Friday, September 25, 2009
Germany-America 1933
Have you ever wondered what the National Socialist take-over of the Weimar Republic looked like? Take a peek: View here
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Broke and getting broker
Economist Michel Chossudovsky explains why the "bailouts" were really shakedowns--vast, unprecedented transfers of wealth from you to the government and its favored banks.
Watch video here
Watch video here
Monday, September 14, 2009
Jury Duty
Today (9/14), I was on jury duty; for the first time, I was a member of a jury. Not a full twelve-person jury, but a six-person jury assigned to hear a DUI case. Not exactly cutting edge jurisprudence, but interesting nonetheless.
The facts: The defendant was stopped by a sheriff's deputy at 2:20 AM sometime last May because the sheriff had seen (he said "observed") that the defendant was driving with no lights. The sheriff noticed a smell of alcohol (he said "intoxicants") in the car, and he asked the defendant to stop out of the car. The defendant agreed to take some field sobriety tests--the eye test, the walk-the-line test, the standing on one foot test. The deputy claimed to have seen enough "cues" to indicate probable driving under the influence, so he arrested the defendant. Implied consent allows the state to take a blood sample for analysis; the deputy called another deputy to come and do the blood draw. Subsequent testing yielded a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .127%. The legal limit defining automatic DUI is .08%, so the defendant was half again over that limit.
The defendant was charged with two DUIs! How? In Arizona law the fundamental constitutional protection against double jeopardy apparently doesn't apply, so you can be charged with DUI with "the slightest impairment" at the same time as you are charged with DUI at or over the .08% limit. This double charging has significant legal consequences because for a single DUI, you get between 1 and 10 days of jail, lots of fines, suspension of driving, plus possible other restrictions while you are on probation. But for two DUIs, you get between 30 and 90 days of jail time and lots more of the fines and other penalties. Obviously, if you're in jail for at least 30 days, your job is gone and you may be reduced to penury. And of course you've got a criminal record that will pursue you for life. Perhaps that is an appropriate situation for a repeat offender, but how can that possibly be appropriate for a first time offense? Not only that, but the law allows a jury to presume impairment if the defendant's blood is drawn within two hours of arrest and subsequently tests at or over the .08% limit. Thus you can be presumed guilty of DUI with "the slightest impairment." I find this outrageous. The burden on the state is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Arizona has evaded that requirement by allowing juries to presume guilt--even though juries are explicitly instructed to base their decision solely upon the evidence presented in court! Allowing juries to presume without evidence is an affront to constitutional protections against arbitrary government and an egregious example of the tyranny of prosecutors that Paul Craig Roberts and others have voluminously documented.
In addition to this affront to justice, the arresting deputy admitted under cross examination that at no time did the defendant exhibit any impairment--slurred speech, wobbly stance, inability to respond to questioning, etc. The defendant has just left a Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru in which he had turned off his lights as a courtesy to others in line ahead of him. He had pulled out into a well-lit street and had driven less than half a block before he was pulled over. This was the evidence of "impairment" that the prosecutor harped on almost to the point of absurdity.
During deliberations, two members of the jury were initially inclined to convict on both counts. I quickly spoke up and stated my position: the second charge--DUI over .08%--was incontestable and had not even been seriously challenged by the defense. The defendant claimed to have drunk only two beers, one at 8 PM and the other at 10 PM. Oh, please! It is physically impossible for the defendant (a 175 pound male) to have a .127% BAC with just two beers consumed at once much less over a period of hours. C'mon, we're not stupid. However, as to impairment, I insisted that no such evidence of impairment had been presented in court; indeed the evidence was the opposite. As to driving without headlights, the prosecutor had the unfortunate luck to have chosen a jury in which at least half of the members (me included) had driven without headlights in similar circumstances; nobody bought the prosecutor's argument.
