Tag Archives: words

Is Illegal Immigration Raising Arizona’s Crime Rate? NY Times Says No; Relevant Figures Say Yes

On Sunday, New York Times reporter Randal Archibold offered up more of his slanted reporting on Arizona’s pending new immigration enforcement law, suggesting that supporters of tough immigration enforcement are fostering fear by exaggerating the problem of violent crime on the border with Mexico: ” On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas .” But does his evidence stand up? Two conservative writers say no, pointing to FBI statistics that show crime in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties crime has increased substantially. When Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, announced that the Obama administration would send as many as 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bolster security at the Mexican border, she held up a photograph of Robert Krentz, a mild-mannered rancher who was shot to death this year on his vast property. The authorities suspected that the culprit was linked to smuggling. “Robert Krentz really is the face behind the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border,” Ms. Giffords said. It is a connection that those who support stronger enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders often make: rising crime at the border necessitates tougher enforcement. But the rate of violent crime at the border, and indeed across Arizona, has been declining, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as has illegal immigration, according to the Border Patrol . While thousands have been killed in Mexico’s drug wars, raising anxiety that the violence will spread to the United States, F.B.I. statistics show that Arizona is relatively safe. That Mr. Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process . Archibold again pompously implied fear-mongering on the part of supporters of immigration enforcement: Moreover, crime statistics, however rosy, are abstract. It takes only one well-publicized crime, like Mr. Krentz’s shooting, to drive up fear. …. Crime figures, in fact, present a more mixed picture, with the likes of Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator behind the immigration enforcement law, playing up the darkest side while immigrant advocacy groups like Coalición de Derechos Humanos (Human Rights Coalition), based in Tucson, circulate news reports and studies showing that crime is not as bad as it may seem. For instance, statistics show that even as Arizona’s population swelled, buoyed in part by illegal immigrants funneling across the border, violent crime rates declined, to 447 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2008, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available from the F.B.I. In 2000, the rate was 532 incidents per 100,000. Nationally, the crime rate declined to 455 incidents per 100,000 people, from 507 in 2000. Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer seconded Archibold’s assertion about crime dropping on the Arizona border in her Tuesday front-page profile of Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail in Arizona: While border crime has decreased in this state in recent years , the killing of a prominent rancher in the south by what the police suspect was an illegal immigrant set off rage across the state, and helped fuel a tough new state law directed at immigrants. But Tom Maguire researched the actual FBI statistics and came away with the opposite result, though his results are not definitive: …the stats reprinted below tell a different story — measured by violent crimes per 100,000, the non-MSA portion of Arizona has seen a dramatic increase in crime….these numbers do not support the case that the rural and border areas of Arizona are getting safer. Quite the contrary, actually. Maybe the Times can turn a reporter loose on that. Taking off from Maguire’s spadework, Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner explained: …essentially, the FBI crime stats are broken down by region and while crime has fallen 20 percent in cities from 2000 to 2008, in towns outside major metropolitan areas and rural counties crime is up 39 and 45 percent, respectively. In other words, it sure looks like crime is way up in the border regions of Arizona.

View original post here:
Is Illegal Immigration Raising Arizona’s Crime Rate? NY Times Says No; Relevant Figures Say Yes

