and political advancement. The law currently provides for the punishment of those who seek to debase the system with wrongful, malicious and false prosecutions, but the law, as it stands, has two major problems. The first is that the law’s enforcement is controlled by the very people who have that power of law enforcement. The second problem is that the law itself is usually very weak because of the amount of evidence it requires- usually more than that for a capitol case- and the law is not very stringent in the punishment it imposes. Witnesses who lie (commit perjury) usually face less severe rules for evidence while facing greater punishment than malfeasant prosecutors and police. I believe that the best solution is for a federal law to be enacted that provides for the prosecution of those who participate in wrongful prosecutions. The rules of evidence for such should adhere to the same rather loose standards as those under which the original wrongful prosecution occurred. The punishment, and this is the part that should have the requisite compliance effect, should start, at a minimum, where the wrongly accused and convicted was released. This sentencing for those convicted of prosecutorial misconduct should be without parole. If a prosecutor, judge, police officer, or witness is proven to have offered false or misleading evidence or testimony, or has deliberately ignored or concealed evidence that would have been in the defense’s favor, then that person should not be freed until he or she has served every day that was lost to an innocent by their actions. If the wrongly accused served eighteen years on death row, then so, too, should the person(s) who caused that to happen by their misconduct.
If the reforms listed above were implemented, then I believe America would have taken a step towards again being called “land of the free”.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
The United States is famous for being the “land of the free”, but does that title hold true anymore? Has it ever? In this piece I will briefly examine reasons why the first question is a resounding “no” while leaving the second for others to ponder. The reasons for America no longer being entitled to the appellation “land of the free” should be obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news. An administration that runs roughshod over the civil rights and liberties, along with the human dignity of all people, not just its citizens has come into power, and remained in power, despite two elections where the people said “no”. Warrantless eavesdropping, court interference, no-bid pre-selected contracting, illegal war-fighting and violation of national sovereignties are but a few of the legitimate complaints that U.S. citizens, and the world in general, can raise against the idea of a free America. But these are not the issues I will discuss. My point in this transcends administrations and has been developing for more than six administrations.
In the “land of the free” today, the US government has now locked up, incarcerated, imprisoned more of its people than even the totalitarian communist regime of china. This does not include those held at Guantanamo Bay. China currently has a population of 1.322 billion, while the US has only about 302 million, meaning that China is first in the world population, while the US is 1/4th China’s size and ranks third, thanks to the disintegration of the former Russian empire known as the Soviet Union. For many years, about two decades, though the US failed to beat the Chinese in absolute numbers of those incarcerated, it still managed to lock up a larger percentage of the population than anyone since Hitler’s Nazi Germany. There are some misguided individuals who might ascribe this to the effectiveness of American law enforcement and criminology. There are some who have posited that our very freedom encourages people to act in ways that go beyond challenging social mores and terminate in criminal activity. These arguments are specious at best and are generally offered by those who have little knowledge or experience with the American legal system. If this were true then countries with even more permissive drug laws, like Holland and Denmark, would see greater degrees of drug related crime, while countries like Austria, where just about anyone can buy virtually any form of small arm at a schutzenfest would see more gun violence. The problem is not related to our freedoms, nor is it related to the efficiency of our police agencies. The problem, in fact is rooted in the adversarial legal process, the necessity of “wins” by elected officials, the control of evidence by the State, and the malfeasance of those representing the State’s interests in the courts.
Neither the Innocence Project nor the Center for Wrongful Conviction succinctly states the preceding allegation of abuse within our court system, but it becomes apparent that the cases on which they have worked most frequently reflect an abuse of the system itself, and all too often, that abuse is willful on the part of those who are supposed to be serving the public, rather than their own, interest. Both of these fine organizations have led the way in illustrating the errors allowed by our justice system and the apathy, if not outright malfeasance, of the system’s minions towards the rights of the accused and redress for the falsely prosecuted innocent. In far too many cases, the evidence presented at trial was demonstrably proven insufficient to legally bring an indictment, let alone a conviction. Yet, prosecutors pushed their agendas and their allegations, putting innocent men and women in harm’s way, introducing them to the penal system. Quite regularly, both Innocence Project and Wrongful Convictions have been able to secure exoneration for the convicted based solely on evidence available, but suppressed, ignored, or misrepresented, at the time of the trial. In most of these, the evidence did not in any way suggest guilt of the convicted person but, rather, proved innocence; yet, in our remarkable system, prosecutors have found ways to subvert the facts.
Our adversarial trial system allows both sides to present their side of the case, ostensibly to allow jurors or judges to weigh the evidence and make a finding. In the criminal court system, this is perverted by the fact that, most often, the State has the resources to conduct its investigations and gather its evidence, while the Defense is reliant upon the State for all of that information. In far too many cases, this has led to situations where the prosecution carefully chooses its release of discovery. This makes going to trial like unto a poker game wherein the dealer gets to choose the cards he deals. Most defendants are financially unable to supply for themselves the resources necessary to reliably counter the arguments made from the State’s stacked deck.
It has been shown that many convictions in serious crimes result from fabricated evidence, whether false, and frequently solicited, testimony or forced and forged confessions. I have personally seen both of these mechanisms at work. Then, too, there is the miraculous process for discovery of physical evidence. Fingerprints can, and have been, lifted and relocated. Shell casings can be replaced with ones that match the alleged weapon. DNA samples can be switched. Yes, all of this goes on even in the 21st Century in our criminal justice system. Inconvenient evidence, say, non-matching DNA, can accidentally disappear. Alibi witnesses can be “encouraged” to change their story or fail to appear.
