Nancy Grace v. 2 Chainz re marijuana legalization.

Of course Nancy Grace loses, badly.

Because you know, the Ferguson grand jurors just innately would know that the prosecutor might be presenting false information

via witnesses the prosecution knew were likely lying. Startling Admission By The Ferguson Prosecutor Could Restart The Case Against Darren Wilson

How Some Meetings Go Between Trial Attorneys And Certain Potential New Clients

Going to see a Trial Lawyer
by: skicourchevel

If Giants Intended to Injure San Fran Player, = Criminal Act(s)?

If a group of people planned ahead of time to try to injure another person and succeeded in doing so and/or think they succeeded in injuring him, were their actions criminal? I would think people planning and then attempting to injure another person is criminal.  What if they're playing football?  In the NFL?  Should that matter?  Not to get too legalese-ee regarding this topic but, look up mens rea.

Reports are that New York football Giants players may have intended to injure San Francisco 49'er returner Kyle Williams.  Giants players appear to admit that they knew he had a history of concussions and tried to knock him out of the game or concuss him.  In other words, with malice aforethought, they tried to and succeeded in injuring him, or at the very least they think they did.  One Giants player even brags that after one early hit on Williams, the San Fran returner looked "dazed." Plus, if coaches encouraged and/or instructed Giants players to try to purposefully injure San Fran's Williams, would that not constitute a conspiracy to injure another person?

In other words, besides being beyond dirty players/coaches for all but admitting they were trying to injure a fellow NFL player, is what the NY Giants players did (try to/actually injure Williams) criminal?  Of course now, maybe realizing how damning their quotes were after the game, those same Giants now deny they were trying to injure Williams.  But, speaking of the Giants' quotes, take a look at them.


Hockey players have been charged with crimes for their on ice, intentional acts that resulted in injury to another player.  Why should NFL players' actions not be examined in the same manner?  Did Giants players intend to injure another player?  If the answer is "yes," why should they not have to answer for their intentional, and potentially criminal actions?

Wow, It Takes a Xmas Miracle for a US Court to Decide That Calling an African American "Boy" is Racist

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that calling an African American worker "boy" was not racist.  They neglected to consider many factors in their ruling, not the least of which, was that a jury had heard all the evidence provided and had decided that yes, calling an African American "boy" is racist, given all the facts presented.  I will write that again, a jury, that sat and listened to all the evidence presented, made a decision that calling an African American worker at a Tyson Food factory "boy" was in fact racist.  That decision by a jury was then summarily overturned by a federal court of appeals that did not hear any of the evidence presented.

Then that same court of appeals reversed itself. Why?

Is it shocking that an appellate court in these United States got it so wrong?

No.

What is great is that they eventually got it right and reversed themselves.  What is unfortunate is that it took the the diligence of many, including a former African American US federal judge, to lobby against this asinine ruling.  And finally, this terrible decision was thankfully reversed.  Too many times to mention appellate courts do not trust or value the decisions that the juries that we, as a people, empower to make these important decisions.

Juries are empowered to hear our complaints against both private and public entities; juries, in civil and criminal cases, are our right.  Juries of our peers.  We should remember that.  Please.

So I Guess I'm Not Going to Arizona Anytime Soon

The AZ governor says that their new illegal immigration law won't lead to racial profiling.

Who are they going to stop and ask for their papers?  Blonde and blue eyed people?  People that look like illegal Canadian immigrants?  I can hear it now, "What's this all aboot?!?"  "I'm not your buddy, guy!"  "I'm not your guy, friend!"  "I'm not your friend, buddy!"  If there's two things I hate it's intolerance and Canadians.

Of course I'm kidding.

But, all kidding aside, because this is serious, AZ's new law may can lead down a serious, perilous, slippery slope of intolerances.  For example...

They're just going to ask Hispanics for their papers.  Maybe the armed police will just go door to door to all the residences that have Hispanic surnames listed as renters/owners.  Then, after they've asked for their papers, to make it easier next time, they'll have all Hispanics wear the picture of a taco or Our Lady of Guadalupe on their clothes to identify them as legal.

And then, AZ can just have all the "legal" Hispanics live in the same neighborhood, like a suburb, or apartment complexes or maybe ghettos.

Or better yet AZ can just have all Hispanics wear a bracelet with a number on it.  Odd number = legal.  Even number = illegal.  Just for the ease of the law enforcement officers.

Or even better yet, since they (the Hispanics) could maybe somehow rid themselves of the bracelets, maybe AZ will just pass a law that Hispanics have to get a tattoo on their wrist with the above referenced odd or even numbered designations indicating who is in fact here in the USA legally and who is not.

And keep in mind some Hispanic families have lived in the region since before it was a state.

And those with the even numbers (the "illegals"), when found, can just be put on buses or even better, trains, and shipped off to who knows where.

