A Botched Execution?…

Clayton Lockett      Stephanie Nieman

How do you “botch” an execution?

Oh yeah, IF the goal is a sterile and painless death, then anything less seems, “botched.”

Fact is, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were geniuses – BOTH of them (as well as a few of their friends) were far smarter men than any we have around today. If either of them were around today, all modesty aside, they’d tell you so. Neither was at all shy about proclaiming their brilliance…and rightly so. They wrote and very clearly defined the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” which meant that NONE of the various penalties of THAT day were considered either “cruel,” or particularly “unusual,” which included hanging, shooting (firing squads), usually reserved for soldiers, as it was considered a more honorable death than hanging.

It was Thomas Jefferson who helped institute the first reforms of the death penalty between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposing a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate, the legislature defeated their bill by a single vote.  At the time, there were at least 13 crimes that one could be given the death penalty for.

TODAY, we seek to entitle those convicted of the most cruel and unusual acts a death that most cancer patients would pray for. THAT, seems cruel and unusual, at least in so much as it debases the victim, by elevating the concerns and treatment of the murderer.

Without question, the death penalty has, in numerous cases, been appallingly misapplied in this country. A cursory look at the files of the Innocence Project, or even a quick read of fiction-writer John Grisham’s NON-fiction work, The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town(http://www.amazon.com/The-Innocent-Man-Murder-Injustice/dp/0345532015/ref=sr_1_3_bnp_1_pap?ie=UTF8&qid=1398878324&sr=8-3&keywords=An+Innocent+Man) about the incompetent investigation of the murder of  Debra Sue Carter and the malicious prosecution of  Ron Williamson (using the actual killer’s testimony to convict the innocent Williamson), proves that, BUT the answer to prosecutorial misconduct and incompetence should NOT be an indictment of a legitimate form of punishment, but INSTEAD, the reforming of the rules prosecutors must operate under, even requiring DNA evidence in all such death penalty cases. If the goal is to eradicate prosecutorial misconduct, abuse and incompetence, then THAT and NOT the penalties meted out should be the focus.

In the most recent “botched” execution, that of Clayton Lockett, in Oklahoma, there is no question of his guilt. The crime he was justly given the death sentence for was horrific. In 1999 Lockett and two accomplices conducted a home invasion on the home of a guy he claimed owed him money. During that home invasion, 19 y/o Stephanie Neiman and another 19 y/o woman approached the house, as they’d been staying there. Miss Neiman’s friend was dragged into the house and hit in the face with a shotgun. Under duress, the friend then called Miss Neiman into the home and she was also hit in the face with the gun. Ms. Nieman’s friend was raped by all three men before both the homeowner and the two women were taken to a rural part of Kay County, Oklahoma.

.

Lockett told them that he was going to kill them all, and shot Miss Neiman twice when she refused to give him her keys and pickup’s alarm code. When she was shot, she was dragged to a shallow grave that had been dug by one of Lockett’s accomplices, Shawn Mathis. When Mathis told Lockett that Miss Neiman was still alive, Lockett ordered Mathis to bury her. She was subsequently buried alive.

Some have argued that the state should not be involved in the act of killing people. On that I can agree...with reservations. I’ve long supported a system whereby a person is convicted, with DNA evidence required for a sentence of death, but when that sentence is delivered, independent contractors or bounty hunters would track down, incapacitate and ultimately deliver an “appropriate” death sentence. In a case like this, Mr Lockett would be severely beaten and buried alive. It is NOT “cruel and unusual,” as it was no more “cruel and unusual” than what Clayton Lockett himself subjected his victims to. Moreover, the state is NOT directly involved in the meting out of the actual penalty, it would merely pay the independent contractor a fee, or reward for carrying out that service.

Such a system would provide jobs to many existing for former mercenaries, professional hunters, even many former Special Forces members who come back from military engagements and still “miss the action.” Moreover, it would much more efficiently eradicate the plague of violent felons like Mr Lockett, while keeping the state’s hands relatively clean.

The system would, of course, be very structured. Those convicted would have their travel curtailed. Once basic guilt is firmly established, NO further “Appeals” on behalf of the condemned would be allowed.