In the course of their work, the Innocence Project and the Center for Wrongful Convictions have seen over 10 % of death row cases be overturned. These are capitol cases where the standards of evidence for the prosecution are supposed to be incredibly difficult; yet prosecutors have incredible records of success with them. If the most serious crimes, with the most stringent requirements for proof, are successfully prosecuted to the point that it is later proven, not shown, but proven, the persons convicted are better than ten percent likely to be factually innocent, what then are the percentages for false conviction in lesser crimes? That has not been studied extensively, as of yet, because the stakes are much lower and, usually, the innocent are eventually allowed to continue with their lives. Most often, glad to be free from the penal system, the falsely accused and wrongly convicted get on with their lives despite the millstone of felony conviction suspended from their necks.
The problem, as this writer sees it, is one of accountability. If America is to be truly the “land of the free”, then not one, not one, person, citizen or not, should be allowed to spend any time incarcerated, ever. Abraham Lincoln stated this principle when he said that he would rather see ten guilty men go free than one innocent locked up. Mistakes happen. In the event of mistake, the State must own up and provide adequate and meaningful compensation for those wrongfully incarcerated. By adequate, the compensation must be sufficient to make up for lost wages, all resultant or incidental medical issues must be resolved at the States expense, and, the State must provide a sum sufficient to ensure the successful social re-integration of the wrongly imprisoned. The State, in incarcerating an innocent, does great harm to that person in many ways, and re-adaptation and –integration into society is frequently fiscally prohibitive unless the goal is mere subsistence, which is not fair. By meaningful, the compensation must be sufficiently damaging to public coffers that the State is divested of any interest in the successful, or even attempted, execution of malicious prosecution. Laws amounting to this address the issue of collective responsibility for wrongful prosecutions, but there is a personal responsibility that usually drives the collective responsibility.
That personal responsibility belongs to the judges, prosecutors and police who have corrupted the intent behind the development of our criminal justice system. These people must be held accountable for converting the criminal justice system into a system for personal, social, professional, financial and political advancement. The law currently provides for the punishment of those who seek to debase the system with wrongful, malicious and false prosecutions, but the law, as it stands, has two major problems. The first is that the law’s enforcement is controlled by the very people who have that power of law enforcement. The second problem is that the law itself is usually very weak because of the amount of evidence it requires- usually more than that for a capitol case- and the law is not very stringent in the punishment it imposes. Witnesses who lie (commit perjury) usually face less severe rules for evidence while facing greater punishment than malfeasant prosecutors and police. I believe that the best solution is for a federal law to be enacted that provides for the prosecution of those who participate in wrongful prosecutions. The rules of evidence for such should adhere to the same rather loose standards as those under which the original wrongful prosecution occurred. The punishment, and this is the part that should have the requisite compliance effect, should start, at a minimum, where the wrongly accused and convicted was released. This sentencing for those convicted of prosecutorial misconduct should be without parole. If a prosecutor, judge, police officer, or witness is proven to have offered false or misleading evidence or testimony, or has deliberately ignored or concealed evidence that would have been in the defense’s favor, then that person should not be freed until he or she has served every day that was lost to an innocent by their actions. If the wrongly accused served eighteen years on death row, then so, too, should the person(s) who caused that to happen by their misconduct.
If the reforms listed above were implemented, then I believe America would have taken a step towards again being called “land of the free”.
The Problems with County Law Enforcement
In many areas of the US, particularly rural areas, law enforcement is conducted by sheriffs who have little, if any, oversight of their activities. This creates opportunity for grievous wrongs to be perpetrated by those most responsible to and for the community.
Our modern term sheriff goes back to medieval England and the responsibilities are still pretty much the same. The sheriff of old England was responsible for an area that much resembled, in size, politics and economy our modern counties. The sheriff’s primary responsibility was originally the collection of taxes, which is still true and why tax foreclosure auctions are frequently referred to as “sheriff’s auctions”. The feudal sheriff was also responsible for the maintenance of the peace in his jurisdiction. Frequently, maintenance of the peace simply meant that the privileged were safe in their persons and possessions from disturbance by commoners; the sheriff was not typically held responsible for the safety of the commoners and serfs. If one held real property, then one could expect the sheriff’s office to protect it and them.
In the US, these priorities have largely been reversed, but the practice of favoring property holders, especially those with significant property, over the average resident, or outsider, has remained static. The reason for this is that, as in feudal times, the property holder pays taxes and has a voice in the community. Property holders tend to sit on boards, committees, and commissions and hold elected office. Property holders tend to be more socially, politically, and economically active than renters and transients. Therein lies the justification for the favoritism sheriffs typically show. Though, in a democracy, every voice counts, some count more than others. Those who are able to rally money and commitments are able to influence elections, and modern sheriffs are elected. Though feudal sheriffs were not elected, they were still beholden to those who wielded influence and conferred office. Though the method of selection has changed in theory, the end result is still largely controlled by people of similar social position. Anyone who pays attention to local politics is well aware of the backroom dealings between law enforcement and the local power holders.
Sheriff’s offices across the country operate with little or no oversight, operating as independent fiefdoms as long as the taxes are paid and the peace maintained. In the US, it seems that most people believe that those arrested must be guilty, regardless of the facts. From this line of thought, it becomes easy for the populace to condone rougher than necessary, and even illegal, treatment of the “bad guys” upon their arrest. If one wasn’t doing something wrong, then they wouldn’t have been arrested, right? The sheriff’s office, one must remember, usually has absolute control of the “facts” after a person’s arrest and leading up to trial. In rural areas, it is incredibly easy to taint any given jury pool by selective interpretation and release of the “facts” through the media and even casual acquaintance. We are taught, usually, to respect and trust the police and deputies protecting us from the evil doers, are we not? So, too, are we taught to believe them when, through media release or casual conversation, they inform us that a person is guilty of this or that.