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement

Liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday mocked the Mount Vernon Statement, a conservative declaration of principles as ” a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing .” The anchor first described the document as endorsing “the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith.” [Audio available here .] Maddow then dismissed, “In other words, such generic ‘I love my mama’ platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement.” (At one point, Maddow appeared to be mimicking the tone and voice of the late William F. Buckley.) The left-wing host didn’t explain which paragraph she objected to, perhaps it was the one about “limited government” or “market solutions.” However, if it has caught the ire of MSNBC, conservatives might want to learn more about it. To view the entire document, go here . To see prominent conservatives, including MRC President Brent Bozell, read the Mount Vernon Statement, see a previous NewsBusters blog. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 9:05pm EDT on June 21, follows: RACHEL MADDOW: Republicans have made a bunch of efforts in the last year to nail down exactly what it is they want to tell the American people they stand for. Remember the pizza party that Eric Cantor and Mitt Romney hosted last year? That was supposed to be the kickoff for the Republican Party`s new National Council for a New America. The plan was for Republicans to travel around the country, soliciting ideas from average Americans. Eric Cantor pulled the plug on that big idea last month after holding just one pizza event in the whole year, one little pizza party. And then there was this idea-soliciting effort from House Republicans – Americaspeakingout.com, an online forum for Americans to provide new ideas for the Republican Party platform. As the Associated Press noted this weekend, that effort is also not bearing much fruit for Republicans. If you go to the “Liberty and Freedom” page, for example, right now, you can see that the top suggested ideas are “Please protect my right to play poker,” and “Eliminate `don`t ask, don`t tell.`” Also, “Keep the Republicans out of our bedrooms” and “Ban handguns” and “Drop the idea that we`re a Christian country.” You think the Republican Party is ready to run with those ideas? From Americaspeakingout.com, their big ideas generator? Then there was You Cut, the House Republican project to let the American people literally set the legislative agenda for Republicans. People would vote online on what federal spending programs should be cut, and then House Republicans would propose those cuts, thereby slashing federal spending by 0.017 percent. The anti-spending Cato Institute here ridiculing House Republican for their effort to exchange their own initiative, their own leadership, for a meaningless social media gimmick. Then there was the Mount Vernon Statement, a grandiose fake-parchmenty-looking thing that conservatives signed on to as their statement of Constitutional conservatism for the 21st century, endorsing things like the rule of law, and individual liberty, and opposing tyranny in the world, and the defense of family, neighborhood, community and faith. In other words, such generic “I love my mama” platitudes that even a pinko-Commie-liberal-elite-infidel like me would be happy signing on to all but one paragraph of the whole Mount Vernon Statement. And if I fit into your definition of conservative, your definition of conservative is probably broken. It`s one thing to have the luxury to work out your principles in the abstract, to have your pizza parties and your parchmenty statements that talk about loving America and hating foreign aid or whatever. It`s all well and good until what you want government to do actually gets put to the test, like say when a giant, totally unforeseen catastrophe happens, like what is happening right now in the Gulf — the biggest environmental disaster ever in our country, plainly and inarguably caused by an oil company screwing up. It`s exposed deep rifts and deep disagreements among conservatives, among Republicans, about what to do and why.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Dismisses ‘Fake’ ‘Platitudes’ of Conservative Mount Vernon Statement

Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.” But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a “shakedown” at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.” He complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.” “I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” “I'm speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I'm not speaking for the Republican Party.” Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments “shameful.” “What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.” According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D – MA) said he “could not disagree more strongly” with Barton's comments. “Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now – the residents of the Gulf,” he said. “American citizens are being harmed,” Markey added. “We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected.” “The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place,” said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be “permanently altered” without action. Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected “American government working at its best” to ensure that families do not become “roadkill” as a result of corporate practices. As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily. added by: TimALoftis

Frank Gehry Recants Earlier Rants, Goes Green

Image credits: Isaac Brekken, mikel.puga In March we noted how Frank Gehry appeared to be a climate skeptic and was not fond of LEED; we followed up with coverage of the architectural bunfight his words started. But in a long interview with Abby Leonard of PBS’s Need to Know , Frank recants, does a few mea culpas and clarif… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Visit link:
Frank Gehry Recants Earlier Rants, Goes Green

Gary Coleman 911 — ‘Yeah, He’s Suicidal’

Filed under: Gary Coleman , Shannon Price Gary Coleman ‘s ex-wife told police he was “suicidal” and acting crazy during a 911 call she made 4 months before she was — in her words — “forced” to pull the plug on Gary. During the call, made back in January, Shannon Price doesn’t sound overly… Read more

Read more here:
Gary Coleman 911 — ‘Yeah, He’s Suicidal’

Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy!

www.A3Network.com. Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy! A3Network is a group of online TV channels that reflect the modern lifestyle, featuring Bikini Girls, Sexy Pool Parties, Nightlife, Clubs, DJs, Music Videos, Style, Art and Fashion. Whatever the flavor, the most exciting videos on the web! Original A3 Network content is produced by http

http://www.youtube.com/v/8Egkp3nDdMY?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

Read the rest here:
Sexy Bikini Girls – Meet Cindy!

Sexiest Bikini Girls In The World!

www.A3Network.com. Sexiest Bikini Girls In The World! A3Network is a group of online TV channels that reflect the modern lifestyle, featuring Bikini Girls, Sexy Pool Parties, Nightlife, Clubs, DJs, Music Videos, Style, Art and Fashion. Whatever the flavor, the most exciting videos on the web! Original A3 Network content is produced by http

http://www.youtube.com/v/cUvVKmK26xk?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

Read more:
Sexiest Bikini Girls In The World!

Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Watch CBS News Videos Online It’s been more than 50 days since a BP oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana, beginning a massive leak of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Miles of beaches have been soiled and birds, turtles and other sea creatures have died. But the most disturbing pictures of the disaster weren’t available to the public for more than 40 days. That was when many people finally witnessed Louisiana’s state bird, the brown pelican, literally covered in thick brown oil. Why so long? Because federal agencies including the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were preventing the press from reaching many areas affected by the disaster. CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune have all complained about local and federal authorities and and British Petroleum contractors inhibiting their reporting. But while many in the news media blame BP, the real culprit may well be the Obama administration. When asked, Obama and other administration spokespeople say the U.S. government is in charge of the oil spill cleanup. The president has openly stated that the federal government is in charge of the oil spill clean up. The Associated Press (AP) reported that “Obama says all steps BP takes to end the huge spill must be approved in advance by the government.” But journalists and the left have blamed BP rather than point fingers up the federal chain of command. Left-wing magazine Mother Jones called it a “corporate blockade at Louisiana’s crude-covered beaches.” Newsweek magazine pointed out the difficulty that photographers encountered when trying to “document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf.” In its article, Newsweek placed the blame squarely on British Petroleum from the headline: “BP’s Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill” to the quote from a Louisiana photographer who said the prefix “BP” ought to be attached to “Coast Guard” on all the vessels. “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,'” Charlie Varley told Newsweek. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.” It’s also not funny that many in the news media and on the left would rather blame BP for controlling federal agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) than recognize the similarities between limited media access in the Gulf and Obama’s previous actions controlling the press. Obama also has a long-standing pattern of handling the press, sometimes to the point of blocking access. So now that many reporters are complaining of a lack of access to the oil spill, it is surprising how little blame has been directed at the administration. During the campaign, he had three reporters from publications that had endorsed John McCain kicked off his plane. Since then he has openly attacked his detractors (including Rush Limbaugh) and was once criticized by a couple reporters (Chip Reid and Helen Thomas) for managing a town hall meeting. As of February, Obama had held fewer solo press conferences than most presidents — only George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon held fewer. And he went nearly a year, from July 22, 2009 until last week, without holding a formal news conference. Despite the failures of regulators at the Minerals Management Service and Obama’s own claim that the feds are in charge, a Media Research Center analysis of the oil spill coverage found 95 percent of stories had no criticism of the Obama administration whatsoever (148 out of 157 stories). Coast Guard, FAA keeps press away from Gulf spill Even though Newsweek, Mother Jones and others have clearly blamed BP for controlling federal agencies, government officials themselves are the ones that have been turning the news media away. So far, reporters and photographers from many outlets, including CBS, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mother Jones and AP have publicly complained about being denied access by local governments and law enforcement, the Coast Guard and the FAA. “More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts and even flyovers,” Newsweek wrote. CBS released video of a boat of BP contractors and two Coast Guard officials telling their reporters to leave an area on May 20. The video shows one man on the boat saying, “This is BP’s rules, not ours.” As a company, how could they exert authority over the Coast Guard, and why wouldn’t the Obama administration make sure that does not happen?  AP’s Matthew Brown was one of the few to attach some blame to government, not solely BP. Brown wrote that different media organizations were being restricted “though not all have linked the decision to BP. Government officials say restrictions are needed to protect wildlife and ensure safe air traffic.” While there was no mention of Obama in Brown’s story, Brown said the Coast Guard and FAA told him that “BP PLC was not controlling access.” It is the FAA that has imposed air space restrictions on miles of coastline, according to The Times-Picayune. Flights in certain areas cannot descend below 3,000 feet – effectively preventing aerial photography of the spill’s impact. Rhonda Panepinto, owner of Southern Seaplane charter service, told the New Orleans paper her husband was told ” absolutely no media or press on any planes. The press flights are limited to Saturdays only and only in Coast Guard helicopters.” According to The Times-Picayune, the government decides who can fly and who cannot: “the FAA maintains that BP employees or contractors are not calling the shots on who gets to fly into the restricted air space, saying those decisions are made by the FAA and Coast Guard. But agency spokespeople acknowledge that media access is limited, saying they are only allowing flights into the restricted area that are directly related to the disaster response.” A June 9 New York Times story from cited an incident where the Dept. of Homeland Security told Sen. Bill Nelson’s, D-Fla., that no journalists would be allowed to accompany him on a gulf trip on a Coast Guard vessel. Though the Times clearly blamed some government agencies, like DHS, it did not mention the Obama administration at all. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser condemned the federal response to the oil spill calling for Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen to resign . Nungesser also called on Obama to support Gov. Bobby Jindal’s EPA request for dredging permits to protect Louisiana. On May 28, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that Nungesser had a private meeting with Obama. Nungesser said Obama “chewed me out” and said “we need to communicate.” “You pick up the phone and call the White House. And, if you can’t get me on the phone, then you can go blast me,” Obama reportedly said to Nungesser. The Coast Guard has defended itself, specifically regarding the CBS incident, by saying that the media do have access: “In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.” That wasn’t sufficient for Ralph Ranalli, chief blogger for WGBH’s Beat the Press website. He chalked up the continued access problems up to ” cluelessness ” on the part of the Obama administration, but criticized the lame response from the Coast Guard. Ranalli said that the CBS clip should have “shamed” the Obama administration into making “a rational plan for media access.” “Embeds are fine in a war zone. But for the federal government to say the media should be satisfied with ride-alongs with an oil company under criminal investigation for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history is insane. It just staggers the imagination,” Ranalli wrote. Newsweek also took issue with such embeds arguing that “even when access is granted it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel.” Who’s really in charge? Media outlets have been determined to blame BP for the lack of access, despite the local and federal governments’ involvement. Unlike many reporters, one green blogger did call the president out on the Mother Nature Network. Karl Burkart, an architect and blogger about green technology, pointed out that “The Coast Guard, as one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, answers to the commander in chief – President Obama.” Ultimately Burkart said he “believed” Obama was ” aiding and abetting ” BP. But the question remains, is the White House powerless to control federal agencies like the Coast Guard? Or unwilling – because more coverage would mean more potential criticism for Obama? Or are these agencies puppets in the hands of BP? No matter the option, things don’t look good for the administration. Robert Gibbs, WH press secretary, deflected criticism of the administration on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” May 23 saying “There’s no doubt that we have had some problems with BP’s lack of transparency.” But the White House has been careful to claim that they’ve been charge of the clean up operations. Carol Browner, Obama’s energy and climate czar, said on “Meet the Press” May 30, “the government’s been in control from the beginning … don’t make any mistake here, the government is in charge.” ( Watch video ) Obama told AP the same thing, saying that BP had to get permission from Washington for all the clean up. So it stands to reason that the White House wouldn’t have trouble telling BP to allow the media unfettered access to report on the oil spill if it wanted to. But the Obama administration has a history of managing the press. Despite an often-“fawning” news media that helped get him elected , the president rarely holds formal news conferences. According to Byron York, Obama has done fewer brief Q&A sessions than Bush or Clinton. Even at a bill signing for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act May 18, Obama refused to answer questions from CBS’s Chip Reid. Reid asked, “”Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?” Obama replied, “You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip.” When Reid pressed further asking, “Will you answer them?” Obama said flat-out: “We won’t be answering.” York said that former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino was astounded by Obama dodging the press. “I think it is astonishing that there isn’t carping about this from the press every day,” Perino said. “Believe me, they would have nailed us to the wall.” Reid, along with liberal Helen Thomas, also challenged Obama for a “tightly controlled” town hall meeting in July 2009. “The concept of a town hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions,” Reid said to Gibbs. “Why? Why do it that way?” Later in that White House briefing even liberal journalist Helen Thomas accused the administration of “a pattern of controlling the press.” During his presidential campaign, Obama kicked three reporters off the press airplane –  all from conservative papers. ABC wrote, “the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.” The Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News were eliminated from the airplane. Since taking office, the Obama White House has hit back hard at critics in the media, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer . According to Limbaugh, Obama has simply been following the liberal Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Jonathan Martin of Politico agreed, saying on March 4 , all this isn’t coincidence; it is an effort to frame Limbaugh in the Alinsky mode. After Santelli’s rant about bailouts, Gibbs suggested that the CNBC floor reporter didn’t understand Obama’s mortgage plan. Gibbs also criticized Cramer and attempted to discredit him. But each of these actions by Obama, Emanuel or Gibbs has triggered a media-feeding frenzy and ensuing grassroots efforts to capitalize on the media attention and destroy the target. Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

