Felicity Huffman yesterday was sentenced to 14 days in prison for trying to rig her daughter's SAT score. What is troubling about this sentence is that the normal sentence for a non-violent crime by a defendant with no prior criminal record would be presumptive probation, in almost every court in the land.
Add to that the fact that there was no real victim here, that she chose to cooperate by pleading guilty, and that she showed genuine remorse, and the sentence is just about impossible to justify. One can't escape the conclusion that the judge and the prosecutor, as so often happens, were unduly harsh because she is a rich celebrity. Surely an average, run-of-the-mill low-profile defendant would have received probation in a case like this.
We can only wait and see what Lori Loughlin, who paid $500,000, compared to Huffman's $15,000, will get as a sentence. If Huffman's crime is worth 15 days, Loughlin will surely get much more than that given her greater crime, and for her lack of cooperation in choosing to roll the dice with a trial instead of cooperating.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
The September Democratic Debate
Having just acquired cable TV service after a five-year lapse, I was excited to be able to watch last night's Democratic debate. Ten candidates filled the stage, the first time all the top candidates were on the same debate stage.
My main takeaway is that the Democratic Party is in great shape. Except for Julian Castro, who made a complete fool of himself, there were nine candidates who would be excellent nominees for the party in 2020. And, it should be said, all nine would all be vastly better than the poor candidates the party has selected in the past 50 years: McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The top three--Biden, Warren, and Sanders--held their own, although only Warren of the three was the most solid. Biden gave a bizarre, rambling, incoherent answer to a question about the legacy of slavery, but otherwise he did OK.
Most of the candidates below the top tier helped themselves. Amy Klobuchar in particular was outstanding, getting her message across that having a candidate from the Midwest would be a good thing for the party and for the country. Cory Booker was effective in presenting himself as someone who can unite the country, as he emphasized the importance of empathy in our daily lives, the message being that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. Mayor Pete gave a great closing speech about his coming out as gay.
A striking aspect of the debate is that for the first time Democratic candidates were willing to talk about the problem of gun violence in this country. Beto O'Rourke had the sound bite of the night, when he said that "Hell, yes, we're gong to take away your (assault weapons)". He later clarified on "Morning Joe" that while it would be a mandatory buyback, he expected law-abiding citizens to comply, and he said "we don't go house-to-house in this country looking for violations of the law".
Almost as important as the debate itself is the after-debate commentary by the participants when interviewed. "Morning Joe" this morning interviewed a bunch of them--Klobuchar, Booker, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke--all of whom distinguished themselves with the clarity of their comments.
My main takeaway is that the Democratic Party is in great shape. Except for Julian Castro, who made a complete fool of himself, there were nine candidates who would be excellent nominees for the party in 2020. And, it should be said, all nine would all be vastly better than the poor candidates the party has selected in the past 50 years: McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976 and 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The top three--Biden, Warren, and Sanders--held their own, although only Warren of the three was the most solid. Biden gave a bizarre, rambling, incoherent answer to a question about the legacy of slavery, but otherwise he did OK.
Most of the candidates below the top tier helped themselves. Amy Klobuchar in particular was outstanding, getting her message across that having a candidate from the Midwest would be a good thing for the party and for the country. Cory Booker was effective in presenting himself as someone who can unite the country, as he emphasized the importance of empathy in our daily lives, the message being that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. Mayor Pete gave a great closing speech about his coming out as gay.
A striking aspect of the debate is that for the first time Democratic candidates were willing to talk about the problem of gun violence in this country. Beto O'Rourke had the sound bite of the night, when he said that "Hell, yes, we're gong to take away your (assault weapons)". He later clarified on "Morning Joe" that while it would be a mandatory buyback, he expected law-abiding citizens to comply, and he said "we don't go house-to-house in this country looking for violations of the law".
Almost as important as the debate itself is the after-debate commentary by the participants when interviewed. "Morning Joe" this morning interviewed a bunch of them--Klobuchar, Booker, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke--all of whom distinguished themselves with the clarity of their comments.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Kirsten
Kirsten Gillibrand has abandoned her long-shot bid to become the 2020 Democratic nominee. I say, good riddance.
A recent New Yorker article described how seven current and former Senators who called for Al Franken's resignation have expressed regrets at their hasty and premature actions. But not Kirsten, who still says she has no regrets.
Typical of the seven regretful Senators is Pat Leahy, who called it "one of the biggest mistakes I've made" in his 45 years in the Senate. Others who also had the courage to admit their mistakes include Heidi Heitkamp, Tammy Duckworth, Angus King, Jeff Merkley, Bill Nelson, and Tom Udall. But not Kirsten Gillibrand.
I say goodbye and good riddance to a bad Senator and a morally reprehensible jerk.