Frequently, those arrested are guilty of the crime(s) of which they are accused. Sometimes they are not. The current bail system decidedly favors the property owner and the well-employed as well as those with personal and political connections to whatever local power system is in practice. For the rest, there is jail. Jail is usually, due to lack of oversight and a “get tough on crime” attitude, much worse than prison. Unlike prison anymore, sheriffs have a fiscal motive to keep costs down. Every dollar that a sheriff doesn’t spend on his jail is a dollar he can give himself; no, the savings that sheriffs effect in the holding of prisoners do not go back to the taxpayers. Most frequently, the savings that a sheriff is able to claim go back into his pocket. So, sheriffs have a personal financial stake in failing to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, and even cleanliness. In rural areas, if there is oversight and inspections, the sheriff usually has a personal as well as professional relationship with those responsible for reporting on conditions, so the process is mostly tainted to the inmates’ grief. A sheriff has many ways to save “taxpayers” money. A jail can fail to provide adequate cleaning supplies, fail to properly maintain facilities, keep heating to a minimum, foregoing air conditioning and ventilation completely, serve inadequate, unbalanced diets, and inadequately staff, train, and supervise jailers. A sheriff can also promote unrest in the inmate population, giving cause for rescinding “privileges” and further reducing the minimal quality of health and life while increasing “savings”. Some even run commissaries where the prices reflect a 300+% profit. Others illegally censor and even copy mail, in defiance of federal law; but, the local postmaster is a buddy, so he isn’t going to do anything.
All of this is justified as jail being “punishment”. Jail isn’t supposed to be “punishment” for those who haven’t been convicted. Most inmates in city and county jails are awaiting trial; they have not been convicted, so where is the justification for “punishment”? Jail is most often used for the holding of the accused, not the convicted, and separation from friends and family along with probable loss of employment and comfort of home should be “punishment” enough. Just as conditions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have radicalized Muslims who were innocent of terrorism, so too, does “punishment” of the innocent in jails tend to foster feelings of resentment and desires for revenge that can criminalize the average person.
Our modern term sheriff goes back to medieval England and the responsibilities are still pretty much the same. The sheriff of old England was responsible for an area that much resembled, in size, politics and economy our modern counties. The sheriff’s primary responsibility was originally the collection of taxes, which is still true and why tax foreclosure auctions are frequently referred to as “sheriff’s auctions”. The feudal sheriff was also responsible for the maintenance of the peace in his jurisdiction. Frequently, maintenance of the peace simply meant that the privileged were safe in their persons and possessions from disturbance by commoners; the sheriff was not typically held responsible for the safety of the commoners and serfs. If one held real property, then one could expect the sheriff’s office to protect it and them.
In the US, these priorities have largely been reversed, but the practice of favoring property holders, especially those with significant property, over the average resident, or outsider, has remained static. The reason for this is that, as in feudal times, the property holder pays taxes and has a voice in the community. Property holders tend to sit on boards, committees, and commissions and hold elected office. Property holders tend to be more socially, politically, and economically active than renters and transients. Therein lies the justification for the favoritism sheriffs typically show. Though, in a democracy, every voice counts, some count more than others. Those who are able to rally money and commitments are able to influence elections, and modern sheriffs are elected. Though feudal sheriffs were not elected, they were still beholden to those who wielded influence and conferred office. Though the method of selection has changed in theory, the end result is still largely controlled by people of similar social position. Anyone who pays attention to local politics is well aware of the backroom dealings between law enforcement and the local power holders.
Sheriff’s offices across the country operate with little or no oversight, operating as independent fiefdoms as long as the taxes are paid and the peace maintained. In the US, it seems that most people believe that those arrested must be guilty, regardless of the facts. From this line of thought, it becomes easy for the populace to condone rougher than necessary, and even illegal, treatment of the “bad guys” upon their arrest. If one wasn’t doing something wrong, then they wouldn’t have been arrested, right? The sheriff’s office, one must remember, usually has absolute control of the “facts” after a person’s arrest and leading up to trial. In rural areas, it is incredibly easy to taint any given jury pool by selective interpretation and release of the “facts” through the media and even casual acquaintance. We are taught, usually, to respect and trust the police and deputies protecting us from the evil doers, are we not? So, too, are we taught to believe them when, through media release or casual conversation, they inform us that a person is guilty of this or that.
Frequently, those arrested are guilty of the crime(s) of which they are accused. Sometimes they are not. The current bail system decidedly favors the property owner and the well-employed as well as those with personal and political connections to whatever local power system is in practice. For the rest, there is jail. Jail is usually, due to lack of oversight and a “get tough on crime” attitude, much worse than prison. Unlike prison anymore, sheriffs have a fiscal motive to keep costs down. Every dollar that a sheriff doesn’t spend on his jail is a dollar he can give himself; no, the savings that sheriffs effect in the holding of prisoners do not go back to the taxpayers. Most frequently, the savings that a sheriff is able to claim go back into his pocket. So, sheriffs have a personal financial stake in failing to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, and even cleanliness. In rural areas, if there is oversight and inspections, the sheriff usually has a personal as well as professional relationship with those responsible for reporting on conditions, so the process is mostly tainted to the inmates’ grief. A sheriff has many ways to save “taxpayers” money. A jail can fail to provide adequate cleaning supplies, fail to properly maintain facilities, keep heating to a minimum, foregoing air conditioning and ventilation completely, serve inadequate, unbalanced diets, and inadequately staff, train, and supervise jailers. A sheriff can also promote unrest in the inmate population, giving cause for rescinding “privileges” and further reducing the minimal quality of health and life while increasing “savings”. Some even run commissaries where the prices reflect a 300+% profit. Others illegally censor and even copy mail, in defiance of federal law; but, the local postmaster is a buddy, so he isn’t going to do anything.
All of this is justified as jail being “punishment”. Jail isn’t supposed to be “punishment” for those who haven’t been convicted. Most inmates in city and county jails are awaiting trial; they have not been convicted, so where is the justification for “punishment”? Jail is most often used for the holding of the accused, not the convicted, and separation from friends and family along with probable loss of employment and comfort of home should be “punishment” enough. Just as conditions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have radicalized Muslims who were innocent of terrorism, so too, does “punishment” of the innocent in jails tend to foster feelings of resentment and desires for revenge that can criminalize the average person.
