Taxes: If They Do the Crime, Make Them Do the Time

Tax Cheats in America

THE TAX MAN COMETH - You may not like taxes. You may not like what your taxes pay for. But, one thing is for certain; if scofflaws can settle for 'pennies on the dollar' you and are the ones picking up their tab.

Americans like to trumpet the belief that we’re a “nation of laws”. Unfortunately, our laws are unevenly enforced when enforced at all. Congress churns out dozens of laws every year, while at the same time, guaranteeing they’ll fail by not budgeting for enforcement. Tea partiers like to say that most corporate laws constitute “over-regulation”. However, one could make a reasonable case that we don’t over-regulate, we under-enforce – and a law unenforced is no law at all.

Continue reading


The Battle Over South Dakota’s Justified Homicide Bill

South Dakota‘s proposed “justified homicide bill” has been withdrawn for the time being, but don’t be surprised if it returns like cow flop on a South Dakota rancher’s boots.

What’s the controversy? Read from the bill for yourself, “Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.”

Some proponents of the bill, including bill sponsor and anti-abortion advocate Rep. Phil Jensen (R-South WTFistan), claim the bill has nothing to do with abortion. Opponents, and even some advocates believe that’s hogwash – and if you can read, that seems a reasonable interpretation – and doubt that it’s legally sound.

Legal wrangles over abortion have gone non-stop since Roe v. Wade became the basis for the law of the land, but the nation rarely looks at the pretzel logic behind the legality debate.

Pro-lifers often argue a fetus is a full-blown human being and that it’s justified, if not morally correct, to perform a sort of vigilante capital punishment on abortion providers because they’re “murderers”. So if self-appointed juries can mete out capital punishment for “murdering” abortion providers, how can many of those same people support state-sponsored capital punishment.

Even if one wraps themselves in the cloak of religion, how’s it possible to cite the 6th commandment without caveat – Thou shalt not kill – as the basis for killing an abortionist while ignoring it when a capital criminal walks the Green Mile?

And for the record, pro-lifers could reverse this tangle of law and morality to bash the other side. After all, why is it OK for pro-choice advocates to argue it’s OK to terminate a pregnancy, but are equally inflamed about abolishing capital punishment.

The legality of this issue is valid, but it’s a dicey legal case that’s spread beyond just the courtroom. For years, both sides have short-sightedly used Roe v. Wade as a one-issue litmus test for judge approval to the exclusion of all other issues. Judges should be made up of more than this one issue.

Abortion is a tough nut, a moral and legal tangle whipped raw by high emotion. There’s no perfect answer because it isn’t a zero sum issue with a clear winner or loser – no matter how much the opponents and proponents wish it would be.

Perhaps we’d all be better off to step back and think about this a little more dispassionately instead of counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pinhead.

Or, a South Dakota legislator.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Voting Out the Constitution

Do Unto Others

DO UNTO OTHERS - If the anti-gay zealots don't like the Constitution perhaps they should read the Bible.

People usually remember the 1960s as a time of great strife over civil rights. If you were alive back in the day, the images of police dogs ripping into lines of civil rights marchers or white-sheeted thugs dancing around a burning cross is still a chilling thing and proof that America was indeed going through wrenching social change.

Many would also like to believe that the country has made great strides in the interim, and we have. But, there’s more to accomplish and the nation now finds itself spending much of its energy on fighting to simply hold onto the advances already made. Civil rights advancement is now threatened by organizations and morally dishonest politicians bent on carrying us back to 1864.

Yesterday’s decision to strike down California’s Prop 8 anti-gay marriage law was sound. The judge did an impressive job of listing all the factual and legal reasons – 80 in all – showing that the law is unconstitutional. An improvement to celebrate, but also an event that highlights anti-civil rights crudaders’ thinking.

Tim Wildmon of the sarcastically named American Family Association reacted with shocking vitriol, calling the court’s decision, “a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance.”

Wildmon Is Has a Queer Notion
Wildmon believes one of the principles at stake is ignoring the California voters, which he sees as unconstitutional. In doing so, Wildmon – who uses the 10th Amendment as a fig leaf himself – introduces the queer notion that the Constitution is up for a vote whenever you don’t like what it says.

Liza

LIZA WITH A 'Z' - What more need be said?

Similar to the rabble rousing for amending the 14th Amendment in the immigration battle, what Wildmon is proposing is that the Constitution – designed to be difficult to amend – should change to bend to the will of the latest ideological blowhard to come on the scene.

Mr. Wildmon, I ask you…if Californians voted to outlaw heterosexual marriage would you express the same fondness to the validity of their vote?