A recent New Yorker article described how seven current and former Senators who called for Al Franken's resignation have expressed regrets at their hasty and premature actions. But not Kirsten, who still says she has no regrets.
Typical of the seven regretful Senators is Pat Leahy, who called it "one of the biggest mistakes I've made" in his 45 years in the Senate. Others who also had the courage to admit their mistakes include Heidi Heitkamp, Tammy Duckworth, Angus King, Jeff Merkley, Bill Nelson, and Tom Udall. But not Kirsten Gillibrand.
I say goodbye and good riddance to a bad Senator and a morally reprehensible jerk.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Mental Illness and Mass Shootings
People continue to cite "mental illness' as a cause of mass shootings. This is wrong for many reasons.
The motivation for many who talk about this is to divert attention away from the real problem, which is the proliferation of guns in this country. In fact, the people who talk about mental illness as a cause of gun violence are often the same people who oppose increased funding for mental illness and other programs designed to promote the general welfare.
Experts tell us that mental illness is a primary cause of only about 5% of mass shootings. They point out that hate is not a mental illness.
To continually refer to mental illness as a cause serves to further stigmatize those folks who suffer from some form of mental illness. This further discourages those needing help from seeking it.
The fact is that those suffering from mental illness are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators of it. Further, if they do commit violence, it is more likely to be upon themselves rather than upon others.
Left unaddressed is the problem of how do you get those suffering from a mental illness to get help, if they don't want it? Is the right wing prepared to incarcerate everyone who needs help but won't seek it voluntarily?
The motivation for many who talk about this is to divert attention away from the real problem, which is the proliferation of guns in this country. In fact, the people who talk about mental illness as a cause of gun violence are often the same people who oppose increased funding for mental illness and other programs designed to promote the general welfare.
Experts tell us that mental illness is a primary cause of only about 5% of mass shootings. They point out that hate is not a mental illness.
To continually refer to mental illness as a cause serves to further stigmatize those folks who suffer from some form of mental illness. This further discourages those needing help from seeking it.
The fact is that those suffering from mental illness are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators of it. Further, if they do commit violence, it is more likely to be upon themselves rather than upon others.
Left unaddressed is the problem of how do you get those suffering from a mental illness to get help, if they don't want it? Is the right wing prepared to incarcerate everyone who needs help but won't seek it voluntarily?
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
The Jews have it right on Abortion
After years of letting the anti-abortion crowd control the narrative on abortion, a member of the mainstream media has finally presented the other side. USA today, to its eternal credit, published an article on July 25th detailing the Jewish position on abortion, which holds that the fetus is not a living being.
The long article presents different interpretations of the same Old Testament texts which the anti-abortion crowd relies upon. But even more pertinent, the article details why common sense dictates a different view.
If, as many anti-abortion extremists say, abortion is really murder, then women who have abortions should be prosecuted for first-degree murder, since it is obviously a premeditated act. They should then be sentenced to life imprisonment, or, in states which still have the death penalty, to execution. That the anti-abortionists do not go this far demonstrates that they don't really believe their own demagogic rhetoric.
We cannot allow the anti-abortionist fanatics to hijack our religion. When Jesus said "love thy neighbor", he was talking about loving people, not fetuses. A fetus is not life; it is, at best, potential life. Let us pray that common sense will prevail in this country, although right now that day seems a long way off.
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
Letter to National Review
I have always respected National Review as a thoughtful magazine, dedicated to an honest rendition of conservative ideas. But the David French article, "The South Secedes from the Culture of Death" is a complete joke.
To say that "abortion is America's second great sin" is ludicrous. Surely you are aware that many religious traditions do not treat abortion as a sin. And surely you are aware that it is wrong for the government to inject itself into the private and agonizing choice of a woman to have an abortion. It is none of the government's business. And it is certainly not in line with conservative tradition for the government to dictate how its citizens should live their private lives!
The article repeatedly talks about the fetus as if it is a living, breathing human being, which is false. Phrases like "granting a woman the right to hire a doctor to kill her child" are thrown around so carelessly by French that it fatally damages the credibility of your magazine.
French praises the seven southern states which have passed severe anti-abortion bills. He says "the Christians of the South are leading the nation" in defense of life. Of 25 executions last year, all but three were in the South. Now, tell me again how much the South respects life!
Please cancel my subscription immediately.
To say that "abortion is America's second great sin" is ludicrous. Surely you are aware that many religious traditions do not treat abortion as a sin. And surely you are aware that it is wrong for the government to inject itself into the private and agonizing choice of a woman to have an abortion. It is none of the government's business. And it is certainly not in line with conservative tradition for the government to dictate how its citizens should live their private lives!