Totalitarianism, Fascism, and Autocracy
General Accuses White House of War Crimes
http://www.military.com/news/article/general-accuses-wh-of-war-crimes.html?col=1186032325324
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
This article was accessed through Military.com and sheds light on growing disillusionment within the ranks over the illegal actions of the Commander-in-Chief. The article goes on to discuss meetings and discussions among senior Administration officials on the Defense and Intelligence ends including the seeking of favorable legal opinions in the face of protest by military lawyers. It becomes obvious that the Bush Administration has actively encouraged its illegal agenda through the selection and promotion of those military, legal, and intelligence most agreeable to reprehensible policy. The pimping and pandering of legal opinion best aligned with the Administration’s end goals is reminiscent of behind-the-scenes wrangling conducted in the former Soviet and Nazi regimes. At least, the American version of obtaining favorable opinions from sycophantic underlings hasn’t included execution for those in dissent. How civilized; we won’t kill those who disagree with our criminal plans, but we will put them out to pasture.
In previous blogs, which are no longer available, I had much to say about this and how Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were attempting to build a new American Empire built on greed and brute force as opposed to trade and democratic ideals. They still used the old terminology, but it was obvious to anyone with any ability to discern that the old terminology has been used by this administration euphemistically at best.
This Administration, more than any other in my lifetime, has sought to have the American people sign off on the promotion of criminal acts thinly disguised as a “War on Terror”. Generally speaking, intelligence gathering through physical coercion leads to greater error, as the recipient of the coercion will say whatever it takes to avoid further “discomfort”. Waterboarding and other acts of coercion are effective brain-washing and behavioral adjustment techniques, but they rarely elicit the truth. This is a large part of the reasoning, beyond the legal issues, that, until this Administration, most agencies and departments, including the military, have shunned their use. This administration of gung-ho redneck chickenhawks, who never put anything of their own on the line for their country, has decided to show their élan with the courage and blood of others while increasing the net worth of their friends and benefactors in the military-industrial-energy complex and destroying the finances and dreams of many average Americans.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a Senate committee; how much more justification must this group of criminals give the nation? Or the world? Clinton’s crimes were of a personal nature and regarding a personal matter, and though this writer despised him as a man, he largely played it straight as the President.
There is no question of George W Bush’s involvement in all of the criminal activity of his administration. There is no way, with all of the media coverage, and his defense of Administration officials, that he could have been in the dark about matters of such grave importance. From an illegal and unjustified invasion of a sovereign state, diverting resources from the real “War on Terror” to Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, George W. Bush must share accountability for his high crimes and misdemeanors. The world was looking up to the US in 2000; now, mostly due to this Administration’s incompetence, intransigence, and malfeasance, the world rightly looks to itself for answers while hoping that the US doesn’t start another war.
In 2001, al-Qaida showed the US the meaning of terror; in response, George Bush has shown the world the meaning of terror. In the process he has shown Americans the meaning of totalitarianism, fascism, and autocracy.
http://www.military.com/news/article/general-accuses-wh-of-war-crimes.html?col=1186032325324
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
This article was accessed through Military.com and sheds light on growing disillusionment within the ranks over the illegal actions of the Commander-in-Chief. The article goes on to discuss meetings and discussions among senior Administration officials on the Defense and Intelligence ends including the seeking of favorable legal opinions in the face of protest by military lawyers. It becomes obvious that the Bush Administration has actively encouraged its illegal agenda through the selection and promotion of those military, legal, and intelligence most agreeable to reprehensible policy. The pimping and pandering of legal opinion best aligned with the Administration’s end goals is reminiscent of behind-the-scenes wrangling conducted in the former Soviet and Nazi regimes. At least, the American version of obtaining favorable opinions from sycophantic underlings hasn’t included execution for those in dissent. How civilized; we won’t kill those who disagree with our criminal plans, but we will put them out to pasture.
In previous blogs, which are no longer available, I had much to say about this and how Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were attempting to build a new American Empire built on greed and brute force as opposed to trade and democratic ideals. They still used the old terminology, but it was obvious to anyone with any ability to discern that the old terminology has been used by this administration euphemistically at best.
This Administration, more than any other in my lifetime, has sought to have the American people sign off on the promotion of criminal acts thinly disguised as a “War on Terror”. Generally speaking, intelligence gathering through physical coercion leads to greater error, as the recipient of the coercion will say whatever it takes to avoid further “discomfort”. Waterboarding and other acts of coercion are effective brain-washing and behavioral adjustment techniques, but they rarely elicit the truth. This is a large part of the reasoning, beyond the legal issues, that, until this Administration, most agencies and departments, including the military, have shunned their use. This administration of gung-ho redneck chickenhawks, who never put anything of their own on the line for their country, has decided to show their élan with the courage and blood of others while increasing the net worth of their friends and benefactors in the military-industrial-energy complex and destroying the finances and dreams of many average Americans.
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to a Senate committee; how much more justification must this group of criminals give the nation? Or the world? Clinton’s crimes were of a personal nature and regarding a personal matter, and though this writer despised him as a man, he largely played it straight as the President.
There is no question of George W Bush’s involvement in all of the criminal activity of his administration. There is no way, with all of the media coverage, and his defense of Administration officials, that he could have been in the dark about matters of such grave importance. From an illegal and unjustified invasion of a sovereign state, diverting resources from the real “War on Terror” to Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, George W. Bush must share accountability for his high crimes and misdemeanors. The world was looking up to the US in 2000; now, mostly due to this Administration’s incompetence, intransigence, and malfeasance, the world rightly looks to itself for answers while hoping that the US doesn’t start another war.