Of course, there would be strict “rules of engagement” for the hunters in public areas. Perhaps they’d have to first tranquilize a target before taking him to an appropriate place for the execution, which would then be required to be filmed. The victim’s family could have a copy, so they could have some real closure on the event, if they so desired. Another caveat, ANYONE who offered any aid and comfort to a condemned becomes a legitimate target upon that act. This way, the hunters couldn’t be sued over “collateral damage,” occurring to those who may have offered a condemned person sustenance and sanctuary.

There ARE better ways of dealing with such issues. Without question, prosecutorial rules NEED to be reformed and the state probably shouldn’t be directly involved in the execution business. BUT prosecutorial abuse, misconduct and incompetence DOES NOT condemn the death penalty, any more than it condemns ANY other penalty given out under such flawed circumstances. YES, require the state to PROVE guilt, and with DNA evidence so readily available, coupled with ubiquitous surveillance cameras, that’s become easier and easier to accomplish with each passing year, THEN let the state simply “contract out” the actual retrieval (we already pay bounty hunters to track down bail jumpers) and execution of the condemned.

Like any idea, this one would require a bit of fine-tuning, but I think it preserves both the honor & integrity of the state and the respect & dignity of the VICTIM, the person who most often gets lost in the existing process.

WHY Do So-Called “Elites” ALWAYS Get Things WRONG?

(See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/wm-b-fankboner/the-educated-muslim-terrorist/)

In the wake of WWII, two separate ideas  bubbled up, with the goal being, to keep another Third Reich from ever happening again. Both ideas were widely embraced by ALL the existing “elites,” and fast-tracked into place.

One view was that the Third Reich was, at heart, in effect a macho men’s club and the answer was to empower women to take on more leadership roles. The idea being that females are naturally LESS violent, thus less prone to war, with a greater reverence for life.

It was argued that this transition would take some time in order to groom women AND men to accept this sea change in the social order. Society itself would have to become more androgynous.

In other words, it would take some time to groom women to be more like men…makes sense, in a dumb kind of way.

It was a radical idea alright, radically insipid.

In short order, female leaders proved to be every bit as bloodthirsty as their male counterparts. In India, the first of these leaders, Indira Gandhi initiated the India-Pakistan war that began in 1971. She also embarked on a vigorous (often violent), many would say tyrannical policy of land reform, starting in 1969 and placed a cap on personal income, private property, and corporate profits. She also nationalized major banks, a bold step, as the rift between herself and the party elders grew. The Congress would expel her for “indiscipline” on November 12^th, 1969, in an action that split the party into two factions. She also ordered a military attack on the Golden Temple (Amritsar-in Punjab India), a shrine that sacred to the Sikh’s, in order to remove Sikh separatists that where collecting weapons inside the temple (called Operation Blue Star). She was assassinated to avenge this act by two of her bodyguards – who were Sikh.

Israel’s Golda Meir, the first “Iron Lady” of Israeli politics also led with a fist, her tenure ending after the Yom Kippur War of late 1973.

England’s Margaret Thatcher garnered a similar reputation for a propensity for the gun during her own tenure as Prime Minister.

All this only proving that the “fairer sex” was no fairer and no less prone to violence and war than their male counterparts.

The other view was that Nazism was a particularly Western (European) flaw, born of the old (pre-WWI) European social order and that the answer was to raise up those who comprised what those old Europeans once called “the lower races.” The idea being that these groups were generally more peaceful, at one with nature and not prone to those vile European vices.

Again, recent events show this idea was also fatally flawed, as Rwanda conclusively proved that ethnic genocide was NOT a uniquely German, let alone European flaw. Nor are massive wars with horrific civilian losses. It’s been estimated that over 10 MILLION people have died in the Congo wars since 2000!

HOW could two separate ideas embraced by the prevailing “elites,” that is, bolstered and supported by legions of academics, along with a majority of business and governmental leaders be so completely and utterly WRONG?

Sadly, these “elites” generally aren’t as smart as they think they are. There’s a great difference between being educated and being bright. Creativity and genius aren’t educated into people, it can only be “brought out” in those who ALREADY have it. Moreover, the best students are often the best conformists. They tend NOT to be very creative, NOT prone to questioning themselves and unable to accept, let alone deal with concepts like expanding variability (the MORE information that becomes available, the MORE variables or complications are uncovered). The result is overly simplistic distillations like the ones above.

