So, despite lying like a Persian rug, Casey Anthony has been acquitted of murdering her two-year old daughter Caylee. In what has been compared to the now infamous OJ murder case, Anthony enjoyed a similar verdict to that of Mr. Orenthal James. Though the jury found her guilty of lying to police, she may get a light sentence due to time already served.
I freely admit that I haven’t been following the story very religiously. You know how I tend to get with stories about missing white girls/women. So I open the floor to you. What do you think of the case? Was justice or injustice served? What do you think of the media attention? What are your thoughts on any or all of this?
As a solemn warning to my female readers and probably even some of my male readers, this post won’t be pretty or politically correct. But dammit, it needs to be said.
I was having an interesting discussion with a good friend of mine…a devout feminist. I tend to exercise caution around this particular young lady because even the most innocuous observations I make about womenfolk are usually met with an all-out assault from her, as if my name was Larry Flynt, A Pimp Named Slickback, or or some s***. It’s a miracle we’ve been friends this long.
The topic of conversation was rape, particularly how rape is and – in my opinion – should be defined. According to Michigan State Law, if a woman consents to sex, the engagement is not considered rape. If she does not consent, it’s considered rape. If a woman consents while drunk, but has no regrets later; for all intents and purposes, the engagement is merely considered drunken sex. However, if that same woman consents while drunk but does have regret later, it’s considered rape.
Maybe I’m just inconsiderate, but that has to be one of the most insane, ass backwards concepts to fathom.
In our conversation, I first conceded to the notion that men should ALWAYS exercise the best judgment possible by simply avoiding inebriated women altogether, even if they give the impression that they’re sober. With so much at stake (serious prison time and/or life-long registration as a sex offender), the smart man would avoid any and all moments of quick and cheap sex with intoxicated women. When it comes to sex and accusations of rape, we men need to face facts: we’ve been dealt a horrible hand. As such, we need to act accordingly.
But (and here’s where things got seriously contentuous), I noticed in her and many feminists like her a sort of glaring contradiction that gets easily dismissed. If the law allows a woman – willingly intoxicated – to be absolved of any sexual actions she made in that condition, shouldn’t it be fair to conclude the same for men? Would feminists be willing to concede that if a man has sex when he’s “too drunk” to make sober decisions, that he is no more responsible for the consequences of that sex (consequences like accidental pregnancy, passing on STDs, or even the woman’s post-sex regrets) as a woman? How can anybody seriously contend that a man, drunk by his own choice, has to bear full responsibility for actions committed in a drunken state while positing that a woman in the exact same situation is free of any responsibility?
Better yet – and in the interest of not waging a war between the sexes – let’s examine this same standards solely with regards to women. Again, the law absolves women of sexual actions conducted while under the influence. Meanwhile, conducting other activities under the influence – like driving – is illegal on all fronts. Driving under the influence = illegal, whether you’re a man or a woman. Having sex under the influence = illegal for men, legal for women.
I need somebody to explain that to me, ‘cuz quite frankly, I’m not seeing it. From my end, the standards applied to men, drunkeness, and sex should also apply to women. But then again, maybe I’m just a caveman.
Amazing news. I just read that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords may be released from the hospital since being shot in the head a little over two weeks ago. My continued prayers to her, her family, and the many people impacted by this horrible tragedy.
During the aftermath, countless pundits, talking heads, and commentators have chimed in regarding the shooting. So there certainly hasn’t been a shortage of viewpoints shared. But I think one of the most convincing op-eds I’ve read to date comes by way of New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. Instead of focusing on the blame game or even the impact of inflammatory rhetoric in political circles, Herbert challenges us to examine the shootings in Arizona in a much broader context.
Says Mr. Herbert:
If we want to reverse the flood tide of killing in this country, we’ll have to do a hell of a lot more than bad-mouth a few sorry politicians and lame-brained talking heads. We need to face up to the fact that this is an insanely violent society. The vitriol that has become an integral part of our political rhetoric, most egregiously from the right, is just one of the myriad contributing factors in a society saturated in blood.
He goes on to provide harrowing statistics to validate his claim:
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed. That figure includes suicides and accidental deaths. But homicides, deliberate killings, are a perennial scourge, and not just with guns.
Excluding the people killed in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, more than 150,000 Americans have been murdered since the beginning of the 21st century [bolded for emphasis]. This endlessly proliferating parade of death, which does not spare women or children, ought to make our knees go weak. But we never even notice most of the killings. Homicide is white noise in this society.
Finally, he offers his solutions:
If we were serious, if we really wanted to cut down on the killings, we’d have to do two things. We’d have to radically restrict the availability of guns while at the same time beginning the very hard work of trying to change a culture that glorifies and embraces violence as entertainment, and views violence as an appropriate and effective response to the things that bother us.