In 2001, al-Qaida showed the US the meaning of terror; in response, George Bush has shown the world the meaning of terror. In the process he has shown Americans the meaning of totalitarianism, fascism, and autocracy.
15 June 2008
Fascerica
This blog will primarily focus on the increasing shift of America towards becoming a fascist, totalitarian police state. Towards this end, I will cite examples of government and corporate misdeeds that point to the deprivation of liberty and personal security for the maintenance of the government sponsored corporate-industrial complex that exercises economic policy through the use of force, both at home and abroad. Although it might be reasonably argued that America has long operated in a less than democratic fashion, the progress towards the elimination, marginalization, and exploitation of the undesirable, less productive, and non-conformist elements of US society has become more obvious, both for the availability of information and the brazenness of the government-corporate bodies. In short, without radical change, the US will slide into world mediocity with the rise of its new aristocracy and their fascist agenda. Hence, this blog is named Fascerica.
14 June 2008
Reproductive Rights for Men
In the great abortion debate, there are many angles and nuances to the arguments pro and con. Many assert right to life as a moral dictate while others demand freedom of choice as a medical imperative. There are religious considerations for life and humanitarian aspects for choice. In fact, if the matter is closely examined, it seems that all of the intangibles actually point in favor of life. The majority of religious beliefs point to the sanctity of life, and nearly all belief systems mandate a sanction against murder defined as the killing of the innocent. What could be more innocent than a burgeoning life in the womb of a mother? Even the great humanist philosophies, divorced from religion as most are, emphasize the sacrosanct nature of human life. All of these systems of thought, directly or not, rely upon the idea of humanity being the top physical lifeform on this planet, if not in the universe. All of these arguments, one way or another, make humanity the apex predator, evolution's end or most advanced product, or God's special, highest creation and mean that human life is special and sacred, regardless of philosophical bend.
There exists a necessary tension, developed as a resultant component of Enlightenment thought, with the still largely Western Legalist belief in individual liberty. In Occidental culture, as opposed to Oriental, the individual is the unit of primacy in legal and philosophical thought. Individual liberties, haphazardly in application, yes, are more important than group needs. This has been the crux of intellectual thought on governance since the close of the 17th Century. These arguments for liberty have, in the past century, made serious progress into the still largely group-centered cultures of the East. The idea of individual liberty has progressed only recently to support of the concept of abortion as a component of individual choice. Most of that thought component has come of the progrress of the women's suffrage movements in the West.
Before anyone seeks to object that I am over-generalizing or over-simplifying, allow me to qualify. The preceeding paragraphs represent an overview of the development of Western thought without consideration to practice. As in all things human, the ideals and reality never perfectly match. Even in ostensibly devout Christian Western societies, there are incidents of procreative choice, though they normally occurred post-partum in the form of abandonment or "pillowing". Sources differ on how frequent Westerners practiced infanticide, but given the general social stigma that would be associated with European Christian society from the 11th Century until the 19th, it can be understood that incidents would be relatively rare and occasioned by circumstances in extremis. Most accounts that I have found of infanticide in the West center around times of starvation, plague and war.
Additionally, despite Buddhist proscriptions against killing, Buddhism's spread into popularity in the Orient was relatively late, coming around the 15th Century into China. By the time that the teachings of Suharta Gautama reached the majority of Oriental people, a long tradition of pragmatism in regards to infant mortality had been established. The Oriental focus on the individual's subservience to the group made everyone expendable, especially undesired children. Gender selection, as much as resource scarcity, played a much larger role in Oriental infanticide than in Occidental. Buddhism's tenets of all things being meant permitted the continuation of the practice, as all actions can be seen as a part of the "balance" of the universe and "evil", such as infanticide, was an unfortunate but very necessary part of the equation. Furthermore, Oriental cultures tended to view infants as not human until they had proven their viability by survivng until what Occidentals call their first birthday. A fetus or child lost before the first birthday was usually treated about the same as a miscarriage.
So, in the end, most Western religious and philosophical thought tends toward the pro-life lobby of the abortion debate. Historically speaking, abortion as common and accepted practice is new and divergent. The growing acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control is a product of social change, emphasizing the rights of the individual, and increasingly, the female individual, in an increasingly secular and materialistic society. In the worst light, the acceptance of abortion can be seen as an extension of Western society's growing acceptance of selfishness.
One can argue that for women, abortion is their response to the irresponsibility of men towards children and the mothers of those children, particularly men of past generations. But it is ethically anathema to visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons, as this line of thought would have it. In modern Western society, also, it has become criminal to embrace the old standby option of familial fiscal and physical abandonment by men. Also, men were not the only ones guilty of such offenses in the past, and this must be remembered. One can argue also that conception and gestation happen solely in the body of the woman, and therein lies her right to determination. This is specious, as in most cases of "broken" families, the man's work efforts to assist in support come solely from his body, and not for a matter of months, but for years and with an equally uncertain outcome. Reproductive and parental responsibility fall upon two willingly participating people equally. And therein, as they say, lies the rub.
In most of Western society today, the US specifically, although parental fiscal responsibility falls equally upon the participants of the procreative act, the rights of men fall well short of those for women. The principle of equality under the law is well established in the US, though not always practiced, but it is not generally recognized in the areas of reproduction and parenting. Some states, Illinois for one, have recently made progress in this area, but most have not.
As things currently stand, reproductive and parental rights accrue, most generally, to women, while responsibility and liability accrue to men. Where equality under the law is a guiding principle, for one party to have greater leeway in choices that determine the future of another in a mutually consented "transaction" is an ethically and morally bankrupt condition. In contraception, men currently have three effective choices: abstinence, barrier, and surgical. Women have at least five: add pharmaceutical and abortion. There is progress in work on a pill for men, but that still leaves women with an additional choice, a choice which they are allowed without consideration for their male partner(s). And that choice has lifelong consequences for the man. Additionally, post-partum, women have yet another choice in which men have little say. It is generally impossible for a man to secure custody over children short of proving the woman unfit. The criteria for unfit parenthood, for women, are extremely difficult to prove.
