Month: January 2016

Have you ever noticed that when politicians advocate putting “boots on the ground” in a combat zone, it’s always someone else’s boots? Never their own.
This has become increasingly evident during this 2016 Presidential campaign as the candidates try to outdo one another in appearing the most forceful about getting “boots on the ground.”
A look at all of the candidates in both parties reveal that while many could have been called, few chose to go. (Sorry about the Biblical analogy).
Donald Trump could have served in Vietnam but suffered from plantar fasciitis. He hasn’t disclosed which foot was afflicted. Ben Carson and Jeb Bush were also at an age when they could have served in Vietnam but for unknown reasons did not. All three of them advocate sending troops to battle ISIS
Governor Chris Christie, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio could have served in the first Gulf War in 1991 but apparently chose not to. All three of them advocate sending troops to fight ISIS.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders could have served in Vietnam but did not. To be fair, he does not advocate sending troops to any combat zones. Hillary Clinton’s position is somewhat nuanced. While she supports a No-Fly Zone in Syria, she does not favor putting boots on the ground. Her husband, former president, Bill Clinton, famously avoided the draft during the Vietnam War. Martin O’Malley was too young to have served in Vietnam and too old to have served in the First Gulf War. He too does not favor either a No-Fly Zone in Syria or committing American troops.
What can you take away from this?
The late columnist, Mike Royko, had a term he used to describe politicians who favored sending others to fight wars while they avoided it. He called them “war wimps.”
It would be interesting to see how those politicians who favor sending troops to combat zones would vote on a restoration of the Selective Service Draft that would encompass their children of both genders.
My guess is that they’d oppose it, while still advocating sending other people’s children to bear the burden they avoided.
I’m not sure which candidate in either party is going to win the caucuses in Iowa tomorrow night but this bears thinking about as we head into the November 2016 election.

The American humorist, Mark Twain, once wrote that there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies and statistics.”
In March of last year, Duke University basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski, Was the only Division I men’s’ coach to win 1,000 games. It was expected that Syracuse University basketball coach, Jim Boeheim, who had over 966 wins was expected to be the next Division I men’s’ coach to cross that threshold.
That expectation was dashed on March 15, 2015 when the NCAA stripped Boeheim of 108 victories due to eligibility issues some of his players had during earlier seasons and which the University had disclosed through self-reporting. On December 3, 2015 the NCAA denied Boeheim’s appeal and upheld the sanctions it imposed. Boeheim now ranks sixth in most victories.
This isn’t the first time or the first sport in which the NCAA had sanctioned an athletic program by stripping the coach of victories. The University of Michigan’s basketball program was stripped of 113 victories for violations, Penn State head coach, Joe Paterno was stripped of 112 victories following the conviction of assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, for committing multiple sex offenses against children in the Penn State locker room.
The use of this kind of sanction is a curious one since it calls into question the historical integrity of the NCAA’s record keeping and raises more questions. If those 108 victories are nullified how is the won-lost record of the defeated team affected? Does that team now get to claim a victory? What about the points scored by the individual players? Are they nullified too?
Even more curious is the NCAA’s determination to uphold the sanction despite having reinstated the 112 victories Paterno’s team won while Sandusky was sexually abusing children. It certainly makes one wonder about the NCAA’s priorities.
I think Twain would characterize this one as a damned lie.

Since Ted Cruz raised the topic, I guess we should talk about “Values.”
Cruz says that Donald Trump has “New York values,” which he defines as “socially liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, focus around money and the media.” He doubled down on that appraisal the following day with his faux apology.
So, since we’re talking about “values,” let’s talk about what Cruz represents.
Ted Cruz is unabashedly anti-immigrant.
Despite his self-proclaimed stirring narrative about being the product of an immigrant marriage and being born in Canada, he has rushed to proclaim the need to tighten the borders and has applauded Donald Trump’s advocacy of building a wall on the southern border of the nation.
When Trump proclaimed that Mexican and Central-American immigrants were “rapists” and criminals, his lack of criticism and silence, despite also being Hispanic, was deafening. Trump’s call to bar all Muslims from entering the United States was greeted with the tepid response that it wasn’t his idea.
Cruz would turn back the clock on marriage equality and every other right sought or obtained by our fellow gay Americans, including the right to be treated equally in public accommodations and other businesses serving the public.
Cruz would like to outlaw a woman’s right to choose and supported stripping the requirement that contraception be provided under the Affordable Care Act. He would defund Planned Parenthood. He is opposed to equal pay for women and voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Cruz opposes affirmative action and supports abolishing the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy and the Internal Revenue Service.
His pronouncements on the campaign trail stop just short of substituting a theocracy for democracy. I suspect that a proposal to replace the Department of Justice with a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice isn’t too long in coming from Cruz.
The Republican Party appears to be panicked at the prospect of a potential Trump or Cruz candidacy for President. If I were them, I wouldn’t be too alarmed. All they need to do is find a Vice-Presidential nominee that is more moderate than either of them.
I’m sure Mullah Omar is out there somewhere.

Anatole France once wrote, “The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.” If he were alive today, he would have to add “unless you are suffering from Affluenza.”
On June 15, 2013 Ethan Crouch, age sixteen, driving on a restricted license, stole a case of beer and went joy-riding with three friends. He hit four pedestrians who were killed and his passengers were left paralyzed and with brain injuries. He was charged with four counts of vehicular manslaughter and other charges. His very wealthy parents hired a metal health expert who testified that Crouch should be spared prison because he was suffering from “Affluenza.”
He testified that “Affluenza” made Crouch “unable to link his bad behavior with consequences because of his parents teaching him that wealth buys privilege.” To the astonishment of everyone, the judge apparently found this opinion credible and in December 2014 sentenced Crouch to ten years’ probation with conditions requiring that he not drink alcohol or drive.
In early December of 2015, Crouch’s “affluenza” was apparently unabated because he appeared in a video on Twitter participating in a drinking game. Crouch’s mother apparently suffering from her own case of “affluenza,” because, rather than have her son face the consequences of his probation violation, fled with him to Mexico where they were captured on December 28, 2015.
It seems that there is only one way Crouch will be cured of this wretched condition. He needs to learn the consequences of his bad behavior by pondering it for a long time in a jail cell. His mother could benefit from this treatment too.

Welcome to my blog.
For the past nineteen years I’ve been somewhat restricted by the Code of Judicial Conduct from commenting about news and current events. In this New Year and in retirement, that restriction is lifted and I’m free to comment without reservation.
So, from time to time, I plan on sharing my thoughts on such topics as crime, court cases, gun control, gun violence, political candidates and elections, and whatever comes to mind that piques my interest.
If you’d like to see those thoughts, just bookmark this page and visit whenever you can. When I post a new entry I’ll be sure to mention it on my Facebook and Twitter page.
I welcome comments and thoughts you might have and the discussion they might provoke, I certainly welcome opinions and views that differ from mine. I do want this to be a place for thoughtful, civil exchange of views. In order to ensure that and to avoid the kind of hateful abuse that appears on sites that allow anonymous postings, you’ll have to establish an account with your name, an e-mail address, a user name and what you’d like to use as a password
. I hope you will visit often and be part of a constructive dialogue.