State Prison Inmates Outliving People on Outside
Darn! Now the health Nazis will try to send us all to prison.

Poll: Most Think Country on Wrong Track
Do most know what is the right track?

Chavez to U.S. Officials: 'Go to Hell'
First he tells the UN that we are led by the devil. Now he wants our officials to go to hell. I don't think Hugo likes us. And he seems to have a Satan fixation.

Rare Snow Storm Surprises Arizona
Global Warming works in mysterious ways.

DiCaprio: I'm No 'Piece of Cute Meat'
Well, are you a piece of ugly meat?

Jeeps Go Forth and Reproduce
The SUVs should watch out for STDs.

How to Fix a Honking Honda
Find it a Jeep?

Help, I'm Surrounded by Jerks
Jerk magnets are on their own.

---

I've written before about how prosecutors around the country seem to be riding roughshod over the rights of citizens. I based this partly on Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Prosecutors build cases around unreliable accusers and witnesses, bought testimony, and flimsy evidence. Once they initiate a case they seem incapable of dropping the case with an admission that they were wrong or acted too hastily.

An unreliable accuser was used to make the Duke case. It boggles the mind that Nifong couldn't see this before committing to the case. So, one looks for other motivation. Many believe that it was political.

Bought testimony was used to make the case against the two Border Patrol agents. They were convicted and imprisoned for irregularities surrounding their shooting of a drug smuggler attempting to cross the border with a huge amount of marijuana. Their conviction was obtained mostly on the testimony of the smuggler. He agreed to testify because the federal prosecutor granted him complete immunity from drug smuggling and other charges. It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that such testimony is unreliable. Yet, prosecutors are buying and relying on such testimony every day around the country. I believe that granting immunity in return for testimony should be outlawed. If not, then the defense should be allowed to hire an actor to provide testimony that exonerates the defendant from the commission of the crime.

Another aspect of this case boggles my mind. The agents claimed that the drug smuggler had a gun when they shot him. It seems to be generally accepted that the smuggler escaped across the border into Mexico after being shot. Yet the prosecutor made much of the fact that no gun was found. Hello! Did he not have ample opportunity to dispose of a gun while in Mexico? Can you trust the word of a drug smuggler? I'm beginning to believe the justice system in this country is an absolute joke.

Flimsy evidence was used to make a pornography case against a teenager in Arizona. Matt Bandy faced up to 90 years in prison for having nine images of child porn on his computer. Wendy McElroy describes the case in greater detail in her recent column. It's a tragic story of out-of-control law enforcement.

An intercepted transmission of one of the images was traced to Matt's computer. About ten policemen raided his house and confiscated his computer. Although the police found the images on the computer there was no evidence that Matt knew they were there or was responsible for the transmission. In fact, it is generally known -- by anyone the least bit savvy about computers and the internet -- that the possibility existed that someone else was using his computer as a repository. None of this mattered to the prosecutor. He refused to let the defense and forensic computer experts examine the hard drive until ordered to do so by a judge. When the examination of the hard drive blew away his case he refused to drop the case. Instead the prosecutor extorted a confession from Matt that he had once shown some Playboy pictures to some of his friends -- which apparently is a felony in Arizona. He converted the case into something that had nothing to do with the original charge in an attempt to save face. It hasn't been reported but I suspect that he also extorted from Matt's parents an agreement not to sue. Matt's defense cost his parents about a quarter million dollars -- all apparently to protect teenage boys from viewing Playboy pictures.

Many lawyers gain work experience as prosecutors early in their careers before moving into private practice. But those that make their careers as prosecutors do so for one of two reasons. Either they don't have what it takes to make it in private practice or they are power hungry. Or both. OK, some of the career prosecutors are probably fine upstanding citizens that abhor the conduct of those described above. But I'm beginning to wonder where they are.

I'm also beginning to wonder where the Governors are in the states where this nonsense is occurring. Aren't they responsible for the oversight of all public officials in their states? In my state the Governor can suspend or remove officials from office for misconduct. Short of that I would think that he could call a prosecutor and commit a little extortion of his own.

Update:  There is a web site devoted to Matt Bandy's plight called Justice for Matt.  I discovered this because they have linked to this post on the site.

---

eBay Announces Aggressive Buyback
Well, they're going to pay dearly for the junk I bought there.

Garner Tells How Ring Fell Into a Drain
I can't wait to read this! Will they follow-up with how she got the ring out of the drain?

Rhino Born from Artificial Insemination
Do we really need to know this?

Wii Helps Nintendo Year-End Profits Soar
Hopefully not out the window.

Can Polyester Save the World?
Don't hold your breath.