I give the man kudos. Lost in the endless debate examining the relationship between political rhetoric and violence are PRACTICAL solutions. In that spirit, I like how Mr. Herbert offers solutions which – at least on the surface – appear less partisan in nature and more pragmatic.
However, I think he – like many others – fall short of having discussions encompassing the full range of factors which contribute to the proliferation of violence. While stricter gun control laws and challenging a culture which fetishizing violence may lead to a decline in violence, leaving these as the only options is incomplete and irresponsible. Missing from the conversation – and what HAS been missing for a long while, IMO – are questions surrounding other relevant factors including mental health and poverty. Researchers have been investigating the roles mental illness and economic distress have played in violence for DECADES. But I haven’t noticed much public discourse commensurately reflective of that research. I could be wrong, but I just don’t see it.
The op-ed ends with a sad, but in my opinion, very real assessment of where we typically ‘go from here’:
For whatever reasons, neither the public nor the politicians seem to really care how many Americans are murdered — unless it’s in a terror attack by foreigners. The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it. The horror prompted by the attack in Tucson on Saturday will pass. The outrage will fade. The murders will continue.
As much as I don’t want to accept this postulation as fact, it is. We witnessed another string of senseless deaths. The media was in a frenzy to report the news (not without adding their spin, of course). We were “outraged.” And now we’re moving on to the next story and perhaps indirectly, are waiting for the next tragedy.
What are your thoughts? Does the key to curbing violence lie in gun control? Glamorizing violence? Addressing mental health? Economic conditions? What do you think?
If you thought the process of taking off your shoes and removing your laptop were the biggest issues you had to face passing through U.S. aiport security checkpoints, think again.
New to the list of security measures taken by federal authorities is the use of full-body scanning devices; said to be capable of detecting objects concealed beneath our clothes. As of now, forty of these units are in use at 19 major airports around the country; with more (approximately 450 more over the next year) on the way. The technology has actually been in place for a few years now, but many airports have been reluctant to install the machines; partially due to privacy concerns raised by elected officials and civil liberties groups. Opposing arguments generally suggest that these full body scans are intrusive, invade personal rights, and have not been proven as an effective tool in thwarting terrorism.
Others – not the least of which includes the humble host of this blog – consider the measure an additional step in ensuring the safety of airline passengers. I’ll be doing some traveling over the holidays. Truth be told, I’d rather have my privacy – and the privacy of those around me – violated for a moment if our safety and well-being were even slightly less compromised by the potential threat of terrorists. While I certainly appreciate the spirit of the Constitution and our civil liberties, I maintain that the founding fathers could have never predicted this new age of terror; an age where it is virtually impossible to make the distinction between friend and foe. In one of my previous posts regarding racists and their ability to easily blend in with the crowd, I noted that “…since the practice of racism is no longer solely within the province of the Klan, I’m often left wondering who I should be on the lookout for. These days, hooded sheets are being replaced with jeans, dresses, and pinstriped suits.” That sentiment holds especially true for terrorists. On that principle, I actually agree pretty strongly with conservatives – believe it or not. In our age of political correctness (and an age where minimal travel inconveniences and maximum civil liberties are expected), we tend to dismiss counter-terrorism measures like full-body scans as being intrusive, time-consuming, and inconvenient without also factoring in the potential safety implications. Well, not me! I’ve missed my fair share of flights because of delays in security. But all told, I’d rather go through the process of missing a flight than to experience the process of…oh, I don’t know…blowing up. Just me.
If civil liberties win out and we stop subjecting people to full-body scans, where would we be? If another Christmas-Day terrorist exposed our security, would we be a little easier on TSA, since it was our opposition to new (yet, “invasive”) technologies that was complicit in a terrorist attact? If this new technology does adequately trace dangerous objects, would we still turn it down?
Besides all that, under the current system everybody who passes through the scanners is subjected to the same treatment. That way (in the interest of maintaining the type of political correctness which has become a recurrent theme in American social and political discourse), we can avoid addressing the elephant in the room: profiling against Muslims who ‘look’ the part.
Candor dictating, I’d prefer to see both measures taken. I’m 100% on board with full-body scans. Meanwhile, though supportive to a degree, I’m not as indisputibly in favor of specifically profiling Muslims (if I had to quantify it, I’d say I’m about 65% in favor of it). In the end, I see it as a necessary evil. But I’m not completely bad, I assure you. If you’ve followed my blog over the years, you’d see that I firmly believe that improper profiling – i.e. focusing ALL your efforts on one group – is a flawed and potentially dangerous model which allows people “above suspicison” free reign to engage in destructive behavior unchecked. The following scene from the comedy “Don’t Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood” perfectly (and humorously) illustrates my point:
However [and at the risk of repeating talking points]…
…we know there are folks of Arabic descent and/or Muslims in this world who subscribe to radical and violent tenants.