Wildmon also believes the “tyrannical and abusive”, Bush-the-Elder-appointed, judge should have recused himself from the case.

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself, ” Wildmon said. “He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.”

What I find “problematic” about Wildmon’s charge is that he is exhibiting his  own “proclivity” to act as a heterosexual, homophobic, quasi-religious leader. In other words – or more correctly Wildmon’s – “[Wildmon] should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual [and religious] proclivity.”

I suspect the only judge Wildmon would find acceptable is an ordained Christian minister with a demonstrated track record of ignoring the Constitution in favor of a Christian Sharia-like theocracy – or a teabagger – whichever pinhead stepped forward first.

Americans are becoming increasingly unfamiliar with the basic tennents of the Constitution.They apparently believe that any hot head’s cause can simply be enacted by a simple vote. The Constitution is not the “McConstitution”. You can’t vote cheeseburgers off the menu because you don’t like them.

They believe that if there is a “war” on, the President, under no one’s authority other than his own, is permitted to suspend the Constitution’s guarantees against warrantless search or to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge.

Many Americans believe that the Constitution guarantees them freedom of religion, but also support depriving anyone other than Christians (they’re aren’t too hot on the Catholics either) of their similar freedom. Don’t like mosques too close to your shrine? Protest and file suit as Pat Robertson’s minions have done, but don’t be honest enough to mention that if it had been a Christian church you would’ve been praising the idea like it came from, well, God.

From Constitutional Ignorance, Instability Flows
From Constitutional ignorance, great instability flows. Unfortunately, those with such beliefs fail to see the unintended blow back from their muddled position.

Teabaggers and their similar-thinking ilk, like to wear tri-cornered hats and screech about keeping Big Gummint off their backs. If allowing someone to marry the person of their choosing is too much government involvement, then why isn’t government being on a gay person’s back equally bad?

Bush the Lesser did much to chip away at many civil rights during his reign and in areas like the conduct of our misbegotten wars and gay rights,  The Messiah™ continues walking the same swampy path.

One day, the blow back from their actions will come to haunt them and the people who cheered them. One day an administration will take office that isn’t so tolerant of their cavalier positions and decides to warrantlessly tap their phones, close their churches, or collect deep background on twerps like Wildmon.

And when they do, they’ll claim the same Constitutional protections because they changed the Constitution to allow it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Whatever Happened to That Truth Commision Thing?

Update Rep. Nadler: Investigate Torture or Face Road to Tyranny

Pulling the Mask Aside

PULLING THE MASK ASIDE - Even an ersatz Judge Judy like Fox's Andrew Napolitano thinks Bush the Lesser should have been indicted for his misdeeds. Clearly, that idea has gone by the wayside by a combination of political cowardice and extending the same Bush policies into the Obama era.

Remember those heady days when the reign of Bush the Lesser ended and the reign of The Messiah™ began? Hope was the watchword and people – with the possible exception of the Tea Bagger types who hate anything to do with hope, competence, or functioning brain cells – were infused with the “Yes we can” spirit?

Well, that didn’t work out quite as planned and neither did many of the other watchwords of the time – “investigation”, “subpoena”, and “truth commission”.

Remember how Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Patrick Leahy, called for investigations and threatened subpoenas for The Big Dick™ and Chimpy the Lame? Remember how he was so full of righteous indignation and how he pledged to get at the truth of how America ended up in two wars – originally scheduled as cake walks of several months – that still drone on 10 years later? The people would get answers about just what the hell torture was and exactly how we would or wouldn’t use it. There would be no stone unturned and punishment would fall where it may, based on sworn testimony and not the height of the throne on which crapulent asses sat.

The Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight Escapes
That didn’t work out so well either. It turned out that badly-needed investigations, or even dishwater thin substitutes like a “truth commission”, never came. The Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight escaped town before the tar was heated and the feathers plucked, right through a door the O-Man opened politely before them.

The Messiah™ made the first mistake of his fledgling Presidency by saying, “let bygones, be bygones”. Holding people accountable was just too rude and might offend the delicate sensibilities of the opposition. His hope was a new era of bipartisanship in which the world would be transformed into a civilized place full of harmony and love.

And we see how that worked out too.

The public got no answers. The Big Dick™ is indulging his heart attack fetish and the Chimp wiped his dirty hands on Bubba Bill’s back. Obama got neither bipartisanship nor support from any corner and we the people got a huge frickin’ bill for a war we can’t win nor withdraw from.

Not surprisingly, many people are still raw about the issue, even those who blindly supported the previous skeevy residents of 1600 Pennsylvania. Fox’s alleged legal expert “Judge” Andrew Napolitano has even turned on them. And when Fox turns on a Republican, it’s news – though Fox might not carry it for violating their “fair and balanced” policy.