So, women, in the matters of reproduction and parental rights possess, within the US legal system, an unfair advantage over men, giving men the onus of responsibility without the benefit of choice over rights. So long as child support, a mostly male responsibility, is enforced by law, then it is unethical and unequal to permit abortion, a solely female right. In these matters, men have been denied equality of protection as the rights of women largely determine the responsibilities of men.
Personally, I believe, as a purely practical measure, that abortion should be a family planning option, but not under the laws as they currently stand. Both parties must have an opt-out option, as in, should a man not desire a child, then he should be able to give money equivalent to the cost of an abortion, stating that as his intent and ending his obligation. This still places the financial onus on the man, but it gives him a right to go along with his responsibility. This is the only way that we can allow abortion and adhere to Western legal principles of equality.
There exists a necessary tension, developed as a resultant component of Enlightenment thought, with the still largely Western Legalist belief in individual liberty. In Occidental culture, as opposed to Oriental, the individual is the unit of primacy in legal and philosophical thought. Individual liberties, haphazardly in application, yes, are more important than group needs. This has been the crux of intellectual thought on governance since the close of the 17th Century. These arguments for liberty have, in the past century, made serious progress into the still largely group-centered cultures of the East. The idea of individual liberty has progressed only recently to support of the concept of abortion as a component of individual choice. Most of that thought component has come of the progrress of the women's suffrage movements in the West.
Before anyone seeks to object that I am over-generalizing or over-simplifying, allow me to qualify. The preceeding paragraphs represent an overview of the development of Western thought without consideration to practice. As in all things human, the ideals and reality never perfectly match. Even in ostensibly devout Christian Western societies, there are incidents of procreative choice, though they normally occurred post-partum in the form of abandonment or "pillowing". Sources differ on how frequent Westerners practiced infanticide, but given the general social stigma that would be associated with European Christian society from the 11th Century until the 19th, it can be understood that incidents would be relatively rare and occasioned by circumstances in extremis. Most accounts that I have found of infanticide in the West center around times of starvation, plague and war.
Additionally, despite Buddhist proscriptions against killing, Buddhism's spread into popularity in the Orient was relatively late, coming around the 15th Century into China. By the time that the teachings of Suharta Gautama reached the majority of Oriental people, a long tradition of pragmatism in regards to infant mortality had been established. The Oriental focus on the individual's subservience to the group made everyone expendable, especially undesired children. Gender selection, as much as resource scarcity, played a much larger role in Oriental infanticide than in Occidental. Buddhism's tenets of all things being meant permitted the continuation of the practice, as all actions can be seen as a part of the "balance" of the universe and "evil", such as infanticide, was an unfortunate but very necessary part of the equation. Furthermore, Oriental cultures tended to view infants as not human until they had proven their viability by survivng until what Occidentals call their first birthday. A fetus or child lost before the first birthday was usually treated about the same as a miscarriage.
So, in the end, most Western religious and philosophical thought tends toward the pro-life lobby of the abortion debate. Historically speaking, abortion as common and accepted practice is new and divergent. The growing acceptance of abortion as a means of birth control is a product of social change, emphasizing the rights of the individual, and increasingly, the female individual, in an increasingly secular and materialistic society. In the worst light, the acceptance of abortion can be seen as an extension of Western society's growing acceptance of selfishness.
One can argue that for women, abortion is their response to the irresponsibility of men towards children and the mothers of those children, particularly men of past generations. But it is ethically anathema to visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons, as this line of thought would have it. In modern Western society, also, it has become criminal to embrace the old standby option of familial fiscal and physical abandonment by men. Also, men were not the only ones guilty of such offenses in the past, and this must be remembered. One can argue also that conception and gestation happen solely in the body of the woman, and therein lies her right to determination. This is specious, as in most cases of "broken" families, the man's work efforts to assist in support come solely from his body, and not for a matter of months, but for years and with an equally uncertain outcome. Reproductive and parental responsibility fall upon two willingly participating people equally. And therein, as they say, lies the rub.
In most of Western society today, the US specifically, although parental fiscal responsibility falls equally upon the participants of the procreative act, the rights of men fall well short of those for women. The principle of equality under the law is well established in the US, though not always practiced, but it is not generally recognized in the areas of reproduction and parenting. Some states, Illinois for one, have recently made progress in this area, but most have not.
As things currently stand, reproductive and parental rights accrue, most generally, to women, while responsibility and liability accrue to men. Where equality under the law is a guiding principle, for one party to have greater leeway in choices that determine the future of another in a mutually consented "transaction" is an ethically and morally bankrupt condition. In contraception, men currently have three effective choices: abstinence, barrier, and surgical. Women have at least five: add pharmaceutical and abortion. There is progress in work on a pill for men, but that still leaves women with an additional choice, a choice which they are allowed without consideration for their male partner(s). And that choice has lifelong consequences for the man. Additionally, post-partum, women have yet another choice in which men have little say. It is generally impossible for a man to secure custody over children short of proving the woman unfit. The criteria for unfit parenthood, for women, are extremely difficult to prove.
So, women, in the matters of reproduction and parental rights possess, within the US legal system, an unfair advantage over men, giving men the onus of responsibility without the benefit of choice over rights. So long as child support, a mostly male responsibility, is enforced by law, then it is unethical and unequal to permit abortion, a solely female right. In these matters, men have been denied equality of protection as the rights of women largely determine the responsibilities of men.
Personally, I believe, as a purely practical measure, that abortion should be a family planning option, but not under the laws as they currently stand. Both parties must have an opt-out option, as in, should a man not desire a child, then he should be able to give money equivalent to the cost of an abortion, stating that as his intent and ending his obligation. This still places the financial onus on the man, but it gives him a right to go along with his responsibility. This is the only way that we can allow abortion and adhere to Western legal principles of equality.