Way to go AZ.

I'm not going to lie, when I heard that this law was passed it was a punch to my gut.  But, it's also a gut-check.

The AZ law is, in my humble opinion, violative of not only the 14th Amendment but also the 4th Amendment of our Constitution for a number of reasons (reasons I will not go into right now but, trust me, it's unconstitutional).  Hopefully, it will be struck down as such in short order.

Fundamentally though, it smacks of intolerance and ease.  Not all Hispanics are illegal but, AZ would, simply and in an intolerant gesture, subject all Hispanics to the potential indignity of being asked, "for their papers," regardless of whether a person was born here in the USA or not.  We are, last I checked, a nation made up of immigrants (unless you're a Native American).  Of course, at times, this great nation has treated immigrants with reckless intolerance.  This is just another example.  Ask Italian or German or Japanese or Irish immigrants or their progeny about the indignities they faced in the last century or so.  There are African "immigrants" but, I don't include them in the previous list because their experience, with few exceptions and in large measure, and for obvious reasons, is unique.

But, as usual, I digress.

Again, I'll not be visiting AZ anytime soon if I can help it.

And of course, SNL, in the second "story" below incapsulates how asinine AZ's law is:


And as usual I welcome your comment.

Who Said Change Was Going To Be Easy

Health insurance reform passed.  At least some form of it.  Here's a decent synopsis of what's in the bill.  It's not what ultra-liberals wanted, a single-payer, run by the government, health insurance option available to all people regardless of income level.  It's definitely not what conservatives wanted, which was to maintain the status quo in which 30+ million Americans were without healthcare. 

Remember, conservatives have been against every major piece of progressive, "liberal" legislation in the last one hundred years including, but, not limited to, labor laws (including mandatory maximum work weeks, establishment of a minimum wage and every increase since then for example), social security, disability, medicare, medicaid.  I'm sure there's more but, that's all that I can think of off the top of my head.  Tea partiers must be besides themselves.  And will Limbaugh really leave the country now?

Obama ran on change and this legislation is certainly that.  Health insurance legislation was one the cornerstones of Obama's change platform.  The Dems won the presidency and both chambers of Congress on the coattails of Obama's pledge of change.  And when a party wins both the presidency and the Congress you get change.  And then you get a political backlash against that change.  It almost happens like clockwork, especially in a president's first term.  In fact only 3 presidents since Reconstruction have netted seats in midterm elections (FDR-first midterm gain, Clinton-second midterm gain and W.-first midterm gain; I attritbute W.'s midterm success in 2002 to the goodwill directed towards him and the GOP in the aftermath of 9/11, but, that's just my take).  Let's see what happens next.  Maybe the Dems lose the House or Senate in the midterm elections.  I certainly doubt they lose both.  Dodd's financial reform bill just flew through the Senate committee and is headed to the Senate floor for debate.  More change on the way?  Who could possibly be against financial rules changes in the wake of "too big to fail?"

But, as usual, I digress.  So there will be changes in health insurance but not as much as some wanted and way more than others desired.  That compromises were made should surprise no one.  Don't forget some of the definitions of compromise: 1. To arrive at a settlement by making concessions; 2. To reduce the quality, value, or degree of something.

The Funniest Show On TV? The Funniest Person On TV?

The Funniest Show On TV?  Maybe it's Tosh.0 on Comedy Central, Wed. nights 9:30pm, central time.

The Funniest Person On TV?  In my humble opinion it's Daniel Tosh, host of, you guessed it, Tosh.0.  I choose Tosh over Ricky Gervais and his show on HBO only because Gervais has the benefit of one Kyle Pilkington.  Tosh is, what I like to call, "offensive but, funny, so it's OK to laugh."  Some could attempt to discount Tosh.0 as merely a YouTube/internet video clip show.  That would be like people saying The Soup with Joel McHale (another great show and funny dude-wow there is some stuff worth watching on TV) is just a TV clip show.  Those same people probably think Big Trouble In Little China is just a "B" movie.  But, I digress.  Tosh.0 is so much more than just an "internet video clip show."  Yet, here I am imploring you to check out a clip.  Is that irony?  I don't know.  Alanis Morisette, I blame you for my confusion about what is ironic and what is just a coincidence:

Tosh.0
Oh My Gosh
www.comedycentral.com
Web Redemption 2 Girls, 1 Cup Reaction Demi Moore Picture

And no, I'm not being paid to promote the show.  But gosh, I wish I was.  But, I'd only accept payment in the form of non-sequential, unmarked bills, a mix of 20's and 100's, delivered at random, never-used-twice drop areas.  And Tosh.0's people would go along with it.  Don't worry, I'd report the income on my taxes.  I really do believe in the rule of law.  But, the Tosh.0 people wouldn't necessarily know that.  They'd have to be wondering if they were somehow helping me break the law by paying me in this crazy way.  And that would let me know they really care.

GOP'ers Wish It Was 1776 Again

Some GOP'ers have gathered at Mount Vernon and signed "The Mount Vernon Statement" in which they profess a desire that the USA harken back and emulate the era of our Founding Fathers circa 1776.

In their little manifesto (who the heck issues manifestos these days besides radical weirdos?) reads, "The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist." What "truths" from 1776 are they writing about? Or are they only cherry picking the easy, still embraced "truths" from that era (like all [people] are created equal) and forgetting the other less likeable "truths" from that era?

Let's start with this truth: Mount Vernon, the namesake of their document and where they signed their manifesto, was Founding Father George Washington's plantation. Yeah, that's right, his plantation. Truth: Slavery was legal plus non-land owning men and women couldn't vote for quite a while after 1776. Another "truth" back then was that there should be no national income tax, that "truth" seemed to go away after a while. So these GOP'ers at worst want to go back to a time when slavery was legal and masses were disenfranchised and the federal government was broke. At worst they think that era is something to aspire to. Brilliant.

Yet Another Example of Why to Not Take Decisions Out the Hands of Judges and Juries

Read this story about a women serving 27 years on a first time non-violent drug offense. Tell me that her sentence makes sense. Tell me it makes sense when you know that this women is serving 10 more years than a similarly convicted person because she was busted with crack instead of powder cocaine. That's right, if a person is convicted of a crack cocaine offense the Federal mandatory-minimums dictate more time served than if a person is convicted of a powder cocaine offense. Even if the amount of drugs in each case is the same. Tell me that makes sense. The ACLU has joined in asking President Obama to commute her sentence. If you go to the ACLU's site you can ask President Obama to commute her sentence too.

Needless to say I think laws that take discretion away from judges and power away from juries are terrible. Mandatory-minimum federal drug sentencing laws are just one of many examples of such laws. GOP'ers usually say less government is good and to trust individuals. Generally, GOP'ers claim we should look to the Constitution and the Framers of the Constitution. Yet generally and ironically, GOP's support and pass blanket generalizations into law about law enforcement issues, for example, taking discretion away from judges hearing individual cases and power away juries of our peers in the individual cases they decide. "One rule fits all" does not work. Each case is different. Each defendant is different. Maybe people should pay attention to all parts of the Constitution, like the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, not just the parts of the Constitution that are easy to like.

Tea Party vs. Tea Party

In case you didn't hear, the Tea Party Patriots(TTP) are essentially suing the Tea Party Express(TTE). You see, one of the founders, Amy Kremer, of the more conservative TTP was forced out of the TTP and joined the more moderate TTE. The TTP filed suit against Kremer over an intellectual property dispute. When a person lives by the mantra, "you're either with us or against us," that person, like Kremer, has to be aware of what might happen when they're not "with them."

All this silliness about the Tea Party Patriots versus the Tea Party Express reminded me of this classic scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian:

Coup de Dumb...

I came up with the above after reading about this awful, and I think treasonous, editorial...

Side note: Here's the full column. Newsmax, who originally posted the editorial, has pulled it down.

"Always Two There Are, a Master and an Apprentice"*

*Yoda - Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Both HSB and Andrew had good, but not quite correct, guesses about the Star Wars themed cartoon about Limbaugh and Beck. So they each get half a star and an honorable mention. By the way, keep the ideas coming, I may use them here in the near future.
An article on Politico.com titled Glenn Beck vs. Rush Limbaugh inspired the above cartoons. I couldn't decide which one to go with so I drew and posted both, although I think I like the Darth Maul one best, what do you think?
What made me think of the Star Wars theme cartoon idea regarding Limbaugh and Beck after I read the Politico.com article? Answer: Limbaugh and Beck are two peas in a pod, with Beck copying and learning from the master of fear mongering, Limbaugh. Beck's modus operandi is almost a step by step recreation of Limbaugh's early ventures after Bill Clinton was elected. For example:
1) TV and radio show? Check. (I remember when Rush had a TV show in the early 90's)
2) Write some books? Check.
3) Criticize a new Democratic president's every move? Check.
4) Pander to the least common denominator through lies and fear mongering? Check.
5) Laugh all the way to the bank? Check.
And that's the thing, both Limbaugh and Beck are experts at fear mongering. The Politico.com piece quotes a GOP strategist that says that Dems and Limbaugh should be afraid of Beck. I think not.

Quick thoughts on why Dems are not/should not fear Beck is that he, like Limbaugh, thankfully appeals only to the hardcore GOP base. And Limbaugh shouldn't be afraid because, let's face it, he's Limbaugh and is still in a league all his own when it comes to inspiring fear.