Constitutional Paper

MORNING CONSTITUTIONAL PAPER - Both the Bush and Obama administrations have shown disdain for the Constitution.

In an interview with Ralph Nader, Napolitano said, “So what President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges, and the Constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal.”

But what should have been done good judge?

“They [Bush and Cheney] should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant,” said Napolitano.

Even an Ersatz Judge Judy Gets It
And there you have it. Even an ersatz Judge Judy gets it. Even he understands that not holding someone accountable for the damage done in this country’s name is an insidious disease that weakens the fabric of America.

His comments speak volumes about the Bush administration, and by extension, the Obama one too. Many of the Bush administration’s most onerous assaults on the law and the Constitution are still in place or in legal limbo where Obama won’t touch them with a 10-ft. pole. Both administrations banked on the public getting restless and wandering away to watch So You Think You Can Do Brain Surgery.

And we did just that.

It’s an amazing thing that Tea Baggers and Republicans can carp about Obama being a lefty and single-handedly destroying the nation while ignoring the fact that on most large issues – particularly those associated with security – nothing of substance has changed. He’s still feeling his way through the minefield by disturbing as little as possible, instead of bringing in the demolition experts and having them clear the road ahead.

It’s a hell of a way to honor justice or the Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Justice Served? The Oscar Grant Verdict

Oscar Grant Mural

JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE - A mural depicting shooting victim Oscar Grant in an Oakland, CA underpass. Was the verdict racist, too lienient, or just a mess?

A few months ago, a white police officer in a transit station in Oakland, CA killed a young African American named Oscar Grant. The case became something of a local cause célèbre, causing the trial to be moved to Los Angles. The SoCal jury returned an involuntary manslaughter verdict yesterday, while later in the evening the streets back in Oakland were the scene of skirmishes between police and rioters enraged at what they believed was a racist verdict.

Even before the trial began, Oscar’s grieving family, and many others in Oakland, said that nothing short of a murder verdict would bring justice. Some were shouting for a murder conviction within hours of the killing and threatening violence if they didn’t get it.

Unfortunately, the case wasn’t clear-cut. Although the incident had been captured by several cell phones and witnessed by hundreds of people, it was impossible to tell conclusively why the officer shot Oscar. Oscar’s friends and family said it was a blatant example of a cop shooting a defenseless young black man in the back. After all, it’s happened many times before.

The cop’s defense team argued it was a horrific mistake of the cop confusing his Taser with his service weapon. After all, mistakes happen in the heat of a takedown. Both sides had excellent points, but by the time the jury reached a verdict, it was clear the whole affair had become less about the guilt or innocence of this cop and this victim and more about the horrible difficulty America has in dealing with its racism.

There’s little doubt there are race problems in this country, anyone who argues otherwise is, well, Rush Limbaugh. But, it’s equally true that every conflict between a minority person and a white person isn’t automatically racism. Sometimes people do bad things to each other or someone makes a tragic mistake. That doesn’t excuse their actions, but it doesn’t automatically make the actions racist either.

Oscar Grant Poster

JUSTICE SERVED? - Racial tensions run high in Oakland, but did they reasonably apply to this case?

In this case, there are some valid reasons for believing it really was an accident. The cop had no clear racial motive to speak of. He didn’t have a track record of racism and it’s doubtful even the most virulent racist would choose to kill someone in full view of hundreds of people.

But then, there were troubling things about the cop’s story too. He couldn’t explain how he mistook his Taser for a pistol, even though the Taser and pistol required different release mechanisms, were substantially different in weight, and he did so after training designed to avoid the very thing that happened. True or not, the cop came off sounding like a man who couldn’t be trusted to do anything, including tell a plausible story.

The civil rights division of the DoJ is reviewing the case and there may be more deliberation, including a possible overturning of the verdict, to come. This is as it should be. This is how the system is supposed to work. A jury makes their best decision based on what they know. The judge apportions punishment as the law and situation dictates, and the DoJ checks everything out to make sure everyone has done their homework and gotten a chance to present it to the court. There’s nothing in there about everyone getting a verdict they want.

Oscar’s family, and many of the protesters at the riot, spoke of “the system” letting Oscar down. However, the system isn’t the problem in this case. The problem is that America’s racial tension makes it difficult to trust our system, regardless of what it does. And in doing so, makes the system weak and ensures undue biases effect the outcome. People will often come to different conclusions based on their own perceptions. It doesn’t really matter what a person’s perception is, it only matters what they do with that perception.

Clearly, there’s a dangerous perception gap between Americans of different colors.

Enhanced by Zemanta