View original post here:
Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

In his June 9 “case study” feature for Time.com, Adam Cohen, formerly of the New York Times editorial board and Time magazine, tackled the question “Are Liberal Judges Really ‘Judicial Activists’?” Cohen’s short answer: yes, but so are conservative judges, and it’s the conservatives on the Supreme Court that have been on an activist kick lately. To bolster his argument, Cohen complained that judges must of necessity make judgment calls about vague elements of U.S. law and the Constitution. You know, vague stuff like, wait for it, the First Amendment (emphases mine): Roberts and the rest of the court’s five-member conservative majority have overturned congressional laws and second-guessed local elected officials as aggressively as any liberal judges. And they have been just as quick to rely on vague constitutional clauses. Earlier this year, in the Citizens United campaign-finance case, the court’s conservatives struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations from spending on federal elections. Once again, they relied on a vaguely worded constitutional guarantee. That “vaguely worded constitutional guarantee” reads as follows: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. What part of that is vague? Congress has no business abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The amendment says nothing about whose freedom of speech, and congressional attempts to fence in that freedom of speech to individuals alone, and not corporate entities, is a pretty clear violation of the text of the amendment’s prohibition against speech abridgement. Indeed, as the majority in Citizen’s United made clear: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content….The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. Cohen also considers “vague” the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause: In a 2007 case, the conservative majority overturned voluntary racial integration programs in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Good idea or bad, the programs were adopted by local officials who had to answer to voters. But the conservative Justices had no problem invoking the vague words of the Equal Protection Clause to strike them down. In that controversy, the two school systems involved were purposefully engineering the racial demography of schools within their districts to correct what was perceived as racial imbalance. In other words, some schools were too white, others too black, in the eyes of policymakers. Whereas Brown v. Board ruled that de jure segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment protections because segregation by law was inherently unequal, liberal proponents of the Seattle and Louisville plans defended the respective school districts’ obsession with the skin color of its school populations.  Here’s how Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes recorded the logic of Chief Justice Roberts in the Court’s opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. : “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. “The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.” He added: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  Those crazy conservative justices and their radical activism, upholding the implications of Brown v. Board of Education!

Go here to see the original:
Former NYT Editorialist Cohen Insists First Amendment Free Speech Protection Is ‘Vague’

Unattractive defendants receive longer sentences – the American Jury System

Well, here's one more argument for an overhaul of the jury system in America. According to a Cornell University study, a physically unattractive defendant is likely to receive a harsher sentence than a more attractive defendant – a prison sentence up to 22 months longer, on average, for a similar crime. The study looks at two kinds of jurors – those who process information rationally and without regard for the appearance of the defendant, and jurors who process information emotionally, giving harsher verdicts and sentencing based upon their perception of the physical attributes of the defendant. Author Justin Gunnell '05, J.D. '08, who began working on the study as a policy analysis and management major with co-author Stephen Ceci, and Cornell's Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology were determined to find out why there have been reports of such disparities for decades. Using 169 Cornell undergraduates, the scientists determined those individuals who processed information rationally, using facts, analysis and reason, and those who based their decisions on emotion which factored in irrelevant factors such as race, gender and class, and who reported that a “less attractive” person would be “more likely” the kind of person who would commit a crime. The study concluded with the participants looking at an actual case file and photograph, jury instructions and closing arguments and rendering his or her verdict and sentencing accordingly. (In fairness, this inconsistency was reported in those cases with ambiguous evidence or lesser charged offenses; in other words, not in cases where there was harder evidence more determinative of guilt). Since in the American justice system, attorneys have an opportunity to screen jurors for specific reasons, and for a limited number of non-specific reasons, this study might be useful, in designing questions or challenges that get to the heart of a prospective juror's mindset, but can we ever ensure a jury system without predisposition, whether for race, gender, class or attractiveness? Should we even be surprised by this study, with what we, as laymen, know of human nature? This tosses another ball into the court of proponents for professional jurors – with its own set of drawbacks, but arguably a more plausible solution to justice in the courtroom. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6015099-unattractive-defendants-receiv… added by: Stoneyroad