Thursday, 05 March 2009
BARNEY "PHINEAS T." FRAUD
This is too much.
From an article at www.cnbc.com:
Pushes For Prosecutions Over Meltdown
By: CNBC.com | 05 Mar 2009 |
01:52 PM ET
In an interview with CNBC, Representative Barney Frank says
he wants to push for prosecution of the people who caused the country's
Massachusetts Democrat says he has no specific targets in mind, but says the
most significant thing lawmakers can do is make past bad practices
I wouldn't have believed this if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
Barney Fraud demanding prosecution for the people who caused the financial
meltdown? That's like bernard madoff demanding prosecution for people who
run ponzi schemes. It's like Shaquille O'Neal demanding an investigation
to find tall Black NBA centers.
Over the past month I have chronicled just how deeply involved this unbelievable
fraud is in the sub-prime mess, and how integral he was to the lending
practices of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac that caused it.
I showed video of him talking up the exact practices that caused
us to be where we are. I referenced Fraud's interview (if you can
call it that) with Bill O'Reilly, where he claimed he never said that Fannie Mae
was a good investment, immediately after O'Reilly played a video of Frank
stating that Fanny Mae was "solid going forward".
Now I'll show you an article from October 3, 2008, which indicates that, in
addition to his incompetence and lying, Frank was acting improperly on behalf of
his then-lover too. Please pay special attention to the part I've put in
Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of
Friday , October 03,
By Bill Sammon
Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who
benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Franks efforts to deregulate Fannie
Mae throughout the 1990s.
So did Franks partner, a Fannie Mae executive at
the forefront of the agencys push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a
financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new
questions about Frank's relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannies assistant
director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored
enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee,
which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street
Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest.
Critics, however, remain skeptical.
"Its absolutely a conflict," said Dan
Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. "He was voting on
Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is
that not germane?
"If this had been his ex-wife and he was
Republican, I would bet every penny I have - or at least whats not in the stock
market - that this would be considered germane," added Gainor, a T. Boone
Pickens Fellow. "But everybody wants to avoid it because hes gay. Its the
quintessential double standard."
A top GOP House aide
"Cmon, he writes housing and banking laws
and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?"
the aide told FOX News. "No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if
Franks political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would
say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxleys wife or [GOP presidential nominee
John] McCains wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the
nations housing and banking laws."
Franks office did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became
the first openly gay member of Congress.
"I am the only member of the congressional gay
spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill,
Barney always introduces me as his lover."
The two lived together in a Washington home until
they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at
Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives.
According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Maes
affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."
Critics say such programs led to the mortgage
meltdown that prompted last months government takeover of Fannie Mae and its
financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad
mortgages throughout the private financial sector.
Although Frank now blames Republicans for the
failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from
imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was
hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to
loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though
they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes,
Three years later, President Clintons Department
of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but
was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds
of todays economic crisis.
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats
have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by
me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac," Clinton said recently.
Phineas T. Barnum would have blushed. He would never have had the
effrontery to do what Barney Fraud is doing.
Like the article suggests, if this incompetent, lying, whining weasel had an
R instead of a D in front of his name, he would have been gone in disgrace a
long time ago. In this regard, many thanks to our wonderful "neutral"
media for giving him the free pass necessary to screw things up for all these
years right under their noses.
I don't watch The O'Reilly Factor all the time, but you better believe I will tonight. After
O'Reilly tore Fraud a new anal cavity over his responsibility for the
sub-prime meltdown - and his overt lying about it - there is absolutely no
doubt that, even as I type this, O'Reilly is working on his commentary about Barney
"Phineas T." Fraud's demand for an investigation.
I can't wait to see it.
UPDATE: I'm floored. O'Reilly didn't even mention Barney Fraud's
ludicrous comments. The only thing I can think of is that it happened too
late in the day to be included in his show and that he'll hit it tomorrow.
THE OBAMA TAX CODE
Cartoonist Dave Granlund seems to have a pretty clear bead on how to work
within the Obama tax code.....
THE END OF THE SECRET BALLOT
No, I don't mean the end of the secret ballot in political elections.
But I do mean something extremely bad and extremely dangerous unto itself.
I am talking about the end of secret ballots in union voting. And the
uncritical support unions are getting for this atrocity by President Barack
Here, from the Washington Post via an irate Steve Gilbert at www.sweetness-light.com, is the
March 5th, 2009
From a thoroughly unionized Washington Post:
AFL-CIO Says Card-Check Is Imminent
By Alec MacGillis
March 5, 2009
Buttressed by a new statement of support from
President Obama, union leaders said today they are confident that the Employee
Free Choice Act would be introduced in Congress in the next few weeks and that
they had the 60 votes needed to break a Senate filibuster that is,
if Al Franken is seated.
