Carmichael's Position

Poor Choice of Words...

Ok, I'm already a bit creeped out by the following article.  Glad they busted the dude, and I'm glad he's going to jail for awhile, looks like 50 years.  And no! It's not because the Air Force Captain in question is gay! Anyone convicted of raping another individual needs to serve time!  It is an evil vial crime!

Anyway... I was amazed to read the quote offered up by the military prosecutor after Capt. Devery L. Taylor was found guilty of raping four men and attempting to rape two others.

From the Navy Times and the AP: Note:  I publish this in it's entirety and provide the screen capture as proof because the article has subsequently been changed , with this quote and many other deleted.  New article here [Link]

Officer found guilty of raping four men

 

The Associated Press

Posted : Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 5:15:48 EST

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — An Air Force officer was found guilty Tuesday of raping four men and attempting to rape two others.

The nine-member military jury deliberated for about seven hours in Capt. Devery L. Taylor’s court-martial. Taylor showed no reaction when the jury of seven male and two female military officers handed down the verdict.

Sentencing was scheduled to begin Wednesday. Taylor faces up to six life terms — one for each victim.

Military prosecutors described Taylor, 38, as a serial rapist who met men in bars, spiked their drinks with the “date-rape drug” gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, and kidnapped them.

“I am pleased. I am emotional, but I am very, very pleased,” said Maj. Kathleen Reder, the military prosecutor. Reder praised the six victims who testified during the week-long trial.

“These men can sit up a little a little straighter now, I am proud of them,” she said.

Taylor’s civilian defense attorney, Martin Regan, declined comment pending the sentencing phase of the court-martial.

Regan had argued that each of the men willingly had sex with his client. Taylor testified that he had consensual sex with five of the men and that the sixth, who is openly gay, raped him.

Regan said his client’s only crime was being gay in the military and violating the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans people who are openly homosexual from serving in the armed forces.

Four of Taylor’s alleged victims were in the military when they met Taylor and Regan said they lied to protect their military careers, while a fifth wanted to join the Navy and feared being identified as gay, he said.

Damn!  "These men can sit up a little straighter now!????"  Are you kidding me?  No wonder they changed the article! 

Fart on a Plane... Get arrested! Desert the US Army... Go on a speaking tour!

Nope the world doesn't make sense:

A lady on a plane, blows an ill wind then, doing what many o gaseous friend of mine does, proceeds to light a match to cover up the bouquet.  Not on a plane you don't!  Plane gets diverted to Nashville, passengers get inconvenienced, bags get searched by a (what? sniffing?) dog!  Culprit gets detained and prohibited from traveling.

No Really! I can't make this up...  http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=40210

Then I read:

Army deserter begins West Coast speaking tour against Iraq war

Pfc. Kyle Snyder...The 23-year-old Army deserter from Colorado Springs, who has been absent without leave since April 2005, has embarked on a West Coast speaking tour in which he, and others like him, are expressing opposition to the war in Iraq.

And the really disturbing part...

A warrant is out for his arrest, but the former combat engineer has been traveling the country by plane and by road, and his speaking dates are publicized ahead of time. Among the cities he plans to visit on this tour are San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle.

No Really! I can't make this up either... [ Link ]

About the only message I can derive from these two stories...

If you do something wrong, don't try to cover it up! 

St. Louis, Dying? or Dead?

I just got back this week from the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) show in St. Louis. 

And I have a few takeaways:

The show was great!  Met good folks interested in RSS (Knew what it means and generally how it works) and very interested in Newsgator Enterprise Server!

But, as for the location where it was held... well... St. Louis could use some help.

Some areas of St. Louis are quite nice... The new Busch Stadium for one and around the Arch for two, but other than that, Downtown St. Louis is in trouble!  I sure hope my perspective is wrong, but unlike here in Denver where our Downtown is full of life and action, St. Louis is dead or dying.  I suspect the action is now out in the suburbs, but I was not afforded the opportunity to range out there.  Around the convention center, where one would suspect there would be activity and lots of nice restaurants, I was disappointed, there were few.

Six blocks toward the Mississippi River, there is a area called Laclede's Landing (how to pronounce it, I'm not sure) that caters to the tourists with a few shops, taverns, and restaurants.  Some pretty nice.  But even on a Saturday night, still somewhat dead, such the pity because it could be so much more!

There are also two Riverboat Casinos in the area one on the Missouri side of the river and one on the Illinois side.  Both are ok (I won at both so I can't complain there) but again could be much higher in quality.

But in general if I sat on the St. Louis Tourism Board, I would take some serious actions toward making the area around the Convention Center a little more palatable, especially for dining and entertaining clients.

Arianna Huffington's Blogging Ethics

Like shooting fish in a barrel!

This is too easy of an ethical study!  I will not go off on some categorical rant about how Liberals are so unethical they do not even follow the basics of publishing protocol!  Because I do not think that is necessarily true. 

BUT!

It appears to be true with Arianna Huffington!  Does she not realize that misrepresentation on a public forum destroys credibility for all other representations on her site?  Hell it's not like she has that much to lose!  Representing a blog post as being published by someone famous (or infamous) like George Clooney to gain publicity or notoriety is foolish, and an act of desperation. 

Here's what happened: (from Elizabeth Snead on her Styles and Scenes feed)

"...Arianna Huffington used some of his [George Clooney's] recent answers to political questions in a way that makes it look as if he wrote one for her Huffington Post blog site.

Brilliant!  What did she think?  That because he shares the same political views as she that she could easily represent his opinions in a way that is exceedingly deceptive, without accountability or recourse?  Apparently so...

But, Mr Clooney was none to happy about this.  And rightfully so.  To George Clooney, his greatest asset is his "Well Known Name!"  It brings gravity to a cause or statement, his name is valuable!  Whatever side of the political spectrum you land, one has to recognize that George Clooney gets attention when he states his opinion, right, wrong or indifferent, he has the "Star Power" to draw attention.  George and other Stars in Hollywood may be Dumb as a post when relating to world affairs, politics, geopolitical philosophy and proper governance... or not!  Same with 10's of millions of other Americans, but why does what George says matter in the least?  Because he is a known name! 

Arianna recognizes his popularity (especially as it relates to leaning left causes and issues) and wanted to leverage that.  But rather than simply quoting George, like the rest of us mere bourgeoisie bloggers do... She chose to pretend that George and she are so "well connected" that he would do her the honor of posting on her "Oh so contemporary, and cutting edge Blog" and post an article in his name!

George responded in a public statement:

"Miss Huffington's blog is purposefully misleading and I have asked her to clarify the facts. I stand by my statements but I did not write this blog. With my permission Miss Huffington compiled it from interviews with Larry King and The Guardian. What she most certainly did not get my permission to do is to combine only my answers in a blog that misleads the reader into thinking that I wrote this piece. These are not my writings — they are answers to questions and there is a huge difference."

Arianna Responded to George here:

...So we put together a sample blog from answers he had given on Larry King Live and an interview with the Guardian in London, and sent it to him to rework in any way he wanted.

A publicist who was working on the promotion of Good Night, and Good Luck, emailed back saying, "I will get it to him and get back to you as soon as I hear anything." Three days later, she emailed again, approving, without any changes, what we had sent: "Of course this is fine, Arianna!"

And once we had the approval, that's what we ran: George Clooney's words put into blog form.

This was an honest misunderstanding. But any misunderstanding that occurred, occurred between Clooney and the publicist. We based our decision to post on the unambiguous approval we received in writing. There was no room for misunderstanding in that.

And the response to the response from the Clooney Camp (again, thanks to "The Envelope":

Clooney rep Stan Rosenfield: "I read (Arianna's) response. This wasn't a misunderstanding. It was misrepresentation."

Clooney's camp insists they did not ask HuffPo to take down the item or to release a statement about lying and misrepresentation. They say they only asked for a posted qualifier explaining that the item was not written by Clooney but was a compilation of quotes from past interviews with Larry King and The Guardian.

Is this Arianna's idea of Freedom of speech?

Randy "Duke" Cunningham Proves Pappy Boyington Right!

Lt Col. Greg "Pappy" Boyington, unarguably one of our greatest fighter pilots, is known for closing his memoirs with the quote:

"If this story were to have a moral, then I would say, 'Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum.'"

Today, another great fighter pilot proved the theory.  I am sorry to say it is not a proud day for a legend in naval aviation. [source]

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges and tearfully resigned from office, admitting he took $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to conspirators.

Why Duke?!  Damn it! this is why ethics are important!  People need to be able to "Keep the Faith!" Something all Naval  Aviators are well versed in.  Americans are having enough trouble trusting elected officials, these types of careless actions do nothing but exacerbate an already bad reputation.  Do all politicians think that Scruples is a disease that they need a vaccine for?

I guess for some...

Flag Burning and My Discomfort

I do not like when the American Flag is burned in protest, nor do I care that much for those who choose to take this action to make their displeasure with America (and Americans) known to the world through such means. However I find myself somewhat uncomfortable with the direction our legislative branch is taking on this very issue. 

You burn an American flag in front of me and you better damned well be prepared to face some consequences, and for as nonviolent of a person as I am, this is one action I am want for restraint.  Burning an American flag is NOT, in my belief, a statement against our government or sitting political party, rather it is a statement against all that we as Americans believe in as a people, and have fought for as a country.  And as such is an affront to all Americans (Left-Right-Conservative-Liberal).

Having said that, I am not a big fan of mandating "Proper Behavior in Expression,"  and I hold the first amendment of the US Constitution in very high regard.  I do not want a government of the people, by the people and for the people to say how we can voice our grievances against what we may see as injustice.  Yes it breaks my heart when I see someone burning an American flag, especially when that individual enjoys all of the rights that symbol represents.  And I cannot reasonably fathom why I would ever be compelled to take such action.  It astounds me when other Americans do, just because they don't like who was elected president... pitiful! The caption on this photo, I think, illustrates my point,

"AP Photo: A protester burns an American flag to protest President Bush's second inauguration during a march in downtown Portland, Ore., in this Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005 file photo.."

I think, however it is a bit of a slippery slope when government starts to decide for us what can and cannot be used in protest.

When someone burns a flag all they illustrate is their complete contempt for the symbolism the flag holds.  They are eliciting a desired response from those of us who see more in the Stars and Stripes than they do.  To me, they are simply illustrating their blatant disregard for respect and proper decorum and because of their choice in this action have degraded their argument that much more.

Why give them credit by passing a constitutional amendment prohibiting such desecration.  You want to see how many flags get burned after such an amendment passes?  And how much press coverage the idiots responsible receive?  And how much emotional blood will be shed (literally and figuratively) by one American to another? I don't.  It's bad enough when our sworn enemies desecrate our flag as a stab against Americans, its worse when a group of Americans do it as a statement of displeasure against the decisions of our government. 

I say screw it!  Let the morons go ahead and burn the flag, it only helps to identify those who do not fully grasp the concept of what America is, they are takers, not givers... they are selfish not gregarious.

You burn a flag in front of me, and yes I'll probably be the one in the county jail.  I'll have the societal sympathy of literally thousands along with their praise for doing what they probably wanted to do, but it wouldn't make either of our actions right or just.  Just as the actions of our national legislature will have the praise of literally millions, but it doesn't make it right or just.

Freedom of expression is exactly what that flag represents, and to prohibit expression (as painful as it may be) does a dis-service to us all as Americans.

Does Illegal Immigration Cost Lives

President Vicente Fox said he would lodge a diplomatic complaint, and was considering complaints to multilateral bodies if Mexico could not unable to resolve the problem bilaterally.

Was this quote in regard to the possibility of Mexico having to extradite a suspected Police Killer?  Nope.

Mexico has reacted furiously to a bill signed into law by the US this week that would fund a border wall and prevent illegal Mexican migrants from obtaining US driving licenses. Financial Times

As much as I hesitate jumping into this debate due to the impending inexcusable overtones and extremely inaccurate accusations of racism, I'm going to anyway.   In Denver today we laid to rest a police officer, Donald R. Young, who was shot numerous times in the back while serving in an off-duty capacity at a party.

The prime suspect in the shooting is 19-year-old Raul Garcia Gomez (And I am posting his photo here to serve as another opportunity to help find this guy) on the run and believed to now be in the Los Angeles area, and it is possible he has fled to Mexico.

This brings me to the gist of this post.  Raul Garcia Gomez is believed to be an Illegal Alien in the United States.  This has ignited a firestorm of debate in Colorado about the apparent lack of concern over the growing population of those who are able to enter our country illegally, and then commit crimes against our society.  (Fortunately, the majority of illegals in this country do not fall into this category and are good, moral individuals drawn illegally to the shining light of opportunity the Unites States has to offer.)

If he is not a legal resident (or citizen) of the United States, he must be a citizen of another country, that country in this case is presumably Mexico.  So working from that presumption, he is a Mexican National.  Assuming that Raul Garcia Gomez has indeed found his way back into Mexico (which again says something about our border security) and is subsequently captured by the local officials, it has been publicly stated that Mexico will not extradite him back to the United States (more specifically Colorado) for trial due to the fact that murder in Colorado is a Capital Crime in which punishment, if convicted, could include the death penalty (and yes there are many here in Colorado who actually celebrate this stance, I do not).

My question to Mexico is...  If he were not a citizen of Mexico, say he was a US Citizen, would you extradite him to face a trial?  If the answer remains "no" then I submit Mexico is no friend to the United States.  Especially if it does not support our trying suspects in a court of law under the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.  The penalty of which should be irrelevant!  It is not like we are issuing the death penalty for parking violations here in the United States, we execute violent criminals convicted in a court of law by their peers and duly sentenced.

Here is the problem with Mexico harboring capital crime suspects; it creates a haven for the most violent in our society to escape the ultimate punishment our system currently provides for.  Message... Commit murder?  Better run to Mexico!...  Kill a police officer?  Better run to Mexico!... Kill two 9 year old girls by stabbing them numerous times?  Should have run to Mexico!

I'll tell you what!  You can have 'em, keep 'em for all I care.  But don't be surprised when your country's reputation for lawlessness and corruption increases even more from the unfortunate reputation it possesses today.  Fortunately the United States will probably reap the benefits of the misjudgment, as more self-respecting, tired of the corruption, morally stable, good people find their way through the sieve we call a border to live a better life.

Remind me again what type of person is headed which way across the border?

Don't misunderstand me, Mexico is a beautiful country with beautiful people who have created a wonderful culture, and that is the reputation Mexico should have globally.  But with reckless and careless attitudes toward the United States' security and criminal justice system, trouble is afoot.

I would submit we offer an easier method for credentialing those who want to come across the border and work for a good wage here in the US.  I still very much believe we are the land of opportunity, and I certainly understand the drive many from Mexico have to make a better life for themselves here in the United States.  I just want them to do it legally!  File the paperwork!  We need to know who you are for our and your own security.

The United States is a sovereign Nation and we have the absolute right (if not duty!) to protect our borders.  Other countries across the world have much more secure borders and much more restrictive immigration laws but receive significantly less grief from others in the world community than the United States.  Well it's time it stopped!

In closing, to see how perverted this discussion can get: I overheard a conversation this afternoon where it was proposed to increase the penalty for being an illegal alien in the United States to the level of a Capital Crime.  Then those guilty of the crime would flee to the sanctuary of  Mexico!  And Mexico then would not send them back across the border!

Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

NBC's 'Fear Factor' Sued for Rat-Eating Episode...

Well it’s about time this happened!  I have been wondering how long it would take before reading about some poor traumatized soul came forth and sued Fear Factor for duress.  But this one caught me completely off guard!  And it should not have.

In the review of the Apollo 1 fire that killed Astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, and Ed White, it was stated that one of the underlying failures contributing to the accident, was “Failure of the Imagination.”  No one ever thought that in a high pressure oxygen environment test on the launch pad at Kennedy Space Flight Center, something would go terribly wrong and kill 3 of America’s finest aviators.

Well, I just suffered a failure of my imagination.  When I first read this Reuters headline, NBC's 'Fear Factor' Sued for Rat-Eating Episode, I thought, “Duh! Some dumbass contestant didn’t read the fine print in the liability release they no doubt have to sign in sextuplet!”  Boy was I wrong!  And when you read the following, I’m sure you’ll think the very same thing…

NBC's 'Fear Factor' Sued for Rat-Eating Episode

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Watching contestants eat dead rats on NBC's gross-out stunt show "Fear Factor" so disgusted a Cleveland man that he has sued NBC for $2.5 million, saying he could not stomach what he saw.

In a handwritten four-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Cleveland on Tuesday, paralegal Austin Aitken said, "To have the individuals on the show eat (yes) and drink dead rats was crazy and from a viewer's point of view made me throw-up as well an another (sic sic) in the house at the same time."

His suit added, "NBC is sending the wrong message to its TV watchers that cash can make or have people do just about anything beyond reasoning (sic) and in most cases against their will."

He said the show caused his blood pressure to rise so high that he became dizzy and light-headed, and when he ran away to his room, he bumped his head into the doorway.

In a brief telephone interview with Reuters, Aitken said, "I am not at liberty to discuss the complaint unless it is a paid-interview situation."

A spokesman for "Fear Factor" said the show would have no comment until it sees a copy of the complaint. The spokesman said the program did feature an rat-eating scene in New York's Times Square on Nov. 8.

Over the years, contestants on the program have eaten some weird things, including ground-up spiders and live worms.

Reuters/VNU

Everyday I lose just that much more faith in the competency of the American psyche.  PLEASE! Judge, whoever you are, throw this so far out of court that it can sustain its own orbit around the earth.  This type of contrived “Victimization” is bringing all of us down, and the fact that a complaint like this might even begin to see the florescent light of a courtroom is, in its own right, contemptuous.

Fear Factor isn’t Austin’s problem, the list of what apparently is… is so amazingly long, Steven Hawkins would have trouble contemplating it.  But high on that list would have to be that he’s watching too much Jerry Springer!

Fear Factor is no worse than any survival school attended by US military personnel to condition them for the brutal reality of living off the land with what is available.  And our armed forces do not get paid an additional $50,000 dollars for completing this training.  I’ll admit to watching an episode or two and even being somewhat amazed at what the producers could come up with to titillate and yes disgust the viewer, not to mention the participant.

But this complaint is so ludicrous and flagrantly frivolous it tends toward surreal.  Look at the major points of the complaint (my comments alpha-noted):

1.       To have the individuals on the show eat (yes) and drink dead rats was crazy and from a viewer's point of view made me throw-up as well an another in the house at the same time.

a.       Change the Damn Channel!

b.       It’s what this show is all about!

c.       Not “Crazy”… Disgusting? maybe… Delicacy!...in many parts of the world.

d.       To justify this complaint would be to justify a member of PETA filing a similar complaint after having watched a McDonalds commercial!  Hell I might even have some empathy for the PETA member (not much mind you!)

2.       NBC is sending the wrong message to its TV watchers that cash can make or have people do just about anything beyond reasoning (sic) and in most cases against their will.

a.       If they’re doing it for money it is certainly not “Against their will.”

b.       NBC sending the message…Cash can make or have people do just about anything beyond reasoning.  Wow accuracy in the media finally!

c.       “Against their will?”—in every episode I have viewed it is clear to me, and I assume the contestants that they can opt out of any “event” by simply saying “Nope, not gunna do it.”

3.       …the show caused his blood pressure to rise so high that he became dizzy and light-headed, and when he ran away to his room, he bumped his head into the doorway

a.       God please don’t ever watch “Girls Gone Wild!” if this is your response to rat eating!

b.       So if you ran to your room… do we even want to know where you “Threw-up?”

c.       Bumped your head huh?  No Dain Brammage suffered obviously! Klutz!

4.       “I am not at liberty to discuss the complaint unless it is a paid-interview situation.”

a.       Well that says it all, now doesn’t it!

The smartest statement made in this article came from the spokesman for Fear Factor, “No Comment.”

The scariest statement made in this article is, “In a handwritten four-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Cleveland on Tuesday, paralegal Austin Aitken said…”

The American Legal Education System at its finest!