…we know airplanes are among the vulnerable targets attacked by these types of terrorists.
What we don’t know is whether the Arabs and/Muslims with whom we interact at airports are terrorists or average, peace-minded people. For me, the most immediate response is to dismiss any uncertainties I may harbor, especially since not a single Arab and/or Muslim I know is even close to being a terrorist. In fact, they are completely the opposite and represent some of the kindest people I know. Unfortunately though, none of us are clairvoyants who can see a person’s heart, know their motives, and read their thoughts. Unfortuately, there are no clearly distinctive looks or qualities to a person that help in positively identifying the evil amongst us. In the absence of that ability to positively weed out the worst of the group, profiling is a sensible (though bigoted) option.
In the movie Crash, there is a scene where a young black thug (played by rapper Ludacris) attempts to car jack a man’s SUV (played by Terrence Howard). After the young thug’s attempt fails, Howard’s character chastises the young black man saying “You embarass me. You embarass yourself.” This quote, to me, represents the reality of the world. Whether we like it or not, whether it’s our intention or not; a larger group of people are forced to carry crosses because of the sins of individuals. Blacks, Latinos, men, women, gays, Christians, gun enthusiasts, liberals, conservatives, etc., ad nauseum. Until or unless we can come up with a system that accurately distinguishes a subset of people from that entire population, all we’re left with is human subjectivity…which can be extremely unreliable.
Of course, profiling one specific group can be easily adverted if we all go through the same processes. Like it or not, this full-body scanning could be the solution we’ve all been looking for.
So, what’s up people? Do you agree or disagree with using full-body scanning? Have any of you been subjected to this kind of search yet? If so, what were your impressions?
This will undoubtedly make opponents cringe and proponents celebrate, but here’s more anecdotal evidence suggesting the benefits of gun ownership. Check it:
Memorial Drive Southwest resident Ethel Jones hopes she delivered a message early Monday morning with her .38 pistol.
The 69-year-old shot a man she said broke into her home at 2:53 a.m.
Decatur police said Michael O’Neal Bynum, 18, of 424 11th Ave. S.W., Decatur, was in stable condition in Huntsville Hospital on Monday evening with a gunshot wound to his abdomen.
Jones said she sleeps with the gun under a pillow next to her. She keeps the weapon with her whenever she’s at home alone.
“I hope this will make people have second thoughts before they break into a home in our neighborhood and stop some of the crime we’ve had around here,” Jones said.
She said she was going to the bathroom when she heard someone trying to get into her home.
“I heard somebody at the back door and then around at the front door,” Jones said. “He started shaking it, and I said to myself, ‘Somebody is fixin’ to break in.’ ”
Jones said she believes the intruder thought no one was home because she doesn’t have a car.
Police said Bynum apparently removed a window air conditioner from a back window to get inside.
Jones said she came out of the bathroom and met the suspect holding a pen light a few feet away in her bedroom.
“I shot three times,” Jones said, “and he ran away hollering.”
Jones said she then called 911.
“I was a nervous wreck,” Jones said. “The dispatcher kept telling me to put the gun down, but I was scared, and I didn’t know if he might be laying outside.”
Police said Bynum returned to his residence less than 200 yards from Jones’ home. He went by private vehicle to Decatur General Hospital and was transferred to Huntsville Hospital.
Jones, who retired after 27 years as an auditor with Copeland Corp., said she doesn’t know Bynum. She said she’s had a gun for years and once went target shooting with her then-husband. She said he put a dime up as a target to shoot at with his rifle.
“He missed, but I hit it,” Jones said.
Jones, a mother of four, said Monday morning was the first time she’d fired the pistol during what she described as a “very scary” incident.
“I’m glad I had it,” she said. “I don’t know what he would have done when he didn’t find what he was looking for. He might have killed me. You can’t ever tell what people might do these days.”
Bynum will go to Morgan County Jail upon his release from the hospital. The Decatur Police Department is charging him with second-degree burglary.
Bynum was on probation for a prior burglary conviction, and probation for that crime was revoked. He will be held without bail.
Stories like this hit me on a personal level. Not too long ago, my 63-year-old dad faced a very similar situation. He woke up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, only to hear noises coming from the kitchen. As he investigated the sounds, he found two knuckleheads trying to break in through a back window. He immediately went for his firearm. Once he did, the intruders fled. Had it not been for him owning a gun, there’s no telling what would’ve happened.
I know the issue of gun control will forever be on the table; especially with the proliferation of gun-related violence we’ve seen and will surely continue to see. But clearly the issue at hand should NEVER be about whether citizens can pack heat to protect themselves. The answer to me, especially in the case of one Ethel Jones, is a resounding YES.