"Were confident right now that we have majority
support," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIOs legislative director, speaking in a
conference call from the AFL-CIOs executive council meeting in Miami. The
bill would be introduced in "days if not weeks," he said. "Weve been engaged
in a marathon on this, and now were ready to sprint."
The legislation, by far the top
priority for organized labor, would make it easier to form unions because it
gives workers the option of organizing by having workers sign cards of
support, instead of going through secret-ballot elections that labor leaders
say can be marked by intimidation by employers. The legislation would
require employers to submit to binding arbitration if they were unable to
agree to a contract within 90 days after a unions
In a video-taped statement delivered to the
AFL-CIO council meeting this week, Obama made clear that the legislation
remained on his to-do list. "As we confront this crisis and work to provide
health care to every American, rebuild our nations infrastructure, move
toward a clean energy economy, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, I want
you to know that you will always have a seat at the table," he
Samuel said repeatedly that unions are confident
that they will have exactly 60 senators on board if Al Franken is finally
seated and that they are still hoping to swing a few more senators on board
for breathing room
Notice how the Washington Post spins this
incredibly undemocratic and dangerous measure:
The legislation, by far the top priority for
organized labor, would make it easier to form unions because it gives workers
the option of organizing by having workers sign cards of support, instead of
going through secret-ballot elections that labor leaders say can be marked by
intimidation by employers.
Even by the lofty standards of the Post, is this
not some of the worst Orwellian perversion of language you have ever
The secret ballots has been fought for since the
beginning of representative government for the very reason that it
makes the voter far less susceptible to intimidation.
But without intimidation these unions thugs would
Personally, I believe that unions are imperative for
working people to have any kind of realistic leverage with the corporations they
are employed by. My sense of justice does not accept the idea
of individuals pitted against vastly more powerful corporate entities -- there has to
be a fair playing field.
I don't know where Steve is on this, since his fury is directed at the unions
themselves rather than the individuals who join them.
I assure you that one thing we both agree on is the perversity of disallowing
a secret ballot.
What do you think will happen to workers who vote against the "leaders"
of their unions? How strongly do you think the union will stand by them in
a work-related matter? How quick will the union be to get rid of
them if there is even a slight opening to do so?
Put another way, how would you like it if, instead of going into a
voting booth, you were told you had to hand your signed ballot to
the politicians currently in power?
See the point? I thought you would.
Now: Why would President Obama allow this to happen? Just how
much in bed is he with the union bosses?
Before answering, remind yourself of who holds the purse strings of a union -
the workers or the bosses who run the union. Now you've got your
DISINFECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY FRAUD
"Sunshine is the best disinfectant" - Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Justice Brandeis was right. Sunshine - i.e. bringing the truth to light
instead of hiding it - really is the best disinfectant.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that Democrats on the House Judiciary
Committee are about to find this out in a way they won't like
John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com explains.
The bold print is mine:
The former Bush administration and the House
Judiciary Committee (in effect, the Obama administration) have reached an agreement whereby Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will give sworn
testimony to committee staff relating to the firing of a handful of U.S.
Attorneys during President Bush's second term. Of all the faux
scandals that the Democrats ginned up during the Bush administration, this may
have been the dumbest. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. They serve at
the pleasure of the President. Political advantage is an excellent reason to
appoint, or to replace, a U.S. Attorney. Legally, there is no such thing as an
"improper" reason for replacing a political appointee.
Nancy Pelosi, whose knowledge of these matters is
fragmentary at best, hailed the agreement:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the
agreement "is a great victory for the Constitution, the rule of law and the
separation of powers."
"Congress now has the opportunity to
uncover the truth and determine whether improper criteria were used by the
Bush administration to dismiss and retain U.S. attorneys," she
"Separation of powers?" What on earth is
she talking about? Congress has nothing to do with the replacement of a U.S.
Attorney, who--to repeat--serves at the pleasure of the President. This is
politics, pure and simple, and in a sane political world, the Democrats would
not be able to get away with this kind of frivolous attack.
For what it's worth, though, I'm happy to see that
Rove and Miers will be giving evidence, and I hope it's made public. I have no
idea whether Rove knows anything about this subject, but if he does, he will be
more than a match for the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. I assume that
Harriet Miers does know something about the firings, and my guess is that the
Democrats won't be very happy to hear what she has to say.