Rough (but Silly) Justice and Striking (also Silly) Moves
Sounds silly to me.

Why Are There So Many Single Americans?
Because they haven't married?

---

Earlier this week my brother and I scouted the Choctawhatchee River Basin for boat launching ramps. We're thinking about doing some fishing there this Spring. The Choctawhatchee River flows from Alabama across Northwest Florida and into the Choctawhatchee Bay (What a coincidence!). Its basin encompasses a large swamp and many tributaries. It is home to vast numbers and species of wildlife. Most of it falls under the auspices of the Northwest Florida Water Management District.

We found several boat launch ramps in locations that show promise. At one of these we encountered two men in canoes. They looked like hunters in that they were decked out in camouflage clothing. We learned though that they are bird watchers looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I was not aware that the Ivory Bills are thought to inhabit the Choctawhatchee. I have heard that a sighting has been claimed in Arkansas. In searching the internet I found that the Choctawhatchee team has a web site that describes their activities. They maintain a camp in the swamp.

I don't have a problem with people trying to ascertain if particular animal or plant species still exist. But I do have a problem with what some of them want to do when they find a specimen that was thought to be extinct. One of the birders that we encountered said "if we find an Ivory Bill in here they will lock this whole area down." By 'they' he meant the state and federal government. I mentioned to him that the Water Management District already has it pretty much locked down. He said that their restrictions on public use of the area aren't sufficient to protect endangered species. But he added that the public would still be allowed to hunt and fish in the area as long as the pressure was not excessive. Well, who defines excessive pressure? Most likely not the hunter or fisherman.

If the restrictions they want only apply to existing public lands the impact probably won't be that great. But if they want them extended to private property, and they probably will, then I have a big problem with that.  Restricting the use of private property devalues the land and, therefore, constitutes theft of that value.  The use of private property should not be restricted just to save a bird that most of us have never seen. If it can't survive on its own we should just bid it adieu.

---

A few days ago I wrote about the case of a 16-year-old boy in Arizona, Matt Bandy, who was originally charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. I used his case as an example of an overly zealous prosecutor in that post. My position on the case was based on an article by Wendy McElroy and an episode of ABC's 20/20. Now the Maricopa County Attorney's office has gone public with their version of the facts in the case in an article by Deputy County Attorney Rachel Alexander.

She says that the defense mounted a media campaign to misrepresent the facts in the case. She says that the prosecution has incriminating physical evidencce not mentioned in the media coverage of the case. I have no way of knowing who is telling the truth. I don't have access to the record in the case. But I do know that for some reason Alexander failed to mention the defense claim that they had to go all the way to the State Supreme Court to get the prosecution to give them access to the computer hard drive confiscated from Bandy. If the prosecution's evidence was so sound why did they try so hard to keep the defense from seeing even a copy of it? It doesn't add up for me.

Alexander says that they never intended to send Bandy to prison for 90 years. I hope that means that they are more interested in finding and severely punishing the hard-core producers and distributors of child porn than some teenager with raging hormones that viewed, and perhaps shared with friends, a few pornographic pictures. I know that, like in the case of illegal drugs, if no one is willing to pay for child porn there will be no child porn. But I believe that it is impossible to eradicate child porn by punishing the consumers. There are too many of them out there. Law enforcement and prosecutors must attack this problem at the point where the children are actually being abused.

Although I just drew a parallel between illegal drugs and child porn I didn't mean to imply that their similarities go any further. We can never give up in our efforts to eliminate the abuse of children by pornographers. But I do believe that it is time to admit defeat in the war on drugs. More on that later.

---

I just read about a new robotic parking garage that is to open in New York. You just drive the car onto a pallet, get out of the car and walk away, and then the computerized system automatically transports the car into the garage and deposits the pallet and car into a slot. The machinery is obviously quite expensive but it takes less space per car than a conventional parking garage. We won't be needing one in our town in the foreseeable future though.

It occurred to me that, if they can automatically put cars in slots in a garage, then why not put them in your hotel room? Well, not actually in your room, but in a parking slot next to your room. It could be just like at home; just open a door and step into your garage. You wouldn't have to unload your luggage and pay a bellhop to take it to your room. You wouldn't have to decide what you are going to need before going up to your room; it's all right there a few steps away. You don't have to worry if your car and belongings are safe. On second thought, if the system put it there I suppose it could take it away while you are sleeping. Actually you might not do that much sleeping with that machinery delivering and picking up cars at all hours.

Sounds convenient but I'm sure I would never want to pay what such a room would cost.  And if I snore my wife might make me sleep in the car.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next page -->