TODAY, we have an excellent example of that in America’s current Secretary of State, John Kerry. In Rome, this past January, Kerry said, “We talked about the common interest of Pope Francis and President Obama in addressing poverty and extreme poverty on a global basis. The United States of America is deeply involved in efforts in Africa and in other parts of the world – in Asia, South Central Asia – to address this poverty, as is the Catholic Church. And so we have a huge common interest in dealing with this issue of poverty, which in many cases is the root cause of terrorism or even the root cause of the disenfranchisement of millions of people on this planet.”

Really?!

Ever heard of Mohammad Atta? Wealthy family, an educated engineer? Any of that sound at all familiar? How about Major Hasan Nadal...M.D., well-educated, affluent, does any of that ring a bell?

Princeton economist Alan Krueger’s in-depth research, delivered in a lecture at the London School of Economics last year notes, “Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor,” he says. “But this misconception doesn’t die.”...“As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate.”

Mr. Krueger went on to state, “There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen,” he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia [DS: Not all of them, as 4 were not from Saudi Arabia].

John Kerry isn’t just WRONG on the nature of terrorism, he’s dangerously wrong!

So, WHY do these so-called “elites” ALWAYS get it wrong?

Primarily because they rarely question themselves, or their initial ideas...and because they CAN, with very little prospect for any personal accountability.

In South Korea, the Prime Minister just resigned in the wake of a private sector Ferry disaster. In many other places throughout Asia, leaders have, by custom, taken their own lives after a disastrous turn of events, like when their policies turn out wrong. Hmmmm...just musing aloud about that, that’s all.

An Unlikely Source Triggers More Angst Over America’s Race Debate

Tal Fortgang

About a week ago, a white kid from Westchester (Tal Fortgang), made national news with a piece he penned in the Princeton Tory titled, “Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege.” (http://theprincetontory.com/main/checking-my-privilege-character-as-the-basis-of-privilege/)

He’s been lauded by some, had his essay republished in Time Magazine (http://time.com/85933/why-ill-never-apologize-for-my-white-male-privilege/) and vilified by others (http://m.thenation.com/blog/179675-no-one-cares-if-you-never-apologize-your-white-male-privilege), mainly the purveyors of the modern-day segregation of race/gender preferences.

So, THIS is what the pro-segregated standards advocates have retreated to, that "majority" males (since all existing societies are considered "patriarchal"), ethnic Chinese males in China, black males in Jamaica, ethnic Japanese males in Japan and white males in the USA derive some nebulous and ill-defined "privilege" from that majority position.

That's utter nonsense everywhere, but in the U.S. part of that "white male privilege" has been a half century of segregated standards on virtually ALL standardized exams, racial preferences that favor virtually EVERY other group over themselves AND being lectured by the truly privileged - both the recipients of those segregated standards and other assorted privileges, along with the political class," most of whom have never EARNED those positions, but merely won a variety of "popularity contests."

It’d be different IF the segregated standards of “Affirmative Action” (USA)/Positive Discrimination (UK) (depending upon how you prefer to euphemize such segregation) had existed only a decade...or maybe two, BUT five?!

Come on!

We've had a full half a century of segregated standards that are rooted NOT so much in the belief of white (and Asian) supremacy, but more aptly “black incompetence.” Today’s race-based preferences stem from the presumption that blacks (even well-off blacks from well-to-do families) cannot compete with whites and Asians, no matter what!

Regardless of how loudly SOME of its advocates howl, THAT is precisely the presumption that this modern day segregation is based on, just as surely as the pro-abortion-on-demand movement is rooted in the conviction that the poor (and ethnic minorities) will much more readily avail themselves of that  procedure than others...AND they DO! Blacks (appx. 12%) of the population account for over 35% of the abortions in America nationwide, a disparity that takes some doing. For the record, while I vehemently oppose race/gender preferences, I strongly support abortion-on-demand, at least through the 20^th week of pregnancy.