The Justice Department tracks the performance of
U.S. Attorneys' offices using objective metrics--lawyers in those offices keep
track of their time like lawyers in private practice, and DOJ keeps statistics
on case loads, prosecutions initiated, etc. Some if not all of the U.S.
Attorneys who were let go were poor performers according to these metrics, but
the Bush administration downplayed the facts to spare their feelings. One would
assume that under oath, these facts will come out. The Democrats may be sorry
UPDATE: One more thing: virtually every
U.S. Attorney, like virtually every federal judge, is appointed at least in part
because he or she has political connections. There is no such thing as a
President randomly selecting some competent lawyer and making him or her a U.S.
To take just one blindingly obvious example, the
local lawyer who represents Al Franken in Minnesota's Senate election contest is
David Lillehaug. Lillehaug is a former U.S. Attorney for the State of Minnesota
who was appointed by Bill Clinton because of his political connections in the
Democratic Party. Now those same connections are making him a considerable
amount of money representing Al Franken. Nothing wrong with that: Dave is a good
lawyer and, as far as I know, was a reasonably competent U.S. Attorney. The
point is that these are "political appointments" in both the technical and
popular meanings of the phrase. The idea that it is a scandal if U.S. Attorneys
are either hired or fired for political reasons is ludicrous.
SCOTT adds: I hope to do no harm to David
Lillehaug's reputation among his Democratic friends, but I want to add that I
consider him a friend and an excellent attorney. I also think he was an
excellent United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota. His professional
excellence had quite a bit to do with his appointment as United States Attorney
as I am sure it did with his retention by Al Franken in the recount
These hearings had damn well better be public. How
can you possibly demand testimony to get at the truth and then suppress it?
If Democrats try to conduct this circus behind closed doors, even their
usually reliable flunkies in the media won't be able to cover for them.
I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Hinderaker that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers
will make mincemeat out of these ignorant clowns. Why am I so
certain? Because I am a subnovice when it comes to legal matters, and even
I could do it.
Reread the parts I put in bold
print. See for yourself. Even if they could make a case that
Bush fired some or all of the US Attornies for political reasons, so
what? He CAN fire them for political reasons. There is no legal reason NOT
to fire them for political reasons.
I wonder if these geniuses realize that politically
inspired judicial appointments are, to say the least, nothing
new. This didn't start with President Bush -- or end with him either. Barack
Obama can do exactly the same thing -- and don't doubt for one
nanosecond that he will.
Illustratively, when Bill Clinton came into office he fired and replaced
every one of the 93 US Attorneys. Do you doubt that he picked some,
or most, or all the replacements based on political considerations? If so,
please signify by saying "I am a blithering idiot with nothing above my
brainstem but a half-dead rutabaga". Thank you.
Democrats have made a lot of political hay out of this
idiotic witchhunt. And it has worked -- as long as they didn't get
what they demanded; namely the testimony of people who know what the laws are
and know how many other Presidents did the same thing, perfectly legally. Well,
now they're getting it.
If sunshine is the best disinfectant, this is going to be the Lysol
THE BRITISH FRAUDCASTING COMPANY
Why would I call the BBC
Lots and lots of reasons. But here is the latest.
Follow this remarkable blog from www.backspin.typepad.com. It shows
a sequence of BBC headlines about an incident in Jerusalem, the
facts of which did not change one bit throughout the headline changes:
BBC's Bulldozes Headlines
If there's a bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem, count
on the BBC to botch the headlines. Two separate
might be an unhappy coincidence, but with another attack today, the BBC proved three's a trend.
Here's the evolution of the Beeb's headlines. The
first headline emphasizes a dead driver, not the nature of the terror involved.
This new headline shortly
afterwards was nothing more than a semantic twist on the same
Last I looked, this was the new BBC headline. It
finally reflects that this was an attack, but why the quote
As we pointed out last July the BBC's initial
instinct is to portray Israel as an aggressor and a Palestinian as a victim even
if that Palestinian was actively involved in a terrorist attack against innocent
The fact that the headlines were changed at all
shows that somebody thought about what was going on. Too bad it took so
long . . .
As you can see, the analysis is spot-on correct.
Simply stated, when there is an event in Israel, Gaza or Judea/Samaria (the
west bank), the BBC will unfailingly report it as an offense by the mighty
agressor Israel on the poor, helpless Palestinian Arabs. If the facts don't
coincide with that presupposition? Who cares?
And don't think for a minute that the BBC is an isolated case. This type of
fraud is replicated throughout Western Europe on a daily basis.
No wonder so many Europeans are so ignorant about the Middle
WHY WE FIGHT FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM
Why do we fight fundamentalist Islam?