Once again party people, I’m sorry for the hiatus. Sadly, I haven’t had a lot of time on my hands to devote to blogging. But as necessary, I can always spend a few minutes to offer commentary on sheer absurdity.
Courtesy of the Smoking Gun – the ultimate site for digging up public records - it appears that the Atlanta Department of Justice is in search of “ebonics experts.” To wit:
The Department of Justice is seeking to hire linguists fluent in Ebonics to help monitor, translate, and transcribe the secretly recorded conversations of subjects of narcotics investigations, according to federal records.
A maximum of nine Ebonics experts will work with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Atlanta field division, where the linguists, after obtaining a “DEA Sensitive” security clearance, will help investigators decipher the results of “telephonic monitoring of court ordered nonconsensual intercepts, consensual listening devices, and other media”
The DEA’s need for full-time linguists specializing in Ebonics is detailed in bid documents related to the agency’s mid-May issuance of a request for proposal (RFP) covering the provision of as many as 2100 linguists for the drug agency’s various field offices. Answers to the proposal were due from contractors on July 29.
[...]
Ebonics has widely been described as a nonstandard variant of English spoken largely by African Americans. John R. Rickford, a Stanford University professor of linguistics, has described it as “Black English” and noted that “Ebonics pronunciation includes features like the omission of the final consonant in words like ‘past’ (pas’ ) and ‘hand’ (han’), the pronunciation of the th in ‘bath’ as t (bat) or f (baf), and the pronunciation of the vowel in words like ‘my’ and ‘ride’ as a long ah (mah, rahd).”
Detractors reject the notion that Ebonics is a dialect, instead considering it a bastardization of the English language.
The Department of Justice RFP does not, of course, address questions of vernacular, dialect, or linguistic merit. It simply sought proposals covering the award of separate linguist contracts for seven DEA regions. The agency spends about $70 million annually on linguistic service programs, according to contract records.
But don’t feel bad, negros. It’s not just ebonics linguists they’re seeking:
In addition to the nine Ebonics experts, the DEA’s Atlanta office also requires linguists for eight other languages, including Spanish (144 linguists needed); Vietnamese (12); Korean (9); Farsi (9); and Jamaican patois (4). The Atlanta field division, one of the DEA’s busiest, is the only office seeking linguists well-versed in Ebonics. Overall, the “majority of DEA’s language requirements will be for Spanish originating in Central and South America and the Caribbean,” according to one contract document.
Even though the DOJ is apparently making this a multi-ethnic initiative, I must admit the ebonics bit has me particularly entertained. Perhaps the DOJ can train linguists to the beat of the classic spoof Airplane!
The following is why I hate Fox News with all my heart and soul.
I’m sure by now, you’ve heard about the case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. In a nutshell, the Department of Justice was accused of botching a lawsuit against the NBPP after two members of the party were videotaped trying to discourage white people from voting. The DOJ focused their lawsuit on one man in particular – Samir Shabazz – who was seen brandishing a weapon (a nightstick) at the polling site. Conseratives have been in an uproar because the DOJ cited insufficient evidence as a part of their justification in dropping the charges on the entire party, while focusing solely on Shabazz. If you’re interested, feel free to read the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ report on the NBPP Investigation by clicking here.
As far as I can tell from what I’ve been reading on this story, it doesn’t seem like anybody is in dispute about the actual voter intimidation. It’s all there, in living color:
The NBPP makes my head hurt as much as the next person, but can an entire national movement be brought to bear for the actions of a small subset of members? The DOJ said no, especially when the party itself has reportedly denounced the intimidation (if you visit this link, notice how abstruse the headline is. See how it sounds like Malik Shabazz is defending the actual intimidators? That’s vintage Fox News spin).
Anyway, back to why I hate that station. In the following clip, you see Megyn Kelly going beserk trying vehemently to push the NBPP voter scandal. What could have been a pretty civil debate about the idea of selective law enforcement turned into the rants and tantrums of a petulant child. Check it:
Folks on the right have been salivating over this. I suppose it’s the euphoria from seeing “their side” win a fight. But if by “winning”, you’re limiting yourself to being a rude, bullying, ass, is that really winning? Does being the loudest mean being the ‘rightest’? I mean, action was taken by the DOJ, just not enough to satisfy Christian, Fox News, and apparently Megyn Kelly. That was made especially evident in this puerile schoolyard fight miserably sold to us as “journalism.”
To be sure, political theatre is everywhere. Liberal stations don’t fare any better against their conservative guests. But this kind of bullying has become a staple on FNC. Viewers – as easily conditioned as Paslov’s dogs – gobble this up, allowing Fox to reign supreme in the ratings. If this is the direction of our political discourse, it won’t be long before we see people duking it out in a steel cage death match. Intellectualism and civility, be damned.
The Discussion Board