An example of how pervasive this anti-white male bias is can be seen in a recent and ongoing debate about the state of major league baseball (MLB) in America today. As many Latin and Asian players have flooded MLB, the number of black professional baseball players in MLB has sharply decreased, as has, interestingly enough, the number of white players, BUT the ONLY question being asked is, “Why are there so few American black players in MLB?”

Seriously?!

Now, I’m not a great sports aficionado. I've never had any season ticket packages for any professional sports franchise, nor even any pay-per-view sports package on cable, BUT, I follow the culture and I have never heard ANY arguments that blacks are somehow presumed better athletes than any other ethnic group and can only assume that the ONLY people who’d even make such an argument would be the SAME type of people prone to make arguments about blacks being innately less proficient cognitively. Since I won’t take such arguments seriously, I can ONLY chalk up this singular concern over the plight of blacks in MLB as indicative of the pervasive cult of anti-white bias and dark-skin privilege.

What else could it be?

ONLY in the "bizarro world" of the pro-racial preferences advocates the "privileged" are "the under-privileged." ONLY in that world is segregation (segregated standards) “fighting for racial equality.” Brainless, emotionally charged movements like those supporting segregation in the name of “equal opportunity” tend to be shameless as well.

Rare (from me) Kudos to CNN...Specifically to Chris Cuomo

CNN's Chris Cuomo

Since I have excoriated CNN (especially Carol Costello and Erin Burnett) over their coverage of racial issues (ie. the Trayvon Martin case, etc.), I HAVE TO credit CNN, especially Chris Cuomo for doing an excellent interview with the very flawed and inarticulate Cliven Bundy AND for dealing with the issue in a far LESS politically partisan and inflammatory way than many of his co-workers at CNN.

Here is a good clip of a good portion of that interview;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmc5koVpQXM

I believe Chris Cuomo went out of his way to be fair and even-handed with an obviously inarticulate man. He did NOT look to bait Bundy into digging an even deeper hole and even appeared to look to understand Bundy’s concerns over what he saw as federal overreach. Cuomo delivered a very “fair and balanced” interview of a highly controversial man. It was certainly a much more fair and unbiased report than any of those done on MSNBC and FNC. In fact, Chris Cuomo even defended FNC host Sean Hannity, as "a friend," who he's certain shares none of Bundy's racial views.

Bundy, to his great detriment, has allowed his poorly articulated and archaic racial views to overshadow a legitimate state’s rights and federal overreach issue.

THAT (Bundy’s reckless racial commentary), is not the national media’s fault.

Its ultra-partisan way of handling it certainly IS!

That is why Chris Cuomo stands out, today, as a beacon of non-partisanship.

Many paternalistic bigots have attempted to use Cliven Bundy’s grossly inarticulate words to (1) undermine his very real issues with federal overreach and land management abuse, via high fees and senseless regulations and (2) to tar those who supported those legitimate issues as “racists,” for having defended Bundy’s views on federal overreach.

Many of these paternalists have likened Bundy’s racial views to those of the critics of the existing American welfare/dependency state. Indeed legislators like Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and others HAVE rightly note that the existing welfare/dependency state “breeds dysfunction.” That is as sad, as it is true, BUT it is also undeniable. I've been to hundreds of fires and many hundreds more emergencies in urban housing projects (mostly in the South Bronx). The stairwells and elevators in ALL those buildings reek of urine. Drug deals and sexual encounters regularly go on in those enclosed stairwells. The marauders, the violently dysfunctional control those areas. Others live in abject terror. Many people born into those areas DO get an education and good jobs and LEAVE those areas.

However, the idea that the paternalists seem to posit; that there’s very little difference between the population (and their behaviors) in any given urban housing project and that of any up-scale suburban neighborhood is naively ignorant.

Poverty, like LIFE itself doesn’t just “happen to us.” We make things happen, we bring BOTH the good and the bad into our own lives. Just as specific human qualities and actions bring about prosperity (innovation, ambition, focus, delaying gratification, planning, etc.), specific human qualities and activities bring about poverty (recklessness, irresponsibility, poor impulse control, the inability to delay gratification, substance abuse, illiteracy, etc.).