Some Solutions for Education
I believe that the funding of sports in schools beyond the purpose of physical education is a gender-biased waste of taxpayer funds that properly belong in the classroom. Women should be up in arms that secondary schools spend about three times as much educating boys as they do girls, and this difference is due to the emphasis on sports. This is a primary reason that education in the US is rightfully rated below that provided by all other first world nations and some second world nations. I believe further that this fiscal prioritization of competitive athletics is nothing short of government subsidization of an entertainment industry whose overall economic benefit to the citizenry as a whole is dubious at best.
I believe that teachers at the primary and secondary level who can not properly and proficiently read, write and speak English should not be certified. This is another primary reason for the failure of American education. However, ensuring the ability of teachers would require additional funding, which can be found in my belief statement about athletic programs.
I also believe that students and parents should take more responsibility for their roles in the failures of American education. If one complains about something, then one should make that complaint meaningful by taking action. Complaining without taking action makes one as much a part of the problem as those actively involved in creating the problem. Getting the word out, which this writing is about, is part of solving the problem. Getting involved, rather than treating education as a baby-sitting service, is critical. Students and parents need to get involved with their teachers, their administrators, their schools, their schoolwork, and each other if real progress is to be made
I believe that teachers at the primary and secondary level who can not properly and proficiently read, write and speak English should not be certified. This is another primary reason for the failure of American education. However, ensuring the ability of teachers would require additional funding, which can be found in my belief statement about athletic programs.
I also believe that students and parents should take more responsibility for their roles in the failures of American education. If one complains about something, then one should make that complaint meaningful by taking action. Complaining without taking action makes one as much a part of the problem as those actively involved in creating the problem. Getting the word out, which this writing is about, is part of solving the problem. Getting involved, rather than treating education as a baby-sitting service, is critical. Students and parents need to get involved with their teachers, their administrators, their schools, their schoolwork, and each other if real progress is to be made
Abuse of the Incarcerated through Food
A couple weeks ago, there was a minor news item on how Alabama jails are granted only a dollar seventy-five per inmate per day for food. The article went on to explain how many Sheriff's departments are able to profit even on that.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOBGWh72vwr9ZKWFHllMQoBEjULAD90N2VR00
Critics charge that Alabama is, in effect, paying law enforcement to skimp on food and may be rewarding sheriffs for mistreating prisoners.
"It's a bad system, and it ought not be that way," said Buddy Sharpless, executive director of the Association of County Commissions of Alabama.
The trick here is that every penny not put into an inmate's stomach goes into the Sheriff's wallet. My experience in Arkansas indicates that Alabama is not the only state to pay bonuses to sheriffs for abusing inmates. This may explain the legendary program of Maricopa County, Arizona, where the sheriff boasts of how much money he saves on jail food. He claims to be saving taxpayer dollars, but the truth is that he is probably pocketing the savings for himself, as do sheriffs in Alabama and Arkansas. Additionally, the federal government gives $45 to jails that hold federal prisoners, showing the disparity in attitude as well as providing the sheriffs with additional funds, which probably still go into their pockets.
Also in question is adherence to federal guidelines regarding nutritional requirements for the institutionalized. I was told by several officials with the jail in Sharp County, Arkansas that the food met caloric requirements, providing at least two thousand calories a day. I mentioned that calories were irrelevant if they came mostly from sugar and starch, to which the response by the jail administrator, as it frequently was from her, was that she didn't think that law applied to them. In some jails in Arkansas this is interpreted to mean that an inmate will get three bologna sandwiches and two Oreos per day.
Hearing of my complaints after a few months, the cook brought her budget to show me, so that I could see that there wasn't much money to work with. However, I was aware, from communications with jail staff and outsiders that the Sharp County Jail received at least ten percent of its food from donations. I also learned that officers with Sharp County Sheriff's Office regularly used the jail's pantry as a personal food bank. Seeing her budget, I was surprised to find that the jail budgeted an actually relatively fixed amount that varied little with inmate population. This meant, of course, that as the inmate population expanded, the cost per inmate contracted. On the best days, the jail spent as much as sixty-six cents per meal; this did not occur very frequently. The overall average was somewhere below fifty-eight cents. Of course, this gives the sheriff excellent reasons to stuff his jail, as his margins improve and his bonus increases.
The food served by the cook, a civilian contractor or jail employee, was usually below the standards that a soup kitchen must follow and frequently ghastly. Many times, she served things, like pre-packaged cheese, that were over a year past their shelf date. Very often, food was inadequately cooked, being merely thawed as opposed to actually cooked. I also have it from several sources that this cook did not observe mandated hygiene standards, going frequently through a meal's preparation, handling raw meat, dairy products, breadstuffs, etc., without ever washing her hands. Then she would serve the meal with those same bare hands.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOBGWh72vwr9ZKWFHllMQoBEjULAD90N2VR00
Critics charge that Alabama is, in effect, paying law enforcement to skimp on food and may be rewarding sheriffs for mistreating prisoners.
"It's a bad system, and it ought not be that way," said Buddy Sharpless, executive director of the Association of County Commissions of Alabama.
The trick here is that every penny not put into an inmate's stomach goes into the Sheriff's wallet. My experience in Arkansas indicates that Alabama is not the only state to pay bonuses to sheriffs for abusing inmates. This may explain the legendary program of Maricopa County, Arizona, where the sheriff boasts of how much money he saves on jail food. He claims to be saving taxpayer dollars, but the truth is that he is probably pocketing the savings for himself, as do sheriffs in Alabama and Arkansas. Additionally, the federal government gives $45 to jails that hold federal prisoners, showing the disparity in attitude as well as providing the sheriffs with additional funds, which probably still go into their pockets.
