I have gotten a schooling lately in accepting collect calls from inmates. I pay some 3 cents a minute for long distance. When I take an (automated) collect call from the Cumberland County jail (in Fayetteville), it cost me about $1 a minute. Wow, what a deal.
To get that call, you have to created a prepaid account with GlobalTel. If you use a credit card to create that account, you pay a 19% surcharge.
We put $50 in the account on Friday and it was gone after 4 calls from Fayetteville.
So, at minimum, we have the state of NC supporting usury.
Keep in mind that someone in a jail is still presumed innocent. They need to be able to mount a defense against the charges against them. Their calls are recorded. The state does this to their families. An American tradition to screw the poor? I hope not.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How organizations police themselves
Color me a skeptic on this subject. To have the police decide if a citizen complaint is valid is kind of useless. All parties to the investigation are paid from the same pool. Same for the prison system. It's an exercise in futility, in my view.
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
Case in point: Prison guards I believe are a prime source of cell phones, drugs, contraband, etc for inmates since they can be paid for their services and it is relatively difficult to detect their work. They aren't searched on entry to the facility and, as I recall an incident here in Durham last year, the prison guards were excused from having their cars "sniffed" on a Sunday visiting day.
Recently, a guard was "let go" because he was suspected of letting some guys on a road crew consort with their girlfriends. My, my. A roving prison vice squad rolled up to a park where the guys were eating lunch and here is what they found (I'm protecting my source): Bojangles boxes were strewn around (the "packouts" were still in the prison van-these are the bologna sandwiches provided by the prison to those working off site). There was cash lying on the ground that was apparently discarded when they saw the officers pull up (prisoners can't have money at any time for any reason). Two men were missing. The crew sent the prison van back to Guess Rd. One missing guy had a cell phone and arranged to be picked up on the way back by the guard. The other was picked up at the park later with a story that he had gotten permission to take a walk around a nearby field. The crew who found these problems declined to report the other missing person who was picked up by the van, so it appeared that only one was missing.
There's more to the story, but let's hold it to that. An "investigation" proceeds. It is conducted by Guess Rd prison staff. One guy who was an innocent bystander on the crew was offered an opportunity to go to a son's graduation service depending on how he answered the questions about what he knew. Realize also that, no matter what you say, it can be denied by the other party and if corroboration can't made, you can get in another form of trouble. The other members of the crew who were to be interviewed were kept in an adjacent room where they could overhear what the two talked about.
Dilemmas exist here: Squeal in this environment and you will suffer the consequences. Keep your mouth shut and you will be denied an expected privilege based on your continued good behavior. They don't really have to give a reason for denying something when they can make up a reason to deny you or simply not give a reason.
The bottom line: If you are present for wrongdoing by others, you will suffer one way or another no matter what you decide to do. The guard backed up the one inmate's story about being allowed to walk around the nearby field, preventing more serious punishment to the prisoner. The guard was fired but not prosecuted due to a "lack of evidence". You probably never read about this in the paper which is the way they prefer it.
Keep in mind that the potential punishment for these missing guys is severe. They would have been charged with "escape" and sentences extended. If they are caught with a cell phone, the punishment is also severe even though they may be doing nothing more than talking to girlfriends or family.
New laws have just been put in place to charge civilians who provide cigarettes or cell phones/components to inmates with a misdemeanor. Wonder why they don't do a better job of policing their own?
Let me suggest that it makes them look bad for the public to know just how much of the "misbehavior" of inmates is supported by the lure of greenbacks to folks who work within the system and who are then allowed to police themselves. Great system, isn't it?
On Military Mental Breakdowns
The news media has been selective in its reporting of the incident at Ft Hood when an Army psychiatrist went on a killing spree. They've been reasonably fair at identifying him as an overly stressed soldier who flipped. They've also stressed the aspect of the military not separating him from service because of fear they'd look to be attacking a Muslim.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Well, maybe so, but here's an aspect of the story they've ignored: The military has been bending and rules in order to keep itself staffed up in this environment. They've offered thousands as incentives for guys to reenlist. There are signing bonuses for new enlist
Early in this Ft Hood story, the mother told of her son's efforts to get out of the Army. He admitted to being stressed and concerned about how Muslims attacking other Muslims would be a religous affront. His superiors had had serious concerns about hsi behavior. But, for the Army to allow dissatisfied soldiers to get out and avoid deployment, for example, to Afghanistan, would be a serious affront to their efforts to keep guys in the military. After all, if they let guys go simply because they didn't want to serve anymore, they may be left with too little cannon fodder.
The one exception to their policies seems to be the release of gays. The claim to be gay is a sure-fire exit strategy.
So, here we have two agreeing influences coming together: A man wants out and superiors would prefer him out, but I think an unannounced influence in this whole manner is the Army's policy of keeping itself staffed at all costs.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Why not fix the problem?
Governor Purdue’s claim that we “will not release violent offenders” to prey on the public is ludicrous on its face. She is referring to the infamous 20 “lifers” who were to be released this month as a result of a NC Supreme Court ruling crediting them with good time and therefore qualifying them for release. Her claim is ludicrous because in the US some 650,000 inmates are released each year.
I’m not sure what she means when she refers to “violent” offenders. Many men who went to prison in the US weren’t violent when they went in, but became violent when they were released and vice versa.
When I give blood at the Red Cross, one of the qualifying questions they ask is whether I’ve ever been locked up more than 72 hours in a jail or juvenile facility. That speaks volumes to the kind of system we have for inmates in this country. There are some inmates who are put in solitary confinement for years on end. What do we expect when they get out? Some walk right out onto the streets from solitary confinement when their sentence is completed. On the NC Dept of Correction website, you can only find out the number of infractions for an inmate and a brief description of each. You can’t determine what punishments were given. The public has no idea of how pervasive this practice is.
Are our actions making them more violent or less violent? I met one inmate who was kept in solitary for three years on the basis that they believed he was associated with a criminal network. I looked at his “infraction” record and for his entire imprisonment, he was charged only with communicating to another prisoner by letter. He’d written his wife and asked her to send a note to a fellow inmate who was in AA with him to find out how he was doing after his transfer to another facility. By golly, we’ll put a stop to this sort of thing won’t we?
It is estimated that 40-60% of prisoners are mentally ill. That’s an ugly number. Something is wrong here.
The posturing and political gamesmanship relating to these 20 men scheduled for release is on a par with the story of “balloon boy”. In the scheme of things, this is nothing. Do you realize that a crime that might get you 10 years in Durham County could get you life if the crime were committed in a rural county in NC? A life sentence is really arbitrary within our justice system. If the DA offers a deal to avoid a trial or because he can’t quite get enough evidence to warrant a sure conviction, the punishment is going to be less severe than for the same crime taken to trial. So, to put “lifers” up for target practice by the public and the news media is disingenuous at best and gives us all a false sense that our politicians are taking care of business.
One of the 20 “lifers” set to be released had a MAP that, if completed successfully, would have released him next year. MAP is an acronym for a plan of release in NC for a prisoner who is given a life sentence. If he follows his MAP (normally lasting about 3 years), even a lifer can be released when he completes the requirements. Normally he has to have no infractions during the time of his MAP, earn a high level of trust in the system and get a work release job. There may be other requirements tailored to the prisoner. I know of several guys sentenced to life who have MAPs. It is a good thing.
The impression you get from the governor and the news media is that the sky is falling. It isn’t, but attention needs to be given to keep those incarcerated from coming back into the system once they are released. Giving them $40 and a handshake isn’t going to cut it, especially in an economy like we are seeing now. We’re willing to spend $30K a year to imprison folks in NC, but virtually nothing to help keep them from coming back into the system. That’s where the story should be.
Calling for more money to be spent to reduce recidivism would be unpopular politically. The fact that it is unpopular is our fault. We don’t know how to attack and fix a problem anymore, assuming we ever did.
I’m not sure what she means when she refers to “violent” offenders. Many men who went to prison in the US weren’t violent when they went in, but became violent when they were released and vice versa.
When I give blood at the Red Cross, one of the qualifying questions they ask is whether I’ve ever been locked up more than 72 hours in a jail or juvenile facility. That speaks volumes to the kind of system we have for inmates in this country. There are some inmates who are put in solitary confinement for years on end. What do we expect when they get out? Some walk right out onto the streets from solitary confinement when their sentence is completed. On the NC Dept of Correction website, you can only find out the number of infractions for an inmate and a brief description of each. You can’t determine what punishments were given. The public has no idea of how pervasive this practice is.
Are our actions making them more violent or less violent? I met one inmate who was kept in solitary for three years on the basis that they believed he was associated with a criminal network. I looked at his “infraction” record and for his entire imprisonment, he was charged only with communicating to another prisoner by letter. He’d written his wife and asked her to send a note to a fellow inmate who was in AA with him to find out how he was doing after his transfer to another facility. By golly, we’ll put a stop to this sort of thing won’t we?
It is estimated that 40-60% of prisoners are mentally ill. That’s an ugly number. Something is wrong here.
The posturing and political gamesmanship relating to these 20 men scheduled for release is on a par with the story of “balloon boy”. In the scheme of things, this is nothing. Do you realize that a crime that might get you 10 years in Durham County could get you life if the crime were committed in a rural county in NC? A life sentence is really arbitrary within our justice system. If the DA offers a deal to avoid a trial or because he can’t quite get enough evidence to warrant a sure conviction, the punishment is going to be less severe than for the same crime taken to trial. So, to put “lifers” up for target practice by the public and the news media is disingenuous at best and gives us all a false sense that our politicians are taking care of business.
One of the 20 “lifers” set to be released had a MAP that, if completed successfully, would have released him next year. MAP is an acronym for a plan of release in NC for a prisoner who is given a life sentence. If he follows his MAP (normally lasting about 3 years), even a lifer can be released when he completes the requirements. Normally he has to have no infractions during the time of his MAP, earn a high level of trust in the system and get a work release job. There may be other requirements tailored to the prisoner. I know of several guys sentenced to life who have MAPs. It is a good thing.
The impression you get from the governor and the news media is that the sky is falling. It isn’t, but attention needs to be given to keep those incarcerated from coming back into the system once they are released. Giving them $40 and a handshake isn’t going to cut it, especially in an economy like we are seeing now. We’re willing to spend $30K a year to imprison folks in NC, but virtually nothing to help keep them from coming back into the system. That’s where the story should be.
Calling for more money to be spent to reduce recidivism would be unpopular politically. The fact that it is unpopular is our fault. We don’t know how to attack and fix a problem anymore, assuming we ever did.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Some of the failings of capitalism
The poor health care we have in this country is a prime example of how health care should have never been a free market item. It simply doesn't work. It may work in very isolated instances, but overall, the rest of the world has seen its failings and we are late in coming to the party.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
It struck me recently that another great example of this "competition failure" is the cell phone industry. If you believe that providing reasonably good cell phone service to urban areas and interstate corridors is the purpose of cell phones, then by golly, we have a good system.
Here are some problems:
1. There is no interoperability between many of the cell phone providers. You have to buy a phone that will work only on a particular network. If you want to switch providers out of competitive dissatisfaction, you have to buy a new phone, so this system discourages competitive pressure.
2. Providers provide only service to the biggest, most densely packed customer locations. It means putting up independent towers for each provider or letting them duke it out over how to share an existing tower. I'm not sure how this actually works, but I do know that coverage is VERY different for the many different providers.
3. Customers in low-population areas are simply out of luck. If you travel away from your urban location, it is a crap shoot as to whether you can get a connection. You can have a breakdown on an isolated rural road and be out of luck.
4. Cell phone quality is simply hit or miss. If a network is overloaded, call quality and call reliability drops dramatically. The fact that you can reliably make a call at a low-traffic time doesn't help when you actually need to make a call at a high traffic time. Requirements for excess capacity is a government regulation function that is simply missing in this competitive environment.
It is looking like Verizon is taking over in the US. They have the largest network since the merger with Alltel. They now have competitive prices, but don't hold your breath when they approach monopolistic power. They'll behave like Microsoft, who charges a ton of money for their operating system since it is the only game in town. Once Verizon has the only game in town, they'll start acting like Pfizer since you won't have a choice. How would you like paying $10 a pill when it costs them $.05 to make?
I read a study some time ago talking about deregulation of the airline industry. The author points out that the sum total of costs to make a trip, adjusted for inflation, are now about the same as when regulated. This is because business travelers pay an outrageous fee to buy a ticket a day or two before the flight as opposed to 2 weeks before the flight. It's the same flight with the same costs, but the price differential can be staggering. The airlines know that businesses have to make spur of the moment trips and they take advantage. It is gamesmanship with money and pricing policies, not actually a good return for customers.
In addition, regulated flights once called for more non-stops. The idea was to get people more places faster. Now, flights are to switching centers like Atlanta where you change planes for the final leg of your flight. Airlines found that approach was a cheaper way to operate and the impact on customer arrival times meant nothing. After all, competition in this case made things worse for the consumer.
The US, in addition to having poor health care, has poor broadband internet service compared to other nations. I measured a download speed in Canada recently at 8MBytes/Sec, a speed unheard of here. We have cell phones that connect in fewer places than other countries. We are behind technologically in so many ways because we do it our way. In many ways, we do it the worst possible way....all in the name of captitalism and the ills it brings with it in many arenas.
N&O Sensationalizes the early release of "violent" offenders
The News and Observer deserves serious criticism for its sensational coverage of the early release of NC prisoners who were in for life. How many 60+ year old men do you know that you would describe as “violent”? Yet, that’s the moniker you put on men who’ve been behind bars for years, many of whom have demonstrated good behavior within the system.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
The facts are that over 650,000 inmates are released yearly from incarceration in the US. Some walk out onto the streets directly from isolated confinement. They have served their time and must be freed. The state is willing to spend about $30k per year to keep them in prison, but virtually nothing to help them find housing and jobs to help keep them from going back. Giving a guy $40 and wishing him good luck isn’t going to cut it. With proper attention to this problem, we could cut our bills dramatically…never mind that it is also the moral thing to do. Unfortunately, we are so tuned to locking folks up for so long that many have been institutionalized and will feel comfortable in no other setting than prison.
Senator Jim Webb thinks our justice system is a national disgrace and has called for a blue ribbon commission to recommend changes. See http://webb.senate.gov/email/criminaljusticereform.html It's time to do something about it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
How to indict a ham sandwich
Prosecutors, it has been joked, can indict a ham sandwich. That really means that, if they want to get you, it won't take much to get you locked up awaiting trial.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
That idea was brought home to me by a good friend called to jury duty last week. They were TRYING a young muslim who was accused of stealing a $15 sweatshirt. They suspected him of being a terrorist (he'd been going from campus to campus and hanging around muslim centers). They had no witness seeing him inside the Muslim Center at UNC, but had found some of his possessions there as it appeared he was living inside. No evidence of a break-in and no one had actually seen him there when it was locked up.
They arrested him near the center wearing a sweatshirt that was unique in that it had been available only inside the center. So, on this premise, they jailed him last May and tried him this past week. He was found guilty of misdemeanor breaking and entering, but not for stealing the $15 sweatshirt. The trial took 2 days.
Contrast this with a breaking and entering at my home while my wife and I were asleep upstairs. The thief stole my laptop and a computer scanner. I had video of him entering my car and walking to the back to try the door. It was a pretty good picture when all is said and done. I made some pictures from the video and some friends of mine recognized the guy...said that was his Modus Operandi. One of the guys said he grew up with the thief and it was clearly him. The perpetrator had recently been arrested for breaking in to a church. With the name of the suspect in hand, the detective took the pics down to the jail and interviewed the guy who swore it wasn't him. The detective said there was a resemblance, but didn't think it was the same guy.
So, a serious crime like breaking/entering/theft/after 11pm/occupied building is simply swept under the rug because they have actual evidence, but it must not be as good as an eyewitness id. Case closed....while the DA pursues ^&*() like the above.
Also, contrast their choice of what to prosecute with the case in which a Durham Policewoman (Ruth Brown) was held up in her home. She was robbed of $3000 cash (not exactly sure why she had that kind of $ on hand, but I have some ideas). She ID's a 15 year old middle school student by recognizing his "eyebrows" in a school picture. The robber had on a mask, so she couldn't see anything else except his eyebrows and hair which was in a completely different style than the kid who was ultimately convicted.
So, we have another ham sandwich held in jail, then put away until some independent folks began asking questions. Several years later, he's freed.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be a Durhamite at times. You don't want to be the next ham sandwich.
The downside of TRADITION
There are probably some good things that come from traditional and accepted practices, but we should not be a slave to them. For example, some churches, through tradition, exclude women from certain executive or pastoral roles in the church. It is their loss. At one time, it was traditional to have black folks come to the back door of a business or to sit in the back of a public bus. There were even laws enforcing this tradition.
I believe that, as Americans, we have traditionally viewed politics as a game in which you denigrate the opposition for some small aspect of their position or their character. For example, John McCann’s call to vote against city council members and our mayor who supported a non-binding resolution in favor of equal treatment for gay couples. This tradition seems to ignore issues that are truly meaningful for citizens of a democracy. Of course, it requires more work on the part of the voter when you are asked to do a serious examination of the issues facing our government and to vote for people you hope can carry them out.
Our tradition of incarcerating men at levels unseen in other parts of the world is a problem. It’s a problem because this traditional approach isn’t working. It’s also traditional to pay no attention to what goes on inside our prison system. “If it is unpleasant place to be, so much the better” goes traditional thinking. I have watched “Prison Nation”, a series shown on the National Geographic Channel. A recent episode examined the high use of isolated confinement in our prison system. Some 70% of suicides in America’s prisons occur with inmates in isolated confinement (ICON). Estimates that 40-60% of inmates are mentally ill should add further caution to what we do to them. I wonder if the average mental illness level is higher at the time of admission or at the time of release from prison.
In the classic film, “Shawshank Redemption” which was set in the year 1947, in retaliation for a mild threat from the inmate to stop enabling the warden’s corruption, the warden puts him in ICON for 60 days. The comment is made that no one had ever been given that length of punishment at that prison as if this punishment bordered on the outrageous and inhumane.
Some may argue that ICON is the only practical solution to handling unmanageable inmates. I argue that it makes them more psychotic and more unmanageable and that it is not being properly managed to actually assure it is appropriate.
A young man who I mentored years ago grew up in McDougal Terrace. He won multiple trophy’s in Tae Kwan Do all over the southeast. He played basketball for me on a church team. He was a great kid, but this attention by my family, my church, and other mentors was not enough to overcome the abandonment by his father, a reading disability, the dire poverty he faced, and the lure of the street. He became associated with a street gang at age 15 and was involved in some significant crimes. Today, he resides in Lanesboro, one of the toughest prisons in NC. They offer no apology to me for locking him up for 13 straight months in ICON. I don’t recognize him. I don’t want to be around him now. In my view, the state of NC has destroyed him. He will be released sooner or later and he’s going to be a problem. In America, some inmates are released directly from ICON and put back on the streets when their sentences are completed.
The prison system has adopted countrywide a policy of isolated confinement for far too many inmates for far too long. It is a hidden scandal and a recipe for recidivism.
As a community volunteer, I took out an inmate recently who had been kept in ICON for 3 years. I looked at his record on the Dept of Correction website and he had been charged with one infraction since his incarceration (passing a message to a guy he was mentoring in AA who had transferred). It is a mystery as to why they administered this punishment to him.
The public can access names, photos, and criminal records, and infractions while in prison of incarcerated individuals, but can’t determine the punishment given for the infraction. I suppose it is “out of sight; out of mind”. I think they are shielding from the public the extent of the punishment and want to avoid questions being asked.
We don’t know about these things and to some extent the public doesn’t want to know. The US is internationally known for its strong Christian perspective. I wonder how this can be?
Some traditions should be scrapped.
I believe that, as Americans, we have traditionally viewed politics as a game in which you denigrate the opposition for some small aspect of their position or their character. For example, John McCann’s call to vote against city council members and our mayor who supported a non-binding resolution in favor of equal treatment for gay couples. This tradition seems to ignore issues that are truly meaningful for citizens of a democracy. Of course, it requires more work on the part of the voter when you are asked to do a serious examination of the issues facing our government and to vote for people you hope can carry them out.
Our tradition of incarcerating men at levels unseen in other parts of the world is a problem. It’s a problem because this traditional approach isn’t working. It’s also traditional to pay no attention to what goes on inside our prison system. “If it is unpleasant place to be, so much the better” goes traditional thinking. I have watched “Prison Nation”, a series shown on the National Geographic Channel. A recent episode examined the high use of isolated confinement in our prison system. Some 70% of suicides in America’s prisons occur with inmates in isolated confinement (ICON). Estimates that 40-60% of inmates are mentally ill should add further caution to what we do to them. I wonder if the average mental illness level is higher at the time of admission or at the time of release from prison.
In the classic film, “Shawshank Redemption” which was set in the year 1947, in retaliation for a mild threat from the inmate to stop enabling the warden’s corruption, the warden puts him in ICON for 60 days. The comment is made that no one had ever been given that length of punishment at that prison as if this punishment bordered on the outrageous and inhumane.
Some may argue that ICON is the only practical solution to handling unmanageable inmates. I argue that it makes them more psychotic and more unmanageable and that it is not being properly managed to actually assure it is appropriate.
A young man who I mentored years ago grew up in McDougal Terrace. He won multiple trophy’s in Tae Kwan Do all over the southeast. He played basketball for me on a church team. He was a great kid, but this attention by my family, my church, and other mentors was not enough to overcome the abandonment by his father, a reading disability, the dire poverty he faced, and the lure of the street. He became associated with a street gang at age 15 and was involved in some significant crimes. Today, he resides in Lanesboro, one of the toughest prisons in NC. They offer no apology to me for locking him up for 13 straight months in ICON. I don’t recognize him. I don’t want to be around him now. In my view, the state of NC has destroyed him. He will be released sooner or later and he’s going to be a problem. In America, some inmates are released directly from ICON and put back on the streets when their sentences are completed.
The prison system has adopted countrywide a policy of isolated confinement for far too many inmates for far too long. It is a hidden scandal and a recipe for recidivism.
As a community volunteer, I took out an inmate recently who had been kept in ICON for 3 years. I looked at his record on the Dept of Correction website and he had been charged with one infraction since his incarceration (passing a message to a guy he was mentoring in AA who had transferred). It is a mystery as to why they administered this punishment to him.
The public can access names, photos, and criminal records, and infractions while in prison of incarcerated individuals, but can’t determine the punishment given for the infraction. I suppose it is “out of sight; out of mind”. I think they are shielding from the public the extent of the punishment and want to avoid questions being asked.
We don’t know about these things and to some extent the public doesn’t want to know. The US is internationally known for its strong Christian perspective. I wonder how this can be?
Some traditions should be scrapped.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Why I love Durham
I didn't write this, but I do love the sentiment. It was penned by a good friend, Mitzi Viola, director of development at Habitat for Humanity here in Durham:
August 2, 2008
WARNING: political content
There are a couple of things you have to know to make sense of this post.
1. There's this place called Bicsuitville - the crème de la crème of Southern fast-food breakfast that will kill you. Our friends at Biscuitville have a restaurant conveniently located in the 'hood just about halfway between my house and my office. I stop here most mornings for eggs. Some days, even, I do what the good-ol-boy lineman in front of me shamelessly did last week: I add cheese. Yes, after the requisite Diet Pepsi, I am now paying $5.05 each day for the privilege of eating something that costs next to nothing if you make it at home. And to understand this you need to know I'm following the advice of a piece of happycrap I once read: limit the amount of bingable food in the house. Because I can't keep anything besides tuna and almonds in my house without abusing it, that's all there is in my huge pantry. Tuna. Almonds. And dog food. It's a costly position to find oneself in, but it's sane and safe, and I really think I'm getting there. In fact, cooking eggs at home is a goal I'd like to take on once I tackle inner peace and how to dupe the IRS. I'll get there. In the meantime, I wait in a long line of fatigued people driving fatigued vehicles in the worst neighborhood in Durham for eggs with cheese.
2. The neighborhood really is rotten. It's about six blocks from the Mo-Do Bait and Tackle Shop and just east of the place where only two percent of Durham's residents live but where 20 percent of Durham's crime occurs. Just around the corner is Angier Avenue, the area with the single greatest concentration of prostitution in the city. If the author of the Left Behind series is correct, Angier Avenue and its many business associates (and I, waiting in line for eggs with cheese) will all be comfortably, guiltlessly left behind after the rapture, just going about business as usual. The other description offered of this neighborhood comes from our new construction director, Karey. Karey lives in and loves Durham. Only she calls it Beirut. The judgment comes from her habit of driving Hummers and F-350 diesels between Habitat work sites - in high-heel flip-flops, no less. The streets are so bad she finds herself searching the roadside for IEDs and the like. She's convinced the guy who runs road improvements is related to the guy who owns the only tire alignment and balance place in East Durham. It's a set-up.
So, with all this said, I was waiting in line this morning for eggs, in inner-city Beirut, wearing my favorite Habitat for Humanity T-shirt. The Biscuitville experience is especially enriching on the weekends, when even the most frugal live a little.
There's a cacophony to delight all the senses. A pearl-colored Cadillac Escalade waits in front of me in line, its self-absorbed driver refusing to move up just a little and instead playing with her newly painted nails. Two young men in red and black march through the parking lot, crossing in front of oncoming traffic without fear. They are the Bloods. A huge immigrant family dressed for church weaves between the parked cars, the seemingly mile-long drive-through line I'm in that's backed out onto the street, and the lane of open traffic that's now stuck because the Escalade in front of me won't move up. I'm guessing this family is Pentecostal because they appear to be Mexican and it's Saturday. This skinny old man the color of cocoa who is wearing an orange vest and sporting a business permit is selling newspapers on the corner. He is given the papers to sell for anything he can get and splits the cover price with the company. Our local paper has done this for "qualified" individuals for years. Today he's a little brazen, though, moving to the sidewalk by the drive-through pick-up window and harassing everyone who drives by while their windows are still down - along with their defenses. All the while the smell of bacon wafts through the humid air to the beat of somebody's R&B.
And then it happens. A gentle old woman shuffles out to an old burgundy Buick and settles into the front passenger seat. The kids in the back are playing with toy soldiers. The not-as-old-but-still-old woman driving cranks the engine. They are backing up.
Problem is I'm parked almost directly behind them in the terminally long drive-through line. This woman isn't stopping simply because there's a Subaru behind her. No, sir.
As suddenly as the Red Sea once parted, the Escalade driver (whom I'm still judging) moves forward, looking with concern at the situation developing in her side mirror. The guy behind me backs up and urges the guy behind him to back up, pushing him back out onto the road.
The Bloods stop their conversation to be sure we all have what we need to pull this off.
I back up slowly and motion for the not-so-old-but-still-old woman to back up.
It all happens instinctively. None of us really stops to think. There's this beaten-up old Buick full of people - family. They have some place to go. They really can't negotiate the chaos that is Biscuitville, and no one in the car is actually qualified to drive it. And so the village responds. We are there to help, to facilitate their safe journey home.
As the gray-haired driver does a five-point turn out of her parking space, I have this thought: I LOVE DURHAM. I'm proud to be from Durham, and I adore East Durham. It's dirty, stinking Beirut at its worst - the Mo-Do Bait Shop in cahoots with the city - but it also has integrity and texture and innate goodness. The people of East Durham don't have time to worry about being too fat or too ugly or too anything else. They are where they are, and they're grateful for it. They do their very best each and every day, and they splurge on biscuits and the like on the weekends. They have hopes and dreams and values and fears. They are we: we're really all the same, after all, once you get past the (false) superficial divisions. Only perhaps they have the benefit of being more real. Life has shaped their focus and limited their distractions.
~~~
What's great about all of it is this same Biscuitville is the place I've taken pictures to post online. There's a string of Goliath-sized power things that run through the parking lot, just kissing the building. The signs posted on each gigantic tower read, "WARNING: High Voltage, KEEP OFF." You'd think if it were that dangerous they might think differently of placing these towers of power within reach of children at the friendly neighborhood Biscuitville in the middle of one of the poorest sections of Durham where many people walk and ride buses. It just doesn't make sense.
Yet, if this not-as-old-but-still-old-woman-backing-up incident had occurred across town at a McDonald's in a better zip code, I'm pretty sure the Escalade in front of me would have been a Volvo (or a Subaru) and its driver would have cursed me out or rolled her eyes as I requested a little assistance in helping the old woman get home. It's generally in neighborhoods like Wellons Village that people really "get it" and respond generously without needing to be asked. Those who have the least give the most. And I challenge my own assertion that they have the least. Perhaps they have only what matters in the end, and that's what makes them so cool. They have God and family, and so they have everything they need.
So I ask you...who deserves most to live in a community where live wires litter parking lots: those who reach out to anyone and everyone or those who are closed? But maybe it doesn't matter. Perhaps it's inevitable that this situation exists. Perhaps if zip codes switched the roles would change. Ultimately not everyone is all ‘good’ or all ‘bad’ in any zip code.
~~~
A front-page article in the Herald-Sun caught my attention while at Mr. Bell's BP station yesterday. The headline reads, "Durham ranks low in violent crime."
To anyone from our state of this union, this is a laughable headline. Comparison places city, county below similar-sized areas. Remarkable.
Outsiders' beliefs about Durham are ultimately driven by one fact: roughly half of the city's residents are African-American. For this reason alone Durham is looked down upon by nearly 100 percent of the Free World that knows it. Durham is dirty and lesser and scary. Don't go there. By all means don't live there.
And our hometown paper, which I loathe for firing the best publisher ever, my friend Toby - this paper has now proven what we already knew. It is, however, most unfortunate that the city cited in this article as having the next lowest crime in the state happens to be Raleigh, our nemesis neighbor to the southeast. Just one place in line ahead of us for the good.
Durham rocks. That's what I have to say today.
p.s. Raleigh, you suck.
p.p.s. So as not to be like Raleigh, I need to say this: Beirut, we judge you, and we do not even know you. Peace.
August 2, 2008
WARNING: political content
There are a couple of things you have to know to make sense of this post.
1. There's this place called Bicsuitville - the crème de la crème of Southern fast-food breakfast that will kill you. Our friends at Biscuitville have a restaurant conveniently located in the 'hood just about halfway between my house and my office. I stop here most mornings for eggs. Some days, even, I do what the good-ol-boy lineman in front of me shamelessly did last week: I add cheese. Yes, after the requisite Diet Pepsi, I am now paying $5.05 each day for the privilege of eating something that costs next to nothing if you make it at home. And to understand this you need to know I'm following the advice of a piece of happycrap I once read: limit the amount of bingable food in the house. Because I can't keep anything besides tuna and almonds in my house without abusing it, that's all there is in my huge pantry. Tuna. Almonds. And dog food. It's a costly position to find oneself in, but it's sane and safe, and I really think I'm getting there. In fact, cooking eggs at home is a goal I'd like to take on once I tackle inner peace and how to dupe the IRS. I'll get there. In the meantime, I wait in a long line of fatigued people driving fatigued vehicles in the worst neighborhood in Durham for eggs with cheese.
2. The neighborhood really is rotten. It's about six blocks from the Mo-Do Bait and Tackle Shop and just east of the place where only two percent of Durham's residents live but where 20 percent of Durham's crime occurs. Just around the corner is Angier Avenue, the area with the single greatest concentration of prostitution in the city. If the author of the Left Behind series is correct, Angier Avenue and its many business associates (and I, waiting in line for eggs with cheese) will all be comfortably, guiltlessly left behind after the rapture, just going about business as usual. The other description offered of this neighborhood comes from our new construction director, Karey. Karey lives in and loves Durham. Only she calls it Beirut. The judgment comes from her habit of driving Hummers and F-350 diesels between Habitat work sites - in high-heel flip-flops, no less. The streets are so bad she finds herself searching the roadside for IEDs and the like. She's convinced the guy who runs road improvements is related to the guy who owns the only tire alignment and balance place in East Durham. It's a set-up.
So, with all this said, I was waiting in line this morning for eggs, in inner-city Beirut, wearing my favorite Habitat for Humanity T-shirt. The Biscuitville experience is especially enriching on the weekends, when even the most frugal live a little.
There's a cacophony to delight all the senses. A pearl-colored Cadillac Escalade waits in front of me in line, its self-absorbed driver refusing to move up just a little and instead playing with her newly painted nails. Two young men in red and black march through the parking lot, crossing in front of oncoming traffic without fear. They are the Bloods. A huge immigrant family dressed for church weaves between the parked cars, the seemingly mile-long drive-through line I'm in that's backed out onto the street, and the lane of open traffic that's now stuck because the Escalade in front of me won't move up. I'm guessing this family is Pentecostal because they appear to be Mexican and it's Saturday. This skinny old man the color of cocoa who is wearing an orange vest and sporting a business permit is selling newspapers on the corner. He is given the papers to sell for anything he can get and splits the cover price with the company. Our local paper has done this for "qualified" individuals for years. Today he's a little brazen, though, moving to the sidewalk by the drive-through pick-up window and harassing everyone who drives by while their windows are still down - along with their defenses. All the while the smell of bacon wafts through the humid air to the beat of somebody's R&B.
And then it happens. A gentle old woman shuffles out to an old burgundy Buick and settles into the front passenger seat. The kids in the back are playing with toy soldiers. The not-as-old-but-still-old woman driving cranks the engine. They are backing up.
Problem is I'm parked almost directly behind them in the terminally long drive-through line. This woman isn't stopping simply because there's a Subaru behind her. No, sir.
As suddenly as the Red Sea once parted, the Escalade driver (whom I'm still judging) moves forward, looking with concern at the situation developing in her side mirror. The guy behind me backs up and urges the guy behind him to back up, pushing him back out onto the road.
The Bloods stop their conversation to be sure we all have what we need to pull this off.
I back up slowly and motion for the not-so-old-but-still-old woman to back up.
It all happens instinctively. None of us really stops to think. There's this beaten-up old Buick full of people - family. They have some place to go. They really can't negotiate the chaos that is Biscuitville, and no one in the car is actually qualified to drive it. And so the village responds. We are there to help, to facilitate their safe journey home.
As the gray-haired driver does a five-point turn out of her parking space, I have this thought: I LOVE DURHAM. I'm proud to be from Durham, and I adore East Durham. It's dirty, stinking Beirut at its worst - the Mo-Do Bait Shop in cahoots with the city - but it also has integrity and texture and innate goodness. The people of East Durham don't have time to worry about being too fat or too ugly or too anything else. They are where they are, and they're grateful for it. They do their very best each and every day, and they splurge on biscuits and the like on the weekends. They have hopes and dreams and values and fears. They are we: we're really all the same, after all, once you get past the (false) superficial divisions. Only perhaps they have the benefit of being more real. Life has shaped their focus and limited their distractions.
~~~
What's great about all of it is this same Biscuitville is the place I've taken pictures to post online. There's a string of Goliath-sized power things that run through the parking lot, just kissing the building. The signs posted on each gigantic tower read, "WARNING: High Voltage, KEEP OFF." You'd think if it were that dangerous they might think differently of placing these towers of power within reach of children at the friendly neighborhood Biscuitville in the middle of one of the poorest sections of Durham where many people walk and ride buses. It just doesn't make sense.
Yet, if this not-as-old-but-still-old-woman-backing-up incident had occurred across town at a McDonald's in a better zip code, I'm pretty sure the Escalade in front of me would have been a Volvo (or a Subaru) and its driver would have cursed me out or rolled her eyes as I requested a little assistance in helping the old woman get home. It's generally in neighborhoods like Wellons Village that people really "get it" and respond generously without needing to be asked. Those who have the least give the most. And I challenge my own assertion that they have the least. Perhaps they have only what matters in the end, and that's what makes them so cool. They have God and family, and so they have everything they need.
So I ask you...who deserves most to live in a community where live wires litter parking lots: those who reach out to anyone and everyone or those who are closed? But maybe it doesn't matter. Perhaps it's inevitable that this situation exists. Perhaps if zip codes switched the roles would change. Ultimately not everyone is all ‘good’ or all ‘bad’ in any zip code.
~~~
A front-page article in the Herald-Sun caught my attention while at Mr. Bell's BP station yesterday. The headline reads, "Durham ranks low in violent crime."
To anyone from our state of this union, this is a laughable headline. Comparison places city, county below similar-sized areas. Remarkable.
Outsiders' beliefs about Durham are ultimately driven by one fact: roughly half of the city's residents are African-American. For this reason alone Durham is looked down upon by nearly 100 percent of the Free World that knows it. Durham is dirty and lesser and scary. Don't go there. By all means don't live there.
And our hometown paper, which I loathe for firing the best publisher ever, my friend Toby - this paper has now proven what we already knew. It is, however, most unfortunate that the city cited in this article as having the next lowest crime in the state happens to be Raleigh, our nemesis neighbor to the southeast. Just one place in line ahead of us for the good.
Durham rocks. That's what I have to say today.
p.s. Raleigh, you suck.
p.p.s. So as not to be like Raleigh, I need to say this: Beirut, we judge you, and we do not even know you. Peace.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
On getting outside of your comfort zone
In my lifetime, I’ve been out of my comfort zone quite a bit. I remember the first time a black schoolmate was invited to stay overnight with my boys. Over time, it got to be normal with no need for unfounded fear. It eventually led me to be comfortable with the idea and I know we were part of getting some other people out of their comfort zone. Once, I brought a black child to a private swim club we were part of and was asked to accept a refund of my membership money if I insisted on bringing him back. I’m sure fellow church members were out of their comfort zone when our family brought inner city children with us to church.
I was outside my comfort zone when several of my children chose to marry interracially. At first I was uncomfortable because I feared what life would be like for them and for their children in what was then a society that was pretty intolerant about such things. I had some tough moments with some of my family since they also were out of their comfort zone. Questions from acquaintances like “why are you allowing your children to marry a black” come to mind. A threat from a spouse’s parent to disown them if they married one of my children comes to mind.
The results have been rewarding to my wife and I. We’re grandparents to the most beautiful and smartest grandchildren imaginable and we have many true friends of another race. My eyes have been opened to the value of stepping outside your comfort zone.
I say this to introduce another idea that for a time was outside my comfort zone. The idea that you could bring an inmate into your home for a visit. It took some getting used to. I had attended religious services held by my church at
I’ve taken guys out into the community as a community volunteer for some 7 years or so. I’ve met a wide range of guys…probably more than 30. Some are college grads; some cannot read or write. I’ve been impressed by the general level of intelligence and social skills so many have. Some are independent thinkers; some will go along with anything a friend suggests. Many are in prison for drug-related crimes. One killed his wife years ago. He was a
Guess Road is a minimum security prison. Over the years, they have been able to implement some programs that I think will help keep guys from coming back into the system. As a volunteer, after some appropriate training, I can take 1 or 2 guys out into the community to pre-approved locations for up to 6 hours on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. I’m allowed on the camp for religious services. There are 3 levels of classification within the system, each allowing different levels of privilege. At the highest level (3), an inmate can interview for a job and work in the community.
In the
One of the themes I remember from my Sunday School classes and the sermons I’ve heard over the years is Jesus’ stories about people or things that were lost and the great effort that was made to find or rescue or forgive them. It angered the prodigal son’s brother that his wayward brother who had offended his father was welcomed back into the fold when he “came to his senses”. In many ways, I think as a society we are a lot like the prodigal son’s brother in that we resent good treatment and forgiveness directed toward folks we see as wayward. But, like the prodigal son, I think we need to “come to our senses”, too. The rewards of stepping outside that comfort zone are simply too good for us to be passing up.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Terrorists in Johnson County?
Pardon me if I'm skeptical. I thought the Liberals were the only thought police. Seems like some folks have been thinking about and trying to commit some "terrorist acts?". Like raising money for some terrorist organizations like the dudes in Charlotte a few years ago who gave money to Hamas.
Hello, just because we support a foreign position and give money to it would not seem to me in America to make it against the law to support an opposing foreign agency. Remember our support for Afghanistan rebels like bin Laden when they were fighting Russia? Remember our support for Saddam when he was fighting Iran? It seems we can't get it right. How do you believe we have it right even now? We support Israel over the arabs. Why? Why have we picked one aggrieved party over another aggrieved party? Are we that smart?
So the terrorists arrested recently once fought in Afghanistan for a group that we heartily supported at the time. Now, this fight is being used as evidence against them?
You know, we just seem to arbitrarily decide to call something terrorist. Dropping bombs on innocent people from an airplane is somehow not seen as behaving in a terroristic manner. Maybe that's because it's what WE do. So we OK our behavior and outlaw all other opposing forms of behavior.
Now, it is against the law to talk about jihad in another country. Has anyone been paying attention to what our leadership has been doing? Pardon me if I'm skeptical about this whole situation. This sounds a lot like the Lackawanna 6. I think they got a bad deal. The got punished for getting out of a community that misrepresented itself to them. They were smart enough to leave and get back to putting their lives together, but not smart enough to avoid having our government hold it against them for the crassest of political reasons.
Just pardon me if I'm skeptical. I think I have every right to be.
Hello, just because we support a foreign position and give money to it would not seem to me in America to make it against the law to support an opposing foreign agency. Remember our support for Afghanistan rebels like bin Laden when they were fighting Russia? Remember our support for Saddam when he was fighting Iran? It seems we can't get it right. How do you believe we have it right even now? We support Israel over the arabs. Why? Why have we picked one aggrieved party over another aggrieved party? Are we that smart?
So the terrorists arrested recently once fought in Afghanistan for a group that we heartily supported at the time. Now, this fight is being used as evidence against them?
You know, we just seem to arbitrarily decide to call something terrorist. Dropping bombs on innocent people from an airplane is somehow not seen as behaving in a terroristic manner. Maybe that's because it's what WE do. So we OK our behavior and outlaw all other opposing forms of behavior.
Now, it is against the law to talk about jihad in another country. Has anyone been paying attention to what our leadership has been doing? Pardon me if I'm skeptical about this whole situation. This sounds a lot like the Lackawanna 6. I think they got a bad deal. The got punished for getting out of a community that misrepresented itself to them. They were smart enough to leave and get back to putting their lives together, but not smart enough to avoid having our government hold it against them for the crassest of political reasons.
Just pardon me if I'm skeptical. I think I have every right to be.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
What does it mean to be an "activiist judge"?
From Glenn Greenwald's excellent blog today, he quotes an answer given by Sam Alito during his confirmation hearings for a position on the Supreme Court:
Republicans claim to despise activist judges and, according to the tenets of the Federalist Society, want judges who interpret the law the way it would have been interpreted by the founders of the US of A. I suppose what they really mean is an activist judge is any judge who rules differently than the way they would like. To me, an activist judge is one who is reversing laws that have been passed by legislatures. That is the only way a judge could "make law".
That means that, if the legislature determines that a city could throw out a test when the results of those passing the test do not reflect in some basic way the population of the citizens there, you might determine that maybe the test is biased toward the group that managed to pass the test. That is the intent of the laws under which Sotomayor made her ruling (along with another in a 3 judge panel) on a lower court. She is now being villified for having that ruling reversed recently by the supreme court.
A fair interpretation of this affair would be to determine that the Supreme Court (5-4) has made an activist ruling. They, in effect, have changed the law and are now preventing New Haven from redoing the promotion test for firemen.
What is particularly stunning in this story is that Ricci, the white fireman for whom the case was named was hired in the first place under anti-discrimination laws. Ricci has dylexia and he was given special provisions in order to pass the exams to qualify as a fireman for New Haven.
I'm telling you, some folks can only see life through their own special prism. I suspect Sotomayor will have an interesting viewpoint and be asking some interesting questions as she serves on the Supreme Court. Whether guys like Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or our good buddy Scalia will be listening is of course another question. After all, it's hard to hear with your ears plugged.
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined (.pdf) began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic.
You know, Sotomayor has been villified for talking about the advantages of having a Latino judge with a background unfamiliar to the court today. She's talked about the fact that, in a sense, judges do make law since they ultimately interpret the law to determine if it passes constitutional muster.Republicans claim to despise activist judges and, according to the tenets of the Federalist Society, want judges who interpret the law the way it would have been interpreted by the founders of the US of A. I suppose what they really mean is an activist judge is any judge who rules differently than the way they would like. To me, an activist judge is one who is reversing laws that have been passed by legislatures. That is the only way a judge could "make law".
That means that, if the legislature determines that a city could throw out a test when the results of those passing the test do not reflect in some basic way the population of the citizens there, you might determine that maybe the test is biased toward the group that managed to pass the test. That is the intent of the laws under which Sotomayor made her ruling (along with another in a 3 judge panel) on a lower court. She is now being villified for having that ruling reversed recently by the supreme court.
A fair interpretation of this affair would be to determine that the Supreme Court (5-4) has made an activist ruling. They, in effect, have changed the law and are now preventing New Haven from redoing the promotion test for firemen.
What is particularly stunning in this story is that Ricci, the white fireman for whom the case was named was hired in the first place under anti-discrimination laws. Ricci has dylexia and he was given special provisions in order to pass the exams to qualify as a fireman for New Haven.
I'm telling you, some folks can only see life through their own special prism. I suspect Sotomayor will have an interesting viewpoint and be asking some interesting questions as she serves on the Supreme Court. Whether guys like Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or our good buddy Scalia will be listening is of course another question. After all, it's hard to hear with your ears plugged.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
How can there be uncertainty about what Nancy Pelosi was told???
The continuing controversy about CIA briefings attended by Nancy Pelosi and a limited set of congressmen during the Bush administration leaves one major point unaddressed. If the CIA summaries presented thus far are so full of obvious inaccuracies (wrong dates, wrong people on the list), why has not more attention been directed to this?
First of all, the claim is that congressmen could not take notes about what was told to them. Secondly, it is also apprarent that either no records were made during the briefings (as a secretary would do) or that records were made but are being withheld.
These briefings were top secret. The very idea that our government gave top secret briefings and then has no official record of what was said is just astounding to me. If one of those attendees were to have leaked top secret info, how could anyone ever prove what they were told? It would devolve to he said/she said as seems to be the case now.
Unless this approach has been official CIA policy all along, it smacks to me of the Bush approach of hiding, obscuring, and failing to reveal any information which would make them look bad or show them to be the liars they truly are.
Having no official record of Top Secret briefings seems to me to be a firing offense. If they can't handle something so obvious as this, what can they possibly handle with any degree of competence? Their record reveals the answer to that question.
First of all, the claim is that congressmen could not take notes about what was told to them. Secondly, it is also apprarent that either no records were made during the briefings (as a secretary would do) or that records were made but are being withheld.
These briefings were top secret. The very idea that our government gave top secret briefings and then has no official record of what was said is just astounding to me. If one of those attendees were to have leaked top secret info, how could anyone ever prove what they were told? It would devolve to he said/she said as seems to be the case now.
Unless this approach has been official CIA policy all along, it smacks to me of the Bush approach of hiding, obscuring, and failing to reveal any information which would make them look bad or show them to be the liars they truly are.
Having no official record of Top Secret briefings seems to me to be a firing offense. If they can't handle something so obvious as this, what can they possibly handle with any degree of competence? Their record reveals the answer to that question.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Re Contributory Negligence
NC is one of only 4 states that continue to have a "contributory negligence" civil statute. That means that , if you in any way contribute to your own injuries in an accident or whatever, you can't sue the other party for damages.
Now, I don't know if that discourages injury suits from fights in which a beat up party could not maybe collect because he made an offensive remark to a "friend", but it surely does apply to auto accidents where insurance companies are always involved. It cuts down on insurance costs and of course the insurance industry has always supported this kind of thing.
There has been on exception that I know of that was written into the law: If you aren't wearing a seat belt and received injuries exclusively due to negligence on the part of another, you COULD sue. That's an interesting exception. You have to argue that you would have contributed to your injuries if you were not wearing a seat belt except in maybe some extremely rare situations. Such an exception shows just how poorly constructed is a law such as this in general. You could imagine many more such innocent contributions to injury than seat belts in which a person could not collect under the law.
NC is about to change that law. They're adding some other political tradeoffs at the same time such as requiring multiple people who have responsibility to have to bear proportional responsibility rather than to go after the most wealthy in the bunch...also a good change.
Contributory negligence laws are a good example of how money influences politics. Fair examinations of the rate of return for political contributions to politicians shows more than a 20,000% rate of return. It is legal bribery and the public has to begin to throw its weight behind demands for good government. There is a sea change about to happen, I feel sure and I'm happy to be a part of seeing it come into being.
Now, I don't know if that discourages injury suits from fights in which a beat up party could not maybe collect because he made an offensive remark to a "friend", but it surely does apply to auto accidents where insurance companies are always involved. It cuts down on insurance costs and of course the insurance industry has always supported this kind of thing.
There has been on exception that I know of that was written into the law: If you aren't wearing a seat belt and received injuries exclusively due to negligence on the part of another, you COULD sue. That's an interesting exception. You have to argue that you would have contributed to your injuries if you were not wearing a seat belt except in maybe some extremely rare situations. Such an exception shows just how poorly constructed is a law such as this in general. You could imagine many more such innocent contributions to injury than seat belts in which a person could not collect under the law.
NC is about to change that law. They're adding some other political tradeoffs at the same time such as requiring multiple people who have responsibility to have to bear proportional responsibility rather than to go after the most wealthy in the bunch...also a good change.
Contributory negligence laws are a good example of how money influences politics. Fair examinations of the rate of return for political contributions to politicians shows more than a 20,000% rate of return. It is legal bribery and the public has to begin to throw its weight behind demands for good government. There is a sea change about to happen, I feel sure and I'm happy to be a part of seeing it come into being.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How do you abandon a lost cause?
There is a basic concept in economics known as “sunk costs”. The term describes the reluctance of an investor to get out of an enterprise in which a large investment has been made, but which is losing money and has little prospect of recovery. An example of this would be someone who invested a few years ago in Enron, saw his investment climb, then drop like a rock as the company’s true financial picture came to light. At some point, you realize that it’s not coming back, but, since you have so much invested, it is difficult to sell and try to salvage something. Psychologicially, it is also an admission of failure and that adds to the reluctance to give it up. You are tempted to believe you made the right choice and it’s going to come back, given enough time.
The “sunk costs” concept can be applied to other investments we make that are not strictly financial. For example, the Iraq War, once it was determined that the whole idea on which it was based was a fraud, a simple and maybe a logical conclusion would be to withdraw as fast as possible to reduce further expenditures on an invalid enterprise. Such decisions aren’t really that simple.
The ability to recognize failure, admit it, then change course is difficult because pride is involved. Let me propose that we need to change course in the “war on drugs”. In this case, the purpose is noble: to reduce the use of illegal drugs. We chose a “logical” solution by locking up folks who use or sell illegal drugs. Our prisons are full of them. 60% of folks in the Federal system are there on drug-related charges. Many others are there because of a criminal enterprise they were involved in to pay for their drug habit. Examples: breaking and entering, possession of stolen goods, and passing bad checks.
Our investment has been in enforcing drug laws, investigating drug related crime, and prosecuting and locking up drug related offenders. Just how wise is this? We have a sunk cost (billions upon billions) that we’ve invested in this problem. The net result is drug use is about the same as it’s always been and our incarceration bills are out of sight.
We need to change course, but what is holding us up? Is it pride that we picked a path and it has been a total failure? Is it that we are more interested in punishing than in fixing the problem? Is it the fear that someone who is even more ignorant than you are will claim that you are being “soft on crime”?
Or, will we keep holding on to that Enron stock until it costs more to sell it than it’s worth?
Monday, June 8, 2009
Conservative are wimps
One of the interesting theories I've been thinking about lately is the pattern of wimpiness of conservative leaders. They talk tough. They act tough, but their record shows relative fright. The position of conservatives who support torture is simply disgusting to me. It is a vengeance and bullying kind of mindset. It has no regard for efficiency and is based on gut emotion, not factual information. The idea that they'd squeal under torture is all the thought they put into it....so it must be effective.
It interests me to realize that the Supreme court decision to require Guantanimo prisoners to have legal representation and be tried by a jury of their peers had a dissent from (guess who?) Antonin Scalia who said, quaking: "Allowing federal judges, rather than military officials, to release terror suspects could have disastrous consequences.
It interests me to realize that the Supreme court decision to require Guantanimo prisoners to have legal representation and be tried by a jury of their peers had a dissent from (guess who?) Antonin Scalia who said, quaking: "Allowing federal judges, rather than military officials, to release terror suspects could have disastrous consequences.
The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the nation's commander in chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.
This is based on simple unreasoning fear and nothing else.
Conservatives don't want Guantanimo prisoners moved to US prisons. They'll break out and harm us seems to be the "fear". Even though McVeigh and company were housed easily and successfully. What a joke. NIMBY. They're scared.
I think conservatives generally are the victims of projection. They accuse you of doing what they themselves are doing. Look at the ration of public officials who divorce (conservative vs liberal). Look at their strong objection to homosexuals and then start counting the homosexuals among them .... it's hard to do since you're out of the party pretty much once you are outed.
Look at the Focus on the Family and the Fallwell group's list of miscreants. Susan Smith's dad was head of Fallwells group in SC, yet it was determined he sexually molested Susan when she was a teen. (I swear I didn't see him prosecuted for this).
I am wondering if there simply isn't a serious character flaw in the right wing mindset? Are they hard right conservatives because of their messed up set of genes? It's beginning to seem so.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Great Campaign for America's Future Convention
Had a great visit to DC to attend this convention early this week. Emphasis was on support for Obama and pushing him to go further than he might normally do given political considerations. This is a unique opportunity in this country to establish a progressive approach to governing. We must not let it slip away.
The emphasis was on universal health care with a public insurance component. Single payer is preferred, but being able to counter the push and money of vested interests who will try to derail this ship is what this convention is about. Grass roots is why it will work.
The other incentives emphasized by attendees:
Employee Free Choice Act passage
Green jobs to push for energy independence
Attack the problem of global warming and environmental issues
Do more to change the influence of credit card companies, banks, etc. Example: Cap on interest
Reform the justice system especially in regard to drug penalties.
Push for public financing of political campaigns
It was nirvana to talk to and listen to great ideas like this. What a great experience.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Tragedy of our Torture Policy
Some very thoughtful pundits have lately zeroed in on how our policy of torture needs to be addressed. One thoughtfully says that Bush is simply incompetent. I wholeheartedly agree.
Another points out that we've jailed some low level folks for torturing when now we know they were instructed to do what they did from the highest levels of our government. Either those officials need to be prosecuted or the torturers need to be pardoned .... and ASAP.
I've always felt that those who carried out illegal commands even for Nazi Germany needed to be treated differently. I see too many people willing to go against their own moral standards just to keep a job. Whatever logic they use to justify it is simply a part of human nature. The torturer says he's just following orders. The whistleblower knows he's going to be in a world of hurt if he actually blows the whistle. It's a nasty web we weave as a society when we have so many excuses for doing evil.
Again, I think that much of what we are seeing is human nature. It's like the teenager who can give you a thousand reasons for why he did something he was told not to do or was someplace he was told not to go.
In the heat of the battle, I could see why Bush and company would opt to go outside the bounds of internationally accepted standards for care for prisoners. They, themselves, were frightened. Both Cheney and Bush opted to avoid military service at all costs....so we know just how brave they were at heart. They were and are frightened little men and they tried to frighten the rest of us with tall tales of boogie men to get us to go along.
The problem is we went along. And, as Leonard Pitts so clearly points out today in his column, "We supported him. And when he overrode the laws and values that make us who we are, we remembered our fear and looked the other way."
Another points out that we've jailed some low level folks for torturing when now we know they were instructed to do what they did from the highest levels of our government. Either those officials need to be prosecuted or the torturers need to be pardoned .... and ASAP.
I've always felt that those who carried out illegal commands even for Nazi Germany needed to be treated differently. I see too many people willing to go against their own moral standards just to keep a job. Whatever logic they use to justify it is simply a part of human nature. The torturer says he's just following orders. The whistleblower knows he's going to be in a world of hurt if he actually blows the whistle. It's a nasty web we weave as a society when we have so many excuses for doing evil.
Again, I think that much of what we are seeing is human nature. It's like the teenager who can give you a thousand reasons for why he did something he was told not to do or was someplace he was told not to go.
In the heat of the battle, I could see why Bush and company would opt to go outside the bounds of internationally accepted standards for care for prisoners. They, themselves, were frightened. Both Cheney and Bush opted to avoid military service at all costs....so we know just how brave they were at heart. They were and are frightened little men and they tried to frighten the rest of us with tall tales of boogie men to get us to go along.
The problem is we went along. And, as Leonard Pitts so clearly points out today in his column, "We supported him. And when he overrode the laws and values that make us who we are, we remembered our fear and looked the other way."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)