Cliven Bundy may well be an inarticulate, “hick,” at least in the eyes of many urban elites, who’ve harped on what they’ve called his “nostalgia for chattel slavery,” BUT interestingly enough, one of Bundy’s black supporters (Jason Bullock) seemed to paint a very different picture of the old codger; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCto_bGIT2o

What counts the most, how poorly or well one articulates their sentiments, or how well they treat others? Many people who say all the right things, never act in accordance with their own words. Hell, con-men and sociopaths ALWAYS say the right things and practice coming across as “good & decent,” even “caring and empathetic.” We put weight on people’s words at our own peril. It SEEMS that Jason Bullock attempts to convey that Bundy’s actions appear to belie his words.

Bundy’s plight SHOULD bring to light federal policies that abuse individual ranchers via escalating fees and senseless regulations. His unilateral actions (NOT paying fees that other ranchers are forced to pay) were illegal, but the federal policies themselves seem to have been poorly implemented, probably abusive, even potentially immoral.

There are legitimate issues around government overreach and federal land abuse here, and seeking to bury those legitimate issues beneath an avalanche of trumped up racial outrage is patently dishonest.

Many years ago, a College classmate of mine said, “Almost everyone derives at least some of their income from government today. We have an army of local, state and federal officials, from educators, to police, to workers in a vast array of government agencies, private contractors who pave roads FOR the government, workers in private Corporations that have huge government contracts, farmers and ranchers who get government subsidies, etc., so WHY do so many of us (especially so many military and former military...GOVERNMENT WORKERS) fear the growth of government so much?”

I call that, “The HAPPY Slave narrative.” People like that classmate simply embrace the universal slavery to the state that Libertarians and many Conservatives reflexively question.

What troubles me is the abject close-mindedness of those who don’t question the “happy slave narrative.” WHY? I should say, what motivates people to simply accept the idea of a universal slavery to the state as inevitable? I can’t respect that view, but that’s just me, I guess.

Today, I laud Chris Cuomo for being a straight shooter on a very controversial issue and in dealing with an inarticulate and non-media savvy individual without baiting and abusing him. It may be unfortunate that that stands out as a “rare decency,” on the part of the national media, but for better, or worse, it does stand out as exactly that.

Mr. Louis’ VERY Biased Assessment

(Errol Louis)

In Mr. Errol Louis’ Op-Ed Victory Over Bias, a Long Time Coming, the actual FACTS about the FDNY’s entrance exams were conveniently omitted. For instance, the fact that these exams have long been calibrated to grade-school (7^th & 8^th grade) reading levels, for a job requiring a minimum of a H.S. diploma and ostensibly a 12^th grade reading level at minimum.

Fact is these exams have long been set BELOW even the bare minimum standards required for this job. Mr. Louis quotes a blatantly biased judge, who claims, “The city did not take sufficient measures to ensure that better performers on its examinations would actually be better firefighters.” When all that these most basic exams have tested for is a desire to minimally prepare for exams with questions like one showing four views of a traditional gauge (¼, ½, ¾ and full) and asking, “Which indicates half full”? The same opponents of the Civil Service Merit System have assailed questions directly related to firefighting as “too job specific, requiring a knowledge of firefighting principles an applicant shouldn’t be expected to be familiar with,” even when such questions merely ask for information already supplied in the referenced essay.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, Errol Louis, as well as Mayor de Blasio have all expressed the view that “New York City’s workforce should look like New York City.” In that case, the ONE glaring disparity in New York City’s workforce the gross over-representation of non-Latino blacks (23% of NYC’s population and 36% of its Municipal workforce...a staggering 58% above their numbers in New York City’s population; http://www.citylimits.org/news/articles/4038/the-whitest-city-agencies#.Uy4bR_ldVHa) must be addressed, ESPECIALLY considering that so many of the largest discrepancies exist in agencies where objective criteria (like basic exams) are absent. That discrepancy is made all the more distressing because of the appearance of special (political) considerations, which smacks of the old, corrupt political patronage system.

In a city that is rapidly becoming more Asian and Hispanic, overlooking the singularly most glaring ethnic disparity in New York City’s Municipal workforce - the gross over-representation of non-Latino blacks, the ONLY ethnic group with numbers greater than 10% of their portion of the City’s population represented in New York City’s municipal workforce – is a very big deal.