Also in question is adherence to federal guidelines regarding nutritional requirements for the institutionalized. I was told by several officials with the jail in Sharp County, Arkansas that the food met caloric requirements, providing at least two thousand calories a day. I mentioned that calories were irrelevant if they came mostly from sugar and starch, to which the response by the jail administrator, as it frequently was from her, was that she didn't think that law applied to them. In some jails in Arkansas this is interpreted to mean that an inmate will get three bologna sandwiches and two Oreos per day.
Hearing of my complaints after a few months, the cook brought her budget to show me, so that I could see that there wasn't much money to work with. However, I was aware, from communications with jail staff and outsiders that the Sharp County Jail received at least ten percent of its food from donations. I also learned that officers with Sharp County Sheriff's Office regularly used the jail's pantry as a personal food bank. Seeing her budget, I was surprised to find that the jail budgeted an actually relatively fixed amount that varied little with inmate population. This meant, of course, that as the inmate population expanded, the cost per inmate contracted. On the best days, the jail spent as much as sixty-six cents per meal; this did not occur very frequently. The overall average was somewhere below fifty-eight cents. Of course, this gives the sheriff excellent reasons to stuff his jail, as his margins improve and his bonus increases.
The food served by the cook, a civilian contractor or jail employee, was usually below the standards that a soup kitchen must follow and frequently ghastly. Many times, she served things, like pre-packaged cheese, that were over a year past their shelf date. Very often, food was inadequately cooked, being merely thawed as opposed to actually cooked. I also have it from several sources that this cook did not observe mandated hygiene standards, going frequently through a meal's preparation, handling raw meat, dairy products, breadstuffs, etc., without ever washing her hands. Then she would serve the meal with those same bare hands.
Introduction to Arkansas Law Enforcement
The events to which I will frequently relate in this blog regarding my experiences as a result of my wrongful arrest and incarceration, about which I am not going to get explicit at this time, have to do with Arkansas' corrupt and malfeasant Law Enforcement community. I will cite a few examples here that may have received better, more objective, press than the matters particular to my own case.
In late Winter/early Spring of 2007, a State Trooper shot an unarmed man in the back. The individual was wearing only shorts and tee shirt and had raised his hands to give himself up. The warrant on which the justification for the attempt at arrest was based on an expired, out-of-state warrant that was accessed, according to court records, three hours after the shooting. The individual shot was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer! Six months later, the court and law enforcement authorities offered to drop the charges if he agreed not to sue.
In Spring 2007, a State Trooper shotgunned and killed a mentally disabled man along a roadside. Initial justification was that the individual shot resembled an escaped prisoner from elsewhere and that the weapon's discharge was an "accident", as in "it just went off"! Firearms do not "just go off". Investigations revealed that the Trooper was neither where he was supposed to be, nor doing what he was supposed to be doing. Justification for that was that the stereo in his squad was jamming to country music so loud that he didn't hear his orders! In the end, the officer was charged and received a sentence of ninety days in county jail.
Where I was held, a senior sherrif's department officer was overheard in a conversation with a fifty-six or so year old prisoner who had taken an eighteen year old girl into his home. The officer asked if the prisoner had been having sex with the girl, to which the prisoner said "no". The officer then said that he personally preferred to get ahold of them four or five years sooner than that, before they had been with everyone else! No effort was made to protect this conversation, and I, personally, was within two feet of the participants.
In a related note, the same sheriff's office confiscated my notes, rather than returning them to my family with my other property as they are required by law to do. The missing notes contained information on continuing violations of law and general malfeasance by members of the Sharp County, Arkansas' Sheriff's Office; though I retain most of that information in my memory, dates and specifics were in the notes and necessary to accurate and confirmable reporting of events
In late Winter/early Spring of 2007, a State Trooper shot an unarmed man in the back. The individual was wearing only shorts and tee shirt and had raised his hands to give himself up. The warrant on which the justification for the attempt at arrest was based on an expired, out-of-state warrant that was accessed, according to court records, three hours after the shooting. The individual shot was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer! Six months later, the court and law enforcement authorities offered to drop the charges if he agreed not to sue.
In Spring 2007, a State Trooper shotgunned and killed a mentally disabled man along a roadside. Initial justification was that the individual shot resembled an escaped prisoner from elsewhere and that the weapon's discharge was an "accident", as in "it just went off"! Firearms do not "just go off". Investigations revealed that the Trooper was neither where he was supposed to be, nor doing what he was supposed to be doing. Justification for that was that the stereo in his squad was jamming to country music so loud that he didn't hear his orders! In the end, the officer was charged and received a sentence of ninety days in county jail.
Where I was held, a senior sherrif's department officer was overheard in a conversation with a fifty-six or so year old prisoner who had taken an eighteen year old girl into his home. The officer asked if the prisoner had been having sex with the girl, to which the prisoner said "no". The officer then said that he personally preferred to get ahold of them four or five years sooner than that, before they had been with everyone else! No effort was made to protect this conversation, and I, personally, was within two feet of the participants.
In a related note, the same sheriff's office confiscated my notes, rather than returning them to my family with my other property as they are required by law to do. The missing notes contained information on continuing violations of law and general malfeasance by members of the Sharp County, Arkansas' Sheriff's Office; though I retain most of that information in my memory, dates and specifics were in the notes and necessary to accurate and confirmable reporting of events
A Brief Introduction
Witness turned into felon by malfeasant, incompetent, evidence fabricating, libelous, corrupt Arkansas politicians masquerading as public servants. There, I said it; obviously, I'll have to write more on a later occasion. All of this came from my intolerance for those who hurt children in any way and a willingness to make sacrifices to see justice done. Needless to say, those who live in the drug culture, particularly meth and crack, are abusers of children, one way or another. If one's habit results in the abandoning of, or even inability to supervise, children, then those children are abused by neglect. We are the adults and have the responsibility, if we want to even call ourselves human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