Here's a pretty good reason, which comes to us from www.cnn.com:
Victim Will Get to Blind the Man
Who Blinded Her
Madrid, Spain (CNN)- An Iranian
woman living in Spain is welcoming a Tehran court ruling that awards her
eye-for-an-eye justice against a suitor who blinded her.
In a Spanish radio interview, she
says her aim isn't revenge -- it's to make sure her suffering isn't repeated.
Ameneh Bahrami was blinded and
disfigured in 2004 when a man she had spurned threw acid on her. Late last year,
an Iranian court reportedly ruled that Islamic justice calls for the attacker to
be blinded with acid, too.
But the victim says she is
entitled to blind Majid Movahedi in only one eye, because under Iranian law
"each man is worth two women."
She also says he would be blinded
by having several drops of acid put into one eye, whereas she had acid splashed
all over her face and other parts of her body.
She says she's waiting for a
letter from the court telling her to go back to Iran for the punishment to be
Bahrami tells CNN
she first crossed paths with her attacker Movahedi in 2002, when they attended
the same university. She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She
never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and
brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away
from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." When Bahrami stood up
in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned
silence. Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her
and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him.
Then one day she
was leaving work and he snuck up behind her. When she turned around he threw
acid on her face.
So she gets to go back to Iran and blind the man who blinded and disfigured
her. But she can only blind him in one eye and can't disfigure him,
because under Iranian (read that as Islamic) law she is worth half as much as
the man who did this to her. That is justice in mullah-controlled Iran.
Why do we fight to preserve our culture and not be taken over by
fundamentalist Islam? That's why.
THE CHARLES W. FREEMAN JR. FIASCO
I've already written several blogs about charles w. freeman, Jr., the Israel
hating, saudi loving, hamas apologist picked to head our National Intelligence
Council. I've already written about what a disaster this "man"
is. But it turns out that there is even more to the story.
Eli Lake has written an
excellent investigative piece on freeman for the Washington Times. It
is too long to post here, so I am putting up the first segment in hopes that you
will click on the link and read it all. The bold print is mine:
Foreign ties of nominee questioned
Post handles classified data
An independent inspector general will look into
the foreign financial ties of Chas W. Freeman
Jr., the Obama administration's pick to
serve as chairman of the group that prepares the U.S. intelligence community's
most sensitive assessments, according to three congressional aides.
The director of national intelligence, Dennis C.
Blair, last Thursday named Mr. Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the
chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council,
known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will
have access to some of America's most closely guarded secrets and be charged
with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence
His selection was praised by some who noted his
articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior
envoy to China and other nations. But it
sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence's inspector general, Edward
McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman's potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Freeman has not submitted the
financial disclosure forms required of all candidates for senior public
positions, according to the general counsel's office of the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence.
Nor did Mr. Blair seek the White House's
approval before he announced the appointment of Mr. Freeman, said Mr. Blair's
spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi.
"The director did not seek the White House's
approval," Ms. Morigi said. "In addition to his formal background security
investigation, we expect that the White House will undertake the typical vetting
associated with senior administration assignments."
Among the areas likely to be scrutinized
in the vetting process are Mr. Freeman's position on the international advisory
board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC). The Chinese government and other state-owned
companies own a majority stake in the concern, which has invested in Sudan and
other countries sometimes at odds with the United
States, including Iran.
Mr. Freeman is also president of the
nonprofit educational organization Middle East Policy Council (MEPC), which paid
him $87,000 in 2006, and received at least $1 million from a Saudi
prince. He also has chaired Projects International, a consulting firm
that has worked with foreign companies and governments.
Lindsay Hamilton, a spokeswoman for Rep. Steve
Israel, a Democrat from New York who sits on the House Appropriations
Committee's select intelligence oversight panel that funds the classified
budgets for the intelligence community, said her boss had been in touch with Mr.
McGuire, who was appointed by the first director of national intelligence, John
"Congressman Israel spoke with DNI inspector
McGuire. The inspector said he would look into the matter. And the congressman
is pleased with his response." Two other congressional aides also said the
inspector general would start his inquiries soon.
Are you kidding me?
Mr. Obama may not personally have picked this unbelievably inappropriate
candidate. But he certainly knows who and what freeman is. Does he
have a position on
someone like this heading NIC? One word from Obama and freeman is history.
Should we be surprised about the selection of someone
like freeman without a peep from Barack Obama about it? Not at all.
We elected a man without presidential qualifications who is in way, way over his head. A man
who stacked his campaign staff and now his administration with people who do
not like Israel. We're getting exactly what we elected.
