Teacher uses racial epithet towards student
This guy is killing me. He's like an alcoholic making a toast by taking vodka shots to abstaining from alcohol.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
Call for Reform in Juvenile Adjudication
There are about 200,000 juveniles under the age of 18 that are currently in the adult justice system. This number is up over 200% from the average in the 1990's. Children as young as 14 and 15 are being put in adult penetentaries with adult criminal. What's shocking is that a report released by the Campaign for Youth Justice showed that the majority of teens in the adult system were convicted of non-violent offenses. So finally, many states are thinking about reforming their juvenille correctional system to ensure that non-violent juvenille offenders are not treated the same and placed with adult men and women.
In most cases, I cannot even blame the Judges for sending the children to adult penitentiaries. Many states have laws passed that mandates when certain offenses are committed or when a teenager is a certain age, that they must be tried as an adult. Connecticut is a perfect example. Children, 15 and older are tried as adults in all cases with no exception. How this law passed is beyond me, but I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of 15 year olds who had to go into the adult system, came out a more hardened criminal then they ever would have in the juvenille system. A young 15 year old who has only committed small petty theft, or any other related non-violent offense will go into the system a boy, but come out a knowledgeable and more than likely, career criminal.
These types of laws reflects the government's disconcern with actually rehabilitating convicts that go into the system so that they may become more productive citizens upon release. As a result, reform tends to lean towards harsher punishment to deter crimes, instead of focusing on keeping the ones in jail from actually committing crime again. What this does is gives a false comfortability of crime rates decrease, but not because more people are necessarily being deterred from crimes, but because they are taking a large percentage of people off the streets in general. In order to deter crime and keep the rates down, sentencing gets longer, punishment for crimes become more stern so the criminals just end up staying in the system longer. The number of people encarcerated steadily continues rise to the point where a significant amount of the state population is encarcerated. This not only puts a pressure on the state systems economic expenses of housing, feeding, and guarding convicts, but also strains the general economy of the state by taking people out of the workforce, disallowing them to vote in the political system, and in so many words- ostricizing the people from participation in mainstream society. Assuming that every convict would otherwise be a productive members of society, that could be hundreds of thousands of people, primarily men, doing something more productive like; supporting a family, paying taxes, and maintaining a job. Without any type of rehabilitory measures, the cost of prison systems become more burdensome on the state budget and the whole economy suffers because young working age potential labor are taken out of society.
Don't get me wrong, I would agree that there are people under the age of 18 that should not only be tried as adults for their offenses, but should also be kept in prison for as long as possible, but that is only for the most eggregious crimes like murder and rape. 15, even 17 year old boys and girls that are being tried as adults for stealing someone's gym shoes is too much when they are being put in prison with 40 year old murderers. Those children may have committed crimes, but that does not mean that they do not deserve any rights. Juvenile violators rights should be protected just as much as any other individual, maybe even more because their rights are at a much greater risk to begin with. Adult prisons place young teenagers at risk for psychological, physical, and emotional abuse that can disallow them to ever be of use to our society, guaranteeing they will be psychologically damaged for life. But it doesn't end there, because disturbed teenagers eventually become disturbed adults who have kids, and more often then not, the cycle of violence, crime, and abuse is continued and perpetuated. Reform will not only help those kids that are going to jail for petty crimes, but will actually benefit the moral fabric of our society as a whole. This also means that if we ignore reform it can have the adverse effect, which bodes ill for a society who's moral fabric is on the brink of unravelling already.
In most cases, I cannot even blame the Judges for sending the children to adult penitentiaries. Many states have laws passed that mandates when certain offenses are committed or when a teenager is a certain age, that they must be tried as an adult. Connecticut is a perfect example. Children, 15 and older are tried as adults in all cases with no exception. How this law passed is beyond me, but I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of 15 year olds who had to go into the adult system, came out a more hardened criminal then they ever would have in the juvenille system. A young 15 year old who has only committed small petty theft, or any other related non-violent offense will go into the system a boy, but come out a knowledgeable and more than likely, career criminal.
These types of laws reflects the government's disconcern with actually rehabilitating convicts that go into the system so that they may become more productive citizens upon release. As a result, reform tends to lean towards harsher punishment to deter crimes, instead of focusing on keeping the ones in jail from actually committing crime again. What this does is gives a false comfortability of crime rates decrease, but not because more people are necessarily being deterred from crimes, but because they are taking a large percentage of people off the streets in general. In order to deter crime and keep the rates down, sentencing gets longer, punishment for crimes become more stern so the criminals just end up staying in the system longer. The number of people encarcerated steadily continues rise to the point where a significant amount of the state population is encarcerated. This not only puts a pressure on the state systems economic expenses of housing, feeding, and guarding convicts, but also strains the general economy of the state by taking people out of the workforce, disallowing them to vote in the political system, and in so many words- ostricizing the people from participation in mainstream society. Assuming that every convict would otherwise be a productive members of society, that could be hundreds of thousands of people, primarily men, doing something more productive like; supporting a family, paying taxes, and maintaining a job. Without any type of rehabilitory measures, the cost of prison systems become more burdensome on the state budget and the whole economy suffers because young working age potential labor are taken out of society.
Don't get me wrong, I would agree that there are people under the age of 18 that should not only be tried as adults for their offenses, but should also be kept in prison for as long as possible, but that is only for the most eggregious crimes like murder and rape. 15, even 17 year old boys and girls that are being tried as adults for stealing someone's gym shoes is too much when they are being put in prison with 40 year old murderers. Those children may have committed crimes, but that does not mean that they do not deserve any rights. Juvenile violators rights should be protected just as much as any other individual, maybe even more because their rights are at a much greater risk to begin with. Adult prisons place young teenagers at risk for psychological, physical, and emotional abuse that can disallow them to ever be of use to our society, guaranteeing they will be psychologically damaged for life. But it doesn't end there, because disturbed teenagers eventually become disturbed adults who have kids, and more often then not, the cycle of violence, crime, and abuse is continued and perpetuated. Reform will not only help those kids that are going to jail for petty crimes, but will actually benefit the moral fabric of our society as a whole. This also means that if we ignore reform it can have the adverse effect, which bodes ill for a society who's moral fabric is on the brink of unravelling already.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
I've Been Saying this for Years...
...but I am really going to move to Canada. Yesterday, as I was searching through the latest news online in Edmonton, I do this on a regular basis of course, something I had never seen before caught my eyes—the words cop and convicted were sitting seamlessly next to each other in an article title like ebony and ivory on a keyboard, and I swear the clouds opened and the chorus from Handel's Messiah played from the heavens, or maybe it was the audio from a pop up on the side of the page. Nonetheless, there was still a special feeling from reading "Taser Cop Convicted of Assault".
The story is that a Canadian provincial court Judge, ruled that Const. Aubrey Zalaski was unjustified and used excessive force when he tased Paul Cetinski Jr. twice after jaywalking across a street one day in Edmonton, Canada. Apparently, Cetinski was in a bitter custody dispute and was in a rush to return his toddler to the mother, as well as in a rush to go to the bathroom. Cetinski jaywalked across the street, Officer Zalaski saw him and told him, "Ever heard of cross walk". Cetinski ignored him, so Officer Zalaski followed him into a building and walked him back to his cruiser. Cetinski was less than compliant but did not pose any type of physical threat, but turned towards the officer in surprise when he suddenly felt handcuffs on his wrists, thats when the Officer stepped back and shot him with the taser twice.
So common sense tells me that this officer was overreacting when he shot the taser at Cetinski, who was never even charged with anything, and that the officer should be punished for his actions. But I was shocked to discover that the Canadian provincial court agrees with me! I have no faith in the American Justice system to find such a just ruling. In the U.S. we have a culture of not making officers take responsibility for their actions in the court of law which increasingly allows cops to make decisions with lethal weapons without thinking of results or consequences of their actions. In my blog entries I have written about instance after instance of some of the most eggregious cases of police misconduct with no repercussions of any sort. If the government fails to prosecute or do anything about even the most brazen acts of police misconduct, it makes me wonder how many day to day offenses in America go unpunished.
Unlike the U.S. the Edmonton Officer was not only convicted of assault, but now faces a sentence as harsh as 10 years in prison for his actions. If it wasn't there already, I am sure this conviction will send a strong message to officers in the community that the rights of citizens are taken seriously in the city of Edmonton, that the city will not support unwarranted uses of force by officers who are trained to act responsibly, and that the punishment for excessive force will be just as any other citizen's offense would be.
I should only dream for such a stance on citizen's rights against officers in this country. I'm sure in a U.S. court of law, the judge would have ruled that the officer used an appropriate amount of force given the circumstances, which is a scary proposition because the circumstances in which the officer tasered someone until the man defecated in his pants, was for turning around in surprise after handcuffs were being placed on him for jaywalking. Isn't apart of the circumstance the actual offense? Who wouldn't turn around and look at the officer a little cock-eyed for getting arrested for jaywalking? Even with the resistance that the man put up against the officer, it was never a physical resistance, and in fact the Judge classified Cetinski as a passive resister that Officer Zalaski should have been able to handle without the use of a weapon.
If the Officer had not been punished, and the Judge ruled that the act was justified, there would be no barrier for circumstances of when Officers can use a taser. It would expand what type of force in any circumstance an officer can use without penalty. The circumstances could be as minimal as a traffic violation, or even loitering if you give the cop enough lip. That is exactly what happened in the ucla taser video where a student was tased multiple times for an incident that started with him not showing a school I.D. in the library. The Officer's explanation for tasering the student 5 times is that he refused to stand up.
I realize to some people, the traffic stop incident, the UCLA taser incident and this incident with Officer Zalaski may seem justified, because in all cases the suspect offered resistance, albeit passive resistance, against the officers and the taser is an easy and safer way to force compliance than a firearm. But people tend to forget that tasers are deadly weapons as well. Shooting 50,000 volts of electricity through your body because you didn't use the crosswalk not only sounds like an excessive use of force, it can be deadly. In some cases tasers have killed people. So for those who think that using a taser was appropriate for Mr. Cetinski, do you think he should have died because he didn't use the crosswalk? No one deserves to be killed by the police for not showing a school I.D. or for speeding on the highway, but every time an officer opts to use their taser to quickly end a situation they take that chance.
The story is that a Canadian provincial court Judge, ruled that Const. Aubrey Zalaski was unjustified and used excessive force when he tased Paul Cetinski Jr. twice after jaywalking across a street one day in Edmonton, Canada. Apparently, Cetinski was in a bitter custody dispute and was in a rush to return his toddler to the mother, as well as in a rush to go to the bathroom. Cetinski jaywalked across the street, Officer Zalaski saw him and told him, "Ever heard of cross walk". Cetinski ignored him, so Officer Zalaski followed him into a building and walked him back to his cruiser. Cetinski was less than compliant but did not pose any type of physical threat, but turned towards the officer in surprise when he suddenly felt handcuffs on his wrists, thats when the Officer stepped back and shot him with the taser twice.
So common sense tells me that this officer was overreacting when he shot the taser at Cetinski, who was never even charged with anything, and that the officer should be punished for his actions. But I was shocked to discover that the Canadian provincial court agrees with me! I have no faith in the American Justice system to find such a just ruling. In the U.S. we have a culture of not making officers take responsibility for their actions in the court of law which increasingly allows cops to make decisions with lethal weapons without thinking of results or consequences of their actions. In my blog entries I have written about instance after instance of some of the most eggregious cases of police misconduct with no repercussions of any sort. If the government fails to prosecute or do anything about even the most brazen acts of police misconduct, it makes me wonder how many day to day offenses in America go unpunished.
Unlike the U.S. the Edmonton Officer was not only convicted of assault, but now faces a sentence as harsh as 10 years in prison for his actions. If it wasn't there already, I am sure this conviction will send a strong message to officers in the community that the rights of citizens are taken seriously in the city of Edmonton, that the city will not support unwarranted uses of force by officers who are trained to act responsibly, and that the punishment for excessive force will be just as any other citizen's offense would be.
I should only dream for such a stance on citizen's rights against officers in this country. I'm sure in a U.S. court of law, the judge would have ruled that the officer used an appropriate amount of force given the circumstances, which is a scary proposition because the circumstances in which the officer tasered someone until the man defecated in his pants, was for turning around in surprise after handcuffs were being placed on him for jaywalking. Isn't apart of the circumstance the actual offense? Who wouldn't turn around and look at the officer a little cock-eyed for getting arrested for jaywalking? Even with the resistance that the man put up against the officer, it was never a physical resistance, and in fact the Judge classified Cetinski as a passive resister that Officer Zalaski should have been able to handle without the use of a weapon.
If the Officer had not been punished, and the Judge ruled that the act was justified, there would be no barrier for circumstances of when Officers can use a taser. It would expand what type of force in any circumstance an officer can use without penalty. The circumstances could be as minimal as a traffic violation, or even loitering if you give the cop enough lip. That is exactly what happened in the ucla taser video where a student was tased multiple times for an incident that started with him not showing a school I.D. in the library. The Officer's explanation for tasering the student 5 times is that he refused to stand up.
I realize to some people, the traffic stop incident, the UCLA taser incident and this incident with Officer Zalaski may seem justified, because in all cases the suspect offered resistance, albeit passive resistance, against the officers and the taser is an easy and safer way to force compliance than a firearm. But people tend to forget that tasers are deadly weapons as well. Shooting 50,000 volts of electricity through your body because you didn't use the crosswalk not only sounds like an excessive use of force, it can be deadly. In some cases tasers have killed people. So for those who think that using a taser was appropriate for Mr. Cetinski, do you think he should have died because he didn't use the crosswalk? No one deserves to be killed by the police for not showing a school I.D. or for speeding on the highway, but every time an officer opts to use their taser to quickly end a situation they take that chance.
Friday, April 27, 2007
America the Crayon Box; A Rant on Racism
You can’t call America a melting pot, we don’t all mix, we don’t all work together for the common good of the soup, and we most certainly don’t taste good together. So I call the U.S. the crayon box instead, because it is true we are the most diverse nation in the world, it is just that we still don’t mix. We are like the crayons in the box, individually wrapped and labeled our respective colors, and are “damn proud of it.” So we never get as much of an opportunity to get to know the colors next to us, or try to imagine ourselves in the wrapping of another color. Even the times when colors do mix, it generally just makes a whole new color, which then gets their very own wrapping, and a brand new label. Most of the times we lose site of the fact that we are all still, just crayons.
I recently learned about a debate within the young black community over the website niggaspace.com and whether this use of the n word is appropriate, whether it is racist, or whether it is an expression of free speech. This debate has inspired me to write about some things in relation to race that I've been thinking about for a long while now. The first and maybe most controversial thing I believe is that everyone is racist, but I don't mean just a little racist. I think we all start out learning complete racism. How else can you explain teaching little children their "racial" classification as if it made any more difference on who they are than telling them their eye color. When it comes down to it, race just becomes a means of separation for power. It just so happens that here and around the world white becomes the ruling race and black and everything in between become the subservient races. There can never be any equality as long as this paradigm stands because you will only have the capacity to view everything thru the lenses of race, and us vs them rationale. By calling me Black and someone else White, forever differentiates us psychologically, and will impede on both of our abilities to ever empathize with or relate to one another, but is really only masking the simple fact that we are apart of only one human race.
Unfortunately, bickering and spending energy on things as insignificant as what to be called by others is just another thing that seems to divert us from the very essence of racial and class tension causes. By saying the word nigga, will never be a way to reject or confirm whether someone is racists or not. Just like any other word, nigga is still, just a word, as is the same for nigger. That word is only going to mean to us, what we let it mean. I’m sure most people will agree that the most dangerous racists aren't trying to hurt us anymore by calling us niggas or niggers. They wouldn't give us the luxury of being so sure of their poisonous views. Instead they're doing it by becoming the lawmakers, the activists, the elite and putting racism into law and preserving their position as the hegemon in the racial hierarchy.
All you have to look at is how embedded racism is in our legislate, our justice system, even the representation in our executive branch, it is so intertwined within the fabric of our country sometimes I wonder if we will ever be rid of it completely, but then I think about the progress. The civil war, the civil rights era, and many brave individuals have led to victory over the formal institution of slavery and the formal institution of racial discrimination in written law, but we are no where near the end of the battle of fighting the invisible, and as a result, more dangerous informal institution of racism in America. The informal institution is seen all throughout our justice system. It is the explanation why blacks made up over 42% of death row inmates in 2005, but only make up roughly 10% (and declining) of the population of the entire country. It explains why laws like the 3 strikes rule are present in California, or why the penalty for smoking crack cocaine is harsher than for smoking powder cocaine. These laws do not explicitly state any reference to race or any form of discrimination in their language, but is that really necessary if they have the same effect?
I say this rather reluctantly because I think it leads to complacency, but we have taken great strides against racism in the U.S. and I would even agree that we are still progressing. The only thing that scares me is that, the rate of progress is noticeably declining. It must be because people are not as able to see this invisible veil of racism over all of our heads that affect all of our lives, but most negatively, minorities. If you are reading this post and have no idea what I am writing about, I might say it is a good sign that it is difficult for you to see the veil, or recognize the results it has on the minority populations. Hopefully that means that you aren't one of the people consciously keeping the veil over us. But if you do not acknowledge the existence of the racism that is persistent today, and has been since this country's inception, your naivety makes you racist without you even knowing, because if you don't even know, you can't do anything to end it. That goes for anyone, white, black, or brown. If you aren't actively fighting racism, for any reason—fear, ignorance, anything—you are de facto racist, because if you aren't fighting the cycle, you're perpetuating it. Many blacks are racist against themselves, when they portray the negative stereotypes we see in media, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is apart of promoting the stereotypes commercially are the ultimate racists. I'm sure many of you are going to think that this is too idealistic, but I've always been taught if you aim for the stars, you're at least guaranteed to hit something higher than the ground.
I recently learned about a debate within the young black community over the website niggaspace.com and whether this use of the n word is appropriate, whether it is racist, or whether it is an expression of free speech. This debate has inspired me to write about some things in relation to race that I've been thinking about for a long while now. The first and maybe most controversial thing I believe is that everyone is racist, but I don't mean just a little racist. I think we all start out learning complete racism. How else can you explain teaching little children their "racial" classification as if it made any more difference on who they are than telling them their eye color. When it comes down to it, race just becomes a means of separation for power. It just so happens that here and around the world white becomes the ruling race and black and everything in between become the subservient races. There can never be any equality as long as this paradigm stands because you will only have the capacity to view everything thru the lenses of race, and us vs them rationale. By calling me Black and someone else White, forever differentiates us psychologically, and will impede on both of our abilities to ever empathize with or relate to one another, but is really only masking the simple fact that we are apart of only one human race.
Unfortunately, bickering and spending energy on things as insignificant as what to be called by others is just another thing that seems to divert us from the very essence of racial and class tension causes. By saying the word nigga, will never be a way to reject or confirm whether someone is racists or not. Just like any other word, nigga is still, just a word, as is the same for nigger. That word is only going to mean to us, what we let it mean. I’m sure most people will agree that the most dangerous racists aren't trying to hurt us anymore by calling us niggas or niggers. They wouldn't give us the luxury of being so sure of their poisonous views. Instead they're doing it by becoming the lawmakers, the activists, the elite and putting racism into law and preserving their position as the hegemon in the racial hierarchy.
All you have to look at is how embedded racism is in our legislate, our justice system, even the representation in our executive branch, it is so intertwined within the fabric of our country sometimes I wonder if we will ever be rid of it completely, but then I think about the progress. The civil war, the civil rights era, and many brave individuals have led to victory over the formal institution of slavery and the formal institution of racial discrimination in written law, but we are no where near the end of the battle of fighting the invisible, and as a result, more dangerous informal institution of racism in America. The informal institution is seen all throughout our justice system. It is the explanation why blacks made up over 42% of death row inmates in 2005, but only make up roughly 10% (and declining) of the population of the entire country. It explains why laws like the 3 strikes rule are present in California, or why the penalty for smoking crack cocaine is harsher than for smoking powder cocaine. These laws do not explicitly state any reference to race or any form of discrimination in their language, but is that really necessary if they have the same effect?
I say this rather reluctantly because I think it leads to complacency, but we have taken great strides against racism in the U.S. and I would even agree that we are still progressing. The only thing that scares me is that, the rate of progress is noticeably declining. It must be because people are not as able to see this invisible veil of racism over all of our heads that affect all of our lives, but most negatively, minorities. If you are reading this post and have no idea what I am writing about, I might say it is a good sign that it is difficult for you to see the veil, or recognize the results it has on the minority populations. Hopefully that means that you aren't one of the people consciously keeping the veil over us. But if you do not acknowledge the existence of the racism that is persistent today, and has been since this country's inception, your naivety makes you racist without you even knowing, because if you don't even know, you can't do anything to end it. That goes for anyone, white, black, or brown. If you aren't actively fighting racism, for any reason—fear, ignorance, anything—you are de facto racist, because if you aren't fighting the cycle, you're perpetuating it. Many blacks are racist against themselves, when they portray the negative stereotypes we see in media, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who is apart of promoting the stereotypes commercially are the ultimate racists. I'm sure many of you are going to think that this is too idealistic, but I've always been taught if you aim for the stars, you're at least guaranteed to hit something higher than the ground.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Karaoke McCain
So I'm just going to blame this one on technology. When you spend over $400 billion dollars in the department of defense, and the research and development field is getting the largest chunk of that money, it is not surprising that going to war might seems more like playing GI-Joe's with the Iranian kid down the street, rather than deciding the fates of thousands of real, breathing, walking, talking human beings. Even when we see it on television, (because you know they will show it, and you know we will watch)we are not going to think about how many women and children are murdered with each bomb that drops because we will probably be thinking more about how real war compares with the awesome special effects from Saving Private Ryan.
For humanity's sake, I'd like to believe that technology has desensitized us to what warfare does to people. Because we are so far removed from the damage we can do, or because we see it all the time in movies and video games, maybe it just isn't such a big deal anymore to kill or die. Military decisions are made and soldier's lives are being risked by people like presidential hopeful John McCain, who can pleasantly sing about bombing Iran like it is a Beach Boys song. I don't really have a presidential candidate to endorse for this upcoming election, and am still not quite sure who I will even vote for myself, but lets just say I'm not voting for anyone who can't even do a descent Beach Boys impression.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Want to hear a dead baby joke?
The most dangerous situations in the world are when ignorant people get into confrontations with one another, because the probability of something absolutely stupid happening skyrockets. The worst thing about it is that most of the time the ignoramuses that started the conflict are generally the one's least affected by their careless actions.
In Houston, a few ignoramuses got together and managed to make the news. A few days after his wife gave birth to their newborn baby, ignoramus number 1- William Lewis -decided that it was time to take the baby home, and he was going to do so whether the hospital allowed him to or not. A detector on the baby's ankle went off when he tried to leave the hospital so he was stopped, confronted, and ultimately tased by off duty Houston Police Department (HPD) officer, D.M. Boling, or ignoramus number 2. This all happened while the baby was still in Lewis' hands! Of course when Lewis was shocked he lost all control over his muscles and dropped the 2 day old baby, who fell about 2 feet to the concrete floor.
As horrifying as that is to imagine, the pair of fools did not cause much physical damage to the baby. The mother, who chose not to release her name (probably because she didn't want to publicly admit to relations with ignoramus number 1), said that her baby hasn't been the same since, "my baby — she had the shakes real bad. She's not as calm as she was before." But the fact of the matter is the results could have been much worse and that child is lucky not to have received permanent damage or even not to have died from that fall.
So let me break the story down just a little bit for you to truly realize the carelessness of these two men's actions. According to Officer Boling, Lewis made threatening remarks to him that there would be a hostage situation if he is not allowed to leave with the baby. Now I am not a father, but its not hard to emphathize with his outrage towards the hospital for not letting him leave with his newborn, without at least the courtesy to explain to him why. So, his feelings I understand. His actions on the other hand, are a different story. Why would you ever tell anyone that your baby is going to be your hostage if you don't get what you want? As justifiably upset as Lewis was, he placed his baby in direct harm, or at least gave others the perception of harm by making those statements.
The worse thing is, he probably didn't mean them, he was probably just a bit too eager to get his family home and put the baby safely to bed for the first time. But thats still no excuse. Sometimes, especially in regards to your family, you have to look at things logically. So I came up with a few questions for self reflection for ignoramus number 1 that might help him make a wiser choice in a similar situation next time. Was it really necessary to act a damn fool like you did because you couldn't go home ignoramus number 1? Would it have made a great deal of difference if you had made a more rational decision and left in the morning after following the hospital's protocal? I hope you realize the answer to the second question is yes, it would have made a world of difference. You wouldn't have gotten tased, your baby wouldn't have fell on concrete, and you wouldn't be in jail thinking about how your baby is doing.
In Houston, a few ignoramuses got together and managed to make the news. A few days after his wife gave birth to their newborn baby, ignoramus number 1- William Lewis -decided that it was time to take the baby home, and he was going to do so whether the hospital allowed him to or not. A detector on the baby's ankle went off when he tried to leave the hospital so he was stopped, confronted, and ultimately tased by off duty Houston Police Department (HPD) officer, D.M. Boling, or ignoramus number 2. This all happened while the baby was still in Lewis' hands! Of course when Lewis was shocked he lost all control over his muscles and dropped the 2 day old baby, who fell about 2 feet to the concrete floor.
As horrifying as that is to imagine, the pair of fools did not cause much physical damage to the baby. The mother, who chose not to release her name (probably because she didn't want to publicly admit to relations with ignoramus number 1), said that her baby hasn't been the same since, "my baby — she had the shakes real bad. She's not as calm as she was before." But the fact of the matter is the results could have been much worse and that child is lucky not to have received permanent damage or even not to have died from that fall.
So let me break the story down just a little bit for you to truly realize the carelessness of these two men's actions. According to Officer Boling, Lewis made threatening remarks to him that there would be a hostage situation if he is not allowed to leave with the baby. Now I am not a father, but its not hard to emphathize with his outrage towards the hospital for not letting him leave with his newborn, without at least the courtesy to explain to him why. So, his feelings I understand. His actions on the other hand, are a different story. Why would you ever tell anyone that your baby is going to be your hostage if you don't get what you want? As justifiably upset as Lewis was, he placed his baby in direct harm, or at least gave others the perception of harm by making those statements.
The worse thing is, he probably didn't mean them, he was probably just a bit too eager to get his family home and put the baby safely to bed for the first time. But thats still no excuse. Sometimes, especially in regards to your family, you have to look at things logically. So I came up with a few questions for self reflection for ignoramus number 1 that might help him make a wiser choice in a similar situation next time. Was it really necessary to act a damn fool like you did because you couldn't go home ignoramus number 1? Would it have made a great deal of difference if you had made a more rational decision and left in the morning after following the hospital's protocal? I hope you realize the answer to the second question is yes, it would have made a world of difference. You wouldn't have gotten tased, your baby wouldn't have fell on concrete, and you wouldn't be in jail thinking about how your baby is doing.
Thats right folks, Lewis is in jail for the stupidity of his actions. Sometimes the justice system gets it right. But in this case, and most others, they didn't get it all the way right. Of course I agree with charging Lewis with endangerment, its fair to say he endangered his baby and should be punished to deter him from doing anything similar in the future. But what I disagree with, is the fact that he was the only one charged. Ignoramus number 2's hands were certainly not clean of the situation. Officer Boling's actions were also the direct cause of that childs fall. Now to be fair, before I make him eat his spinach, I'll give him a cookie-I realize that his actions were based on the stupidity of ignoramus 1 and if ignoramus 1 had not been stupid to begin with, ignoramus 2 would not have been secondarily stupid. If a man's giving you indications that they may hold a baby hostage, justifiably you shoud try means to get the baby out of the man's hands.But they say the road to dumbass land is paved with good intentions. That scares me, because this particular dumb ass is a member of Houston's finest, one of the few men and women given the authority and responsibility to protect and to serve. They are trained in how to properly use their weapons, what the affects of using their weapons are, and when the use of the weapon is appropriate, and he still decided to tase a man holding a baby! He knew that once the man was tased, the father wouldn't be able to control his muscles, but ignoramus number 2 still thought it was a good idea to just let the baby fall to the ground. There was no reason he could not detain the man or at least keep the man from fleeing with the baby until the on duty police could respond and handle the situation a little more logically, and with a few more numbers. And what laws did Lewis break? I'm fairly sure that hospital protocal does not constitute any type of state or federal code, actions as drastic as tasing the man for trying to leave with his own child seem to be a bit outside the realm of hospital security, even if he is an off-duty officer. If he thought his actions in that situation were justified, then I'm inclined to believe that the only that stopped him from shooting the guy point blank, is that the taser was closer to reach for on his utility belt.
Officer ignoramus, you are a member of the Houston Police Department, and as such you are held to a higher standard of decision making even in the most tense and dangerous situations. Regularly citizens can afford to be irrationale, but you can't, your life and others depend on it. So I compiled a few questions for you to self reflect on, and hopefully they will deter you from making the same mistake in the future. Why would you send 50,000 volts of electricity through a man holding a baby and not account for whats going to happen to the baby? Did you really feel you were protecting the baby's life by doing what you did, or where you more concerned with upholding the blind and just laws of the hospital? Finally, would you have really felt you did something to help the child if the newborn ended up with brain damage from you choosing to tase the father?
Everyone is entitled to a little stupidity in their lives. Some decision they can look back on and say "Man was that stupid". NO one is entitled to this when a baby's future is what your putting at risk. Ignoramus number 2, I hope this family realizes real soon that you were negligent for what you did and then sues you. Ignoramus number 1, I hope your child grows up to be big and strong and then slaps the ash off your lips for what you did and says "now we're even".
Monday, April 2, 2007
American History Gone South
History has never been able to make me sick to my stomach before, but the Georgia resolution to pass the "Confederate History and Heritage Month" left my stomach with the same queezy impression as last night's big bean burrito-it didn't sit well.
Its not so much the fact that confederacy represents the institution of slavery. Its not even the fact that the state senate doesn't seem to see anything wrong with learning about the South's spirited efforts to maintain their right to institutional oppression that even upsets me.
It's the fact that they want to celebrate it.
Georgia was of course one of the proud slaveowning states in the union in the 18th and 19th centuries, and like any other southern state of that time, they felt it was their God given right to buy people, sell them, rape them, beat them, and most importantly, work them to death and reap the benefits. They felt so strongly, that they were willing to take up arms against the Godless North to protect that right, in a war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died nobly, in the name of confederacy.
So why wouldn't they want to commemorate that heritage? Why shouldn't little white boys and little black girls celebrate the proud confederate heritage of their past?
Maybe because calling it confederate heritage month tends to characterize an era in our history plagued with violently racist politics and exploitative economics, as more of a month long celebration or some type of jubilant extravaganza. It makes me sick to commemorate a group that represented a philosophy that caused death and destruction to my family. It's left me, and nearly all who look like me, to be born into this world without a distinct and proud family history, without any sense of self-worth.
Walter C. Jones of the Morris News Service when writing his article about the proposed month said that for many native southerners, the Confederate era represented a time of gentility, chivalry, and the deaths of over 30,000 Georgians.
I personally don’t care how many soldiers died, if it was for preserving the Confederate era of gentility, chivalry… oh and slavery. These people gave their lives to keep my people oppressed!! How am I supposed to seriously honor their deaths, when it takes all my mustard not to smile at the thought of it?
Everyone that willingly fought for the South; that fought for the noble cause of state’s rights and better representation, and chivalry, and gentility, and southern hospitality, as far as I’m concerned dropped the ball when they fought for slavery too.
Jones’ description epitomizes what I fear may occur if this resolution had passed—all the positives, admirable acts, and heroic figures will be included in the commemoration, but the ugly, negative aspects, the reasons why I loath the confederate era, will be discarded and eventually forgotten.
I’d be more inclined to agree with him if he added that the Confederate era was also a time of ignorance, and slavery, but he didn’t, and I guarantee the Georgia state legislature wouldn’t have either.
The is the same assembly, that when the idea was brought to them recently to issue a formal apology or statement of regret, the state NAACP chapter couldn’t find support to even get a resolution on the floor, but it wasn’t difficult to get a bill up for vote to praise the Confederacy, the driving force behind slavery.
Georgia State Sen. Jeff Mullis stated in response to an apology resolution that “If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize”.
If it’s his position that as a state official, he personally needs to have done something to agree to an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia, he should have the same logic for the Confederate Heritage Month.
He didn’t personally have anything to do with planning or participating in the confederate rebellion, yet he was the Senator that introduced the Confederate Heritage Bill.
It’s ironic that Sen. Mullis wants to take claim for the Confederate Heritage Month as apart of his history, but cannot apologize for slavery in the state when it is apart of his history as well. It really makes no difference whether he was personally involved with slavery or not, Georgia was involved, and as a public official of Georgia it is his duty publicly recognize how this state has decimated the future of generations of people to this day because of slavery.
I said earlier that I have never gotten sick from history, unfortunately, there’s a first for everything.
Its not so much the fact that confederacy represents the institution of slavery. Its not even the fact that the state senate doesn't seem to see anything wrong with learning about the South's spirited efforts to maintain their right to institutional oppression that even upsets me.
It's the fact that they want to celebrate it.
Georgia was of course one of the proud slaveowning states in the union in the 18th and 19th centuries, and like any other southern state of that time, they felt it was their God given right to buy people, sell them, rape them, beat them, and most importantly, work them to death and reap the benefits. They felt so strongly, that they were willing to take up arms against the Godless North to protect that right, in a war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died nobly, in the name of confederacy.
So why wouldn't they want to commemorate that heritage? Why shouldn't little white boys and little black girls celebrate the proud confederate heritage of their past?
Maybe because calling it confederate heritage month tends to characterize an era in our history plagued with violently racist politics and exploitative economics, as more of a month long celebration or some type of jubilant extravaganza. It makes me sick to commemorate a group that represented a philosophy that caused death and destruction to my family. It's left me, and nearly all who look like me, to be born into this world without a distinct and proud family history, without any sense of self-worth.
Walter C. Jones of the Morris News Service when writing his article about the proposed month said that for many native southerners, the Confederate era represented a time of gentility, chivalry, and the deaths of over 30,000 Georgians.
I personally don’t care how many soldiers died, if it was for preserving the Confederate era of gentility, chivalry… oh and slavery. These people gave their lives to keep my people oppressed!! How am I supposed to seriously honor their deaths, when it takes all my mustard not to smile at the thought of it?
Everyone that willingly fought for the South; that fought for the noble cause of state’s rights and better representation, and chivalry, and gentility, and southern hospitality, as far as I’m concerned dropped the ball when they fought for slavery too.
Jones’ description epitomizes what I fear may occur if this resolution had passed—all the positives, admirable acts, and heroic figures will be included in the commemoration, but the ugly, negative aspects, the reasons why I loath the confederate era, will be discarded and eventually forgotten.
I’d be more inclined to agree with him if he added that the Confederate era was also a time of ignorance, and slavery, but he didn’t, and I guarantee the Georgia state legislature wouldn’t have either.
The is the same assembly, that when the idea was brought to them recently to issue a formal apology or statement of regret, the state NAACP chapter couldn’t find support to even get a resolution on the floor, but it wasn’t difficult to get a bill up for vote to praise the Confederacy, the driving force behind slavery.
Georgia State Sen. Jeff Mullis stated in response to an apology resolution that “If I had done something personally, yes, I would apologize”.
If it’s his position that as a state official, he personally needs to have done something to agree to an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia, he should have the same logic for the Confederate Heritage Month.
He didn’t personally have anything to do with planning or participating in the confederate rebellion, yet he was the Senator that introduced the Confederate Heritage Bill.
It’s ironic that Sen. Mullis wants to take claim for the Confederate Heritage Month as apart of his history, but cannot apologize for slavery in the state when it is apart of his history as well. It really makes no difference whether he was personally involved with slavery or not, Georgia was involved, and as a public official of Georgia it is his duty publicly recognize how this state has decimated the future of generations of people to this day because of slavery.
I said earlier that I have never gotten sick from history, unfortunately, there’s a first for everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