The article repeatedly talks about the fetus as if it is a living, breathing human being, which is false. Phrases like "granting a woman the right to hire a doctor to kill her child" are thrown around so carelessly by French that it fatally damages the credibility of your magazine.
French praises the seven southern states which have passed severe anti-abortion bills. He says "the Christians of the South are leading the nation" in defense of life. Of 25 executions last year, all but three were in the South. Now, tell me again how much the South respects life!
Please cancel my subscription immediately.
Monday, July 29, 2019
The Tyreek Hill saga
Zach Gelb, the resident idiot0in-chief at CBS Sports Radio, has been ranting and raving for two weeks about how the NFL Commissioner was remiss in not suspending Chiefs' wide receiver Tyreek Hill. Despite getting put in his place by a reporter who actually had followed the story and knew what was going on, Gelb continues to beat this to death.
Gelb interviewed the reporter after spending the first three hours of his four-hour show blasting the Commissioner, along with any fans who dared to defend Hill and/or the Commissioner. The reporter said that Hill had been unusually honest, sincere, and forthcoming during the eight-hour interview with the Commissioner. Think of that--eight hours! And yet Gelb and his fellow sports talk idiots think it is perfectly OK to rush to judgment based on some snippets from a telephone conversation which the woman in question surreptitiously taped while talking to Hill about how their son broke his arm.
And now in recent days Hill was given an ovation by Chiefs fans when he appeared for practice with his team. This of course set off a whole knew round of denunciations by Gelb and others at CBS, this time directed at the fans who applauded. Have these CBS morons never heard of forgiveness, of redemption, of welcoming back a family member who had been going through some rough times?
The problem here is the rush to judgment which we all are prone to do at times. We need to remember that there are two sides to every story, and we should investigate thoroughly before condemning someone.
This rush to judgment issue has come up in the current issue of The New Yorker, which has an article on the Al Franken resignation. It turns out that many of Franken’s Senate colleagues have regrets about their roles in calling for his resignation. Seven current and former U.S. senators who demanded Franken’s resignation in 2017 told the reporter, Jane Mayer, that they’d been wrong to do so. Patrick Leahy, the veteran Democrat from Vermont, said that his decision to seek Franken’s resignation without first getting all the facts was “one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made” in forty-five years in the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator from North Dakota, told Mayer, “If there’s one decision I’ve made that I would take back, it’s the decision to call for his resignation. It was made in the heat of the moment, without concern for exactly what this was.”
A more level-headed CBS sports talk host suggested that perhaps the Commissioner should not even be involved in disciplining players for off-the-field issues. He thought it should be up to the individual clubs to discipline their players. This is how it usually works in labor relations; it is the employer whose job it is to impose discipline for misdeeds of its employees. The Commissioner can continue to be in charge of on-field issues, but off-field issues should be left to the individual clubs.
Gelb interviewed the reporter after spending the first three hours of his four-hour show blasting the Commissioner, along with any fans who dared to defend Hill and/or the Commissioner. The reporter said that Hill had been unusually honest, sincere, and forthcoming during the eight-hour interview with the Commissioner. Think of that--eight hours! And yet Gelb and his fellow sports talk idiots think it is perfectly OK to rush to judgment based on some snippets from a telephone conversation which the woman in question surreptitiously taped while talking to Hill about how their son broke his arm.
And now in recent days Hill was given an ovation by Chiefs fans when he appeared for practice with his team. This of course set off a whole knew round of denunciations by Gelb and others at CBS, this time directed at the fans who applauded. Have these CBS morons never heard of forgiveness, of redemption, of welcoming back a family member who had been going through some rough times?
The problem here is the rush to judgment which we all are prone to do at times. We need to remember that there are two sides to every story, and we should investigate thoroughly before condemning someone.
This rush to judgment issue has come up in the current issue of The New Yorker, which has an article on the Al Franken resignation. It turns out that many of Franken’s Senate colleagues have regrets about their roles in calling for his resignation. Seven current and former U.S. senators who demanded Franken’s resignation in 2017 told the reporter, Jane Mayer, that they’d been wrong to do so. Patrick Leahy, the veteran Democrat from Vermont, said that his decision to seek Franken’s resignation without first getting all the facts was “one of the biggest mistakes I’ve made” in forty-five years in the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp, the former senator from North Dakota, told Mayer, “If there’s one decision I’ve made that I would take back, it’s the decision to call for his resignation. It was made in the heat of the moment, without concern for exactly what this was.”
A more level-headed CBS sports talk host suggested that perhaps the Commissioner should not even be involved in disciplining players for off-the-field issues. He thought it should be up to the individual clubs to discipline their players. This is how it usually works in labor relations; it is the employer whose job it is to impose discipline for misdeeds of its employees. The Commissioner can continue to be in charge of on-field issues, but off-field issues should be left to the individual clubs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