And should we be surprised at how little media coverage there is of this
reprehensible selection? Again, not at all. Most mainstream media
are still in unconditional-love mode for Saint Barack, and a trivial little
matter like freeman just gets in the way.
Finally, to the 78% of Jews who voted for Obama, most of whom I assume
support Israel: I hope you're happy with this. You helped make it
Speaking as one of the other 22%, I assure you I'm not.
THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I
Some years ago there was an incident at our Synagogue in which one of the
"leaders" (I'm intentionally not being specific) of the congregation shoved
and/or hit a 12 year old boy.
As we heard it, the leader was teaching this boy the various
prayers, procedures, etc. he would need to know for his bar-mitzvah***.
The boy was a complete wise-ass who made it clear that he didn't care about
the ritual, only the celebration afterwards. After enduring repeated
insults, sarcasms, etc. the leader couldn't take it any more and laid hands on
My opinion at the time was that, while I did not and could not condone the
leader's actions, I understood them perfectly and could see myself doing exactly
the same thing.
With this in mind, I think you will understand my sympathy toward the police
officer described below and the writer of this article:
Caught on Tape: Police Beating Teen
I suspect I'm not the
only cop who has watched that video and thought, "There but for the grace of God
Perhaps youve seen the video
of the King County, Wash., sheriffs deputy dishing out a bit of the rough stuff
on a 15-year-old girl. At 3:45 a.m. last November 29, the girl was arrested
while riding as a passenger in her parents car, which had been reported stolen
to police. The video shows Deputy Paul Schene, 31, and a second deputy escorting
the girl into a holding cell. The girl, apparently at Schenes request, takes
off one of her shoes and, apparently not at Schenes request, kicks it
at him, striking him in the shin with it.
It seems fair to say that at that point Deputy
Schene lost it. The video shows him charging into the cell and striking the
girl, then shoving her against the back wall before throwing her to the floor.
After handcuffing her, he picks her up and takes her out of the cell while
holding her by the hair. A detective who later reviewed the video reported the
incident, and Schene was charged in King County District Court with misdemeanor
assault. He has pleaded not guilty.
Ugly stuff, to be sure. But I suspect Im not the
only cop who has watched that video and thought, There but for the grace of God
go I. Let me be clear on this point: Neither do I condone what Deputy Schene
appears to have done in the video nor have I committed such acts myself in my
long career as a police officer. But I understand the impulse.
Every police officer has had the experience. You
come across a case of criminal wrongdoing, and the person youve arrested takes
the position that you have neither the right nor the authority to cause him the
burdensome inconvenience of having the law enforced at his expense. He proceeds
to lecture you on the law, more particularly his knowledge and your ignorance of
it. He tells you about his influential friends who will surely have you removed
from your job or at least reassigned to some less desirable post. He offers his
opinions on your appearance and your ancestry and your personal life, often to
the point of accusing you of having an improper, dare I say Oedipal,
relationship with your mother. And then, at some point during the booking
process, he commits some overt act of provocation, even one as seemingly
innocuous as kicking his shoe at you, and you have to decide: What
Deputy Schene, no doubt to his everlasting regret,
made his choice. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say he let his emotions
make the choice for him, for as fleetingly satisfying as it may have been to
knock the impudent girl around the cell for a bit, had he considered the
consequences of his actions before undertaking them he surely would have chosen
The typical police officer comes from a family
that instills in him a respect for the law and for lawful authority, and early
in his career he is surprised to encounter so many people in whom such a respect
is lacking. In a matter of months he is no longer surprised to meet such people,
having come to accept them as part of the landscape. But when he encounters one
who is already, at the age of 15, so deficient in that respect that she feels at
liberty to call him a fat pig after he has found her in a stolen car in the
middle of the night, well, he can find that his fuse has been somewhat
But people rightfully expect better of police
officers, and despite whatever provocation the girl may have committed, in
reacting as he did Deputy Schene brought discredit to himself, his fellow
deputies, and police officers everywhere. Now he needs to face the
But what should those consequences be? Schene is
an eight-year veteran of the King County Sheriffs Department, and without
knowing anything else about him I can guess that during those eight years he has
risked his life several times, most often without the slightest recognition by
his superiors or the citizens he serves. What an injustice it would be if those
eight years of service are overshadowed by thirty seconds of videotape.
I dont suggest for a moment that Deputy Schene
should escape punishment, but I would ask that his entire career be taken into
account when that punishment is calculated.
Jack Dunphy is the pseudonym of an
officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. The opinions expressed are his
own and almost certainly do not reflect those of the LAPD
I have little doubