The Talking Dog

May 17, 2010, I just don't think it's fair to condemn a whole program because of one slip up

We'll start with the absolute outrage of that Trump having the audacity to name a Muz-lim as Miss U.S.A. this HuffPo piece by former GTMO Chief Prosecutor and current gad-fly retired Colonel Morris Davis in which he likens the win-loss record of (my fellow Columbia College alumni) Barack Obama and Eric Holder in Guantanamo detainee habeas corpus actions (13 wins against 35 losses) to the win-loss record of ousted Redskins coach Jim Zorn (a comparable percentage at 4 wins/12 losses). Col. Davis goes further, and ties in the recent "liquidation of enemies of the state because the President decides they have ties to terrrrrrrorism" doctrine, and notes that we don't really want a government that actually manages to get its guilt determinations wrong most of the time the "right" to off citizens without due process of law of any kind (let alone a trial finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). Well, I don't want such a government; the rest of youse people should think good and carefully if you do.

We'll juxtapose this with a pair of Supreme Court decisions today,. One of those decisions struck down as Eighth Amendment violations of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment of the punishment by the majority of states of juveniles who were guilty of being in Florida while Blackfor non-homicide crimes which were punished by life without parole. (Justice Stevens noted that the Court, unlike Justice Thomas, did not believe that the death penalty was appropriate for a seven year old found stealing $50). The other decision permitted states to extend (up to forever) the sentences of sex offenders via the dodge that the sex offenders were "mentally ill", and so finding by a standard less rigorous than "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Many states have opted to do this kind of thing, because their legislatures didn't have the cojones to do with adult sex offenders what they would do with Black "violent" juveniles, and impose a throw-away-the-key life sentence for sexual assaults, instead imposing a seemingly "more proportional" sentence (thus still managing to treat crimes against women as a joke)... but, well, you know... sex offenders... you know... they suck. So screw them if they think that just because they have served their stated debt to society, they can get out of jail.

Because, you see, like terrrrrorists (and let's face it, Muz-lums and furriners in general-- specially them Mexicans), these sex offenders might do something really bad any minute. So... best trust that Government of ours to protect us by eliminating any of us who might cause trouble. You know: to keep us safe. Does this make sense?

Only to our put-upon, obese, over-medicated countrymen, I suppose. Because I think it's kind of, well, insane. But that's just me.