One last thing that the above cartoons made me think of given both Limbaugh and Beck's use of fear as their stock in trade:

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
-Yoda, Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Side Note: I've noticed on the comments sections of many articles folks expressing their worries and fears at the tone of some protesters.

Then, the response from some is that "liberals" don't believe in free speech when people are criticizing a Democratic president. That's not quite correct.

Let me point out the fact that those extreme, wingnut protesters can freely express themselves, albeit in vulgar and hateful ways, demonstrates that the freedom of speech is alive and well in the USA. Protesters can actually compare Obama to Hitler, for example. It's actually protected free speech. I get that. "Liberals" get that it's protected speech. But, folks can also express their thoughts about that type of hateful, extreme speech. You see, it's a two way street.

Some don't seem to understand that if they are going to express an extreme or false or hateful sentiment others also have the right to express their thoughts about those who would express extreme or false or hateful sentiments. It's called the marketplace of ideas. In fact, I really believe the more some people, like wingnuts, express themselves, the more they are revealed to be extremists, alarmists, delusional and hateful for hate's sake and therefore hurt their "cause" or "causes". By the way, some of those extremists seem to follow fear mongering talking heads like Limbaugh and Beck (there's the tie in to the above cartoons).

Here's another example, wingnuts can express their belief that Obama was born in Kenya. And I can express the view that those "birther" wingnuts are sad, delusional morons. The wingnuts have the right to express themselves freely and so do folks, like me, that want to criticize them. Ain't it great?

The Opening of the Cheney Center for International Students is Like the Hypothetical Opening of...(part 2)

Click here for part 3.

- GOP TARGET PRACTICE

- The Below Is Self Admittedly a Complete Rip Off of a Dave Chappelle Stand Up Routine*

I'm sorry but, the story of African-American Harvard Professor Gates being arrested at his home made me think of this bit from Chappelle's routine. Here's the latest on the incident specifically regarding the "911" call and caller.

*The above cartoon is paraphrased from Dave Chappelle's awesome stand up from years ago on HBO called Killin' Them Softly. (also please note, the "intruder" was not drawn to resemble Prof. Gates of Harvard and the cops were not drawn to resemble the arresting Officers Crowley and Figueroa.)

- What Did He Say?

What the 4th of July Means To Me

First, Welch vs. McCarthy (yes, that McCarthy during the "McCarthty Hearings"), one of the darkest times in our nation. Note, that bullies sometimes have to be punched in the nose, albeit rhetorically in this instance. And, this is what you get when you mess with a seasoned, articulate attorney. The "have you no decency sir speech" that essentially killed McCarthy's witch hunt:

And sometimes it takes a larger than life person. On a much more minor note, sometimes the superstar (in this case a wealthy, reclusive, arguably mentally unstable one) has the wherewithal to do that which others won't or can't. Don't get me wrong, it's not nearly as important or impressive as the above but, in my estimation, him speaking this way as a private citizen to a Senator of the United States of America is just damn cool and, more importantly right. Regardless of my thoughts, here's Howard Hughes standing up for himself and his employee. The "no, I don't think I will" speech that, in large measure, helped expose and end another witch hunt:

What does the 4th of July mean to you? I appreciate the revolution and fight for theretofore un-enumerated rights. Part of that fight meant that an ordinary citizen could stand up to our government and say, "you're wrong". "Don't tread on me."

These clips reflect, at least somewhat, what the 4th of July means to me. Watch them please, pass them along please, so that no one ever forgets that sometimes you just have to say, "that's wrong, this is wrong, you're wrong," and thankfully we live in a country where a person can say that to the government.

(unwarranted rabbit punch: a million guesses, which party both the questioning Senators belonged to?)

Conan's Fake Clip of Biden Speaking to Sotomayor

*I couldn't stand mixing the sports and non-political silly stuff here on PTN, it just didn't seem to fit at all. That's not to say there isn't silly stuff here on PTN, it's just always politics related. So, all the sports and non-political silly stuff will now be located at the newly revived FYVPBlog (for your viewing pleasure blog). I'm learning as I go and just trying to figure out what works best and makes the most sense. Again, I'm sorry for the change up.

Would the RNC Rather Have Had GM Go Out of Business? Apparently So.

RNC chairman Steele railed against the GM bankruptcy and the general administration's auto bailout plan. Again Steele, the RNC and the GOP generally come off sounding like the party of "No".

Moreover, conservatives again attacked a policy without offering any type of tenable counter proposal.

If the bailout of the auto industry is a bad idea then the logical alternative would necessarily have been to let GM fail. No one, liberal or conservative, has explained how letting GM fail would have been a good thing. If there is a cogent argument for allowing GM's failure I would genuinely be interested in hearing / reading it.

Instead of GM filing a Chapter 11 (reorganization, stay in business) bankruptcy, GM would have likely been forced to file a Chapter 7 (liquidate, go out business) bankruptcy without the government bailout.