In the end, we agreed to acquit on the impairment charge and convict on the legal limit charge. I felt sorry for the defendant. He's a 30-year-old bank manager who wants to become a professional soccer player. All that may be in jeopardy because of one mistake. However, I did my duty as a juror to apply the law impartially and to decide based solely on the evidence presented in court.
I wonder why this case ever came to trial in the first place. Surely, the prosecution and the defense could have negotiated an appropriate plea bargain. Nobody was hurt; there was no accident. Yes, .127% BAC is dangerously high. But in what world could justice be served by wrecking this man's life and career? Maybe the most important lesson I learned is that genuine, proportionate justice is not the goal of the state or its prosecutors. I've read a lot over the years about this perversion of justice in our law. It's quite sobering to see it in person.
The facts: The defendant was stopped by a sheriff's deputy at 2:20 AM sometime last May because the sheriff had seen (he said "observed") that the defendant was driving with no lights. The sheriff noticed a smell of alcohol (he said "intoxicants") in the car, and he asked the defendant to stop out of the car. The defendant agreed to take some field sobriety tests--the eye test, the walk-the-line test, the standing on one foot test. The deputy claimed to have seen enough "cues" to indicate probable driving under the influence, so he arrested the defendant. Implied consent allows the state to take a blood sample for analysis; the deputy called another deputy to come and do the blood draw. Subsequent testing yielded a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .127%. The legal limit defining automatic DUI is .08%, so the defendant was half again over that limit.
The defendant was charged with two DUIs! How? In Arizona law the fundamental constitutional protection against double jeopardy apparently doesn't apply, so you can be charged with DUI with "the slightest impairment" at the same time as you are charged with DUI at or over the .08% limit. This double charging has significant legal consequences because for a single DUI, you get between 1 and 10 days of jail, lots of fines, suspension of driving, plus possible other restrictions while you are on probation. But for two DUIs, you get between 30 and 90 days of jail time and lots more of the fines and other penalties. Obviously, if you're in jail for at least 30 days, your job is gone and you may be reduced to penury. And of course you've got a criminal record that will pursue you for life. Perhaps that is an appropriate situation for a repeat offender, but how can that possibly be appropriate for a first time offense? Not only that, but the law allows a jury to presume impairment if the defendant's blood is drawn within two hours of arrest and subsequently tests at or over the .08% limit. Thus you can be presumed guilty of DUI with "the slightest impairment." I find this outrageous. The burden on the state is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Arizona has evaded that requirement by allowing juries to presume guilt--even though juries are explicitly instructed to base their decision solely upon the evidence presented in court! Allowing juries to presume without evidence is an affront to constitutional protections against arbitrary government and an egregious example of the tyranny of prosecutors that Paul Craig Roberts and others have voluminously documented.
In addition to this affront to justice, the arresting deputy admitted under cross examination that at no time did the defendant exhibit any impairment--slurred speech, wobbly stance, inability to respond to questioning, etc. The defendant has just left a Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru in which he had turned off his lights as a courtesy to others in line ahead of him. He had pulled out into a well-lit street and had driven less than half a block before he was pulled over. This was the evidence of "impairment" that the prosecutor harped on almost to the point of absurdity.
During deliberations, two members of the jury were initially inclined to convict on both counts. I quickly spoke up and stated my position: the second charge--DUI over .08%--was incontestable and had not even been seriously challenged by the defense. The defendant claimed to have drunk only two beers, one at 8 PM and the other at 10 PM. Oh, please! It is physically impossible for the defendant (a 175 pound male) to have a .127% BAC with just two beers consumed at once much less over a period of hours. C'mon, we're not stupid. However, as to impairment, I insisted that no such evidence of impairment had been presented in court; indeed the evidence was the opposite. As to driving without headlights, the prosecutor had the unfortunate luck to have chosen a jury in which at least half of the members (me included) had driven without headlights in similar circumstances; nobody bought the prosecutor's argument.
In the end, we agreed to acquit on the impairment charge and convict on the legal limit charge. I felt sorry for the defendant. He's a 30-year-old bank manager who wants to become a professional soccer player. All that may be in jeopardy because of one mistake. However, I did my duty as a juror to apply the law impartially and to decide based solely on the evidence presented in court.
I wonder why this case ever came to trial in the first place. Surely, the prosecution and the defense could have negotiated an appropriate plea bargain. Nobody was hurt; there was no accident. Yes, .127% BAC is dangerously high. But in what world could justice be served by wrecking this man's life and career? Maybe the most important lesson I learned is that genuine, proportionate justice is not the goal of the state or its prosecutors. I've read a lot over the years about this perversion of justice in our law. It's quite sobering to see it in person.
Signs of the times
I'm having an amazing argument with somebody on YouTube. A few days ago I happened across a posting of the movie "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" (henceforth TCM2). Have you seen the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre?" I once saw it in a theater a long time ago; my retinas haven't been the same since. It is a disgusting piece of pseudo-sadism in which the audience is entertained by scene after scene of mutilation, torture, and murder. I posted a note on TCM2 complaining that despite all the really fine movies made, a piece of garbage like TCM2 gets posted for viewing.
Somebody really got angry with me, and has been posting increasingly angry notes. Basically, I should shut-up and let people enjoy whatever they want to enjoy. I pointed out that normal people do not enjoy watching other people getting disemboweled or having their limbs cutoff or being hoisted by a meat hook in the back--even if merely its movie fakery. Sadists like this sort of thing, I said. Do you really want to defend sadism as a form of entertainment, I asked.
My antagonist replied: Yes! I was floored. I think that this person is being truthfully. He or she really thinks that movies depicting the most brutal murders and mutilations--provided that these movies are called "horror"--are OK and an acceptable form of entertainment. Abnormal psychology now becomes normality as long as its on film.
Which of course misses the point! The point is not merely that the movies are sadistic; it is that the audience is assumed to be a pack of sadists who get their jollies watching other people--even if they're only actors--get ripped apart with saws, axes, drills, and sledge hammers. And judging from the continued market for these loathsome movies, that assumption seems to be true.
If that fact isn't more frightening than any "horror" movie, what is?
Somebody really got angry with me, and has been posting increasingly angry notes. Basically, I should shut-up and let people enjoy whatever they want to enjoy. I pointed out that normal people do not enjoy watching other people getting disemboweled or having their limbs cutoff or being hoisted by a meat hook in the back--even if merely its movie fakery. Sadists like this sort of thing, I said. Do you really want to defend sadism as a form of entertainment, I asked.
My antagonist replied: Yes! I was floored. I think that this person is being truthfully. He or she really thinks that movies depicting the most brutal murders and mutilations--provided that these movies are called "horror"--are OK and an acceptable form of entertainment. Abnormal psychology now becomes normality as long as its on film.
Which of course misses the point! The point is not merely that the movies are sadistic; it is that the audience is assumed to be a pack of sadists who get their jollies watching other people--even if they're only actors--get ripped apart with saws, axes, drills, and sledge hammers. And judging from the continued market for these loathsome movies, that assumption seems to be true.
If that fact isn't more frightening than any "horror" movie, what is?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Time machine--in reverse
In July, I wrote a post quoting unemployment data to the effect that all the jobs created in the 21st century had been lost in the Great Depression of the 21st century. That's bad enough, but in the article below we learn that median family income--the point at which half of America's families earn less and half earns more--is now at its lowest value since 1997! An entire decade of income gains has been lost for most American families. Basically 80% of American families have had their inflation adjusted incomes fall; only the top 20% have had income increases (any surprise there?). We are trapped in H. G. Wells's time machine, and it's stuck in reverse. Of course the debt burden accumulated since 1997 has not lightened, so people are trying to cope with enormous debt while living on shrinking incomes--if they have any income at all!
And people in Washington are still talking up the "recovery?" What are they smoking? Here is something about which we all should be shouting "You lie!" from the rooftops. Congressman Wilson, where are you and your big mouth now?
Read it here
And people in Washington are still talking up the "recovery?" What are they smoking? Here is something about which we all should be shouting "You lie!" from the rooftops. Congressman Wilson, where are you and your big mouth now?
Read it here
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Vice will save Kansas
Have you ever been to the airport in Las Vegas? It is the weirdest place. It is a casino with airplanes. Everywhere throughout the airport are banks and banks of gambling machines beeping and flashing and twirling. Got an hour layover between flights? Gamble, gamble, gamble.
The prevalence of gambling in this country is just astounding. It's everywhere. Drop by the customer service desk at Safeway. It's a mini-casino. Get your lottery tickets. Get your latest scratch ticket games. Gamble, gamble, gamble.
Now out in the heartland, Kansas has gone the final mile. Not content to tolerate vice and skim the profits in the guise of tax collections, the state has decided to go the way of Bugsy Malone and get into the gambling business directly. What was once the the domain of organized crime and your local bookie is now the domain of the government of the sovereign state of Kansas. Incredible!
Even more incredible is that nobody in Kansas can make a persuasive argument that the vice business should not be the public's business. If that isn't decadence, what is?
Read it here
The prevalence of gambling in this country is just astounding. It's everywhere. Drop by the customer service desk at Safeway. It's a mini-casino. Get your lottery tickets. Get your latest scratch ticket games. Gamble, gamble, gamble.
Now out in the heartland, Kansas has gone the final mile. Not content to tolerate vice and skim the profits in the guise of tax collections, the state has decided to go the way of Bugsy Malone and get into the gambling business directly. What was once the the domain of organized crime and your local bookie is now the domain of the government of the sovereign state of Kansas. Incredible!
Even more incredible is that nobody in Kansas can make a persuasive argument that the vice business should not be the public's business. If that isn't decadence, what is?
Read it here
Sunday, September 6, 2009
1932
According to John Williams at ShadowStats.com, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate in the US is now 21.1%, a number that puts us squarely in the year 1932, one of the bleakest, most desperate years of the Great Depression. And we're only three-quarters through the current year! The bad news has already invalidated all the happy-talk predictions the Obama administration made way back in January and February. Now that Plan A is defunct, do they have a Plan B?
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Shrinking empires
Not all news about the current depression is bad. Focus on the Family, the personal empire of the loathsome James Dobson (the Martin Bormann of the religious right), is in big trouble. For the third time in a year, it's laying off employees. Apparently, the chumps who listen to Dobson's daily rants can't send in enough cash to keep Dobson's empire intact. From a peak of some 1400 employees, Focus is now down to 860. That's pretty serious shrinkage--almost 40%! Focus still rakes in plenty of loot: more than $130 million this fiscal year. But empires are expensive, and there's no reason to suppose that the belt tightening at Focus is stopping any time soon.
There is an interesting twist to this story. Apparently like every other kind of business operation, Focus spins off its subsidiaries to raise cash or cut costs. Focus has been running a giant scam for many years: a so-called ex-gay operation called "Love won out." Well, Focus has spun this scam off to ex-gay scammers at Exodus International, their former partners in crime--literal crime, consisting of swindling money out of pathetic, self-hating gay people trapped in anti-gay fundamentalist religious cults. So I guess that this closes a sordid chapter in Focus's sordid history; right-wingers just can't make the big bucks peddling anti-gay hate the way they used to.
Read the good news here
There is an interesting twist to this story. Apparently like every other kind of business operation, Focus spins off its subsidiaries to raise cash or cut costs. Focus has been running a giant scam for many years: a so-called ex-gay operation called "Love won out." Well, Focus has spun this scam off to ex-gay scammers at Exodus International, their former partners in crime--literal crime, consisting of swindling money out of pathetic, self-hating gay people trapped in anti-gay fundamentalist religious cults. So I guess that this closes a sordid chapter in Focus's sordid history; right-wingers just can't make the big bucks peddling anti-gay hate the way they used to.
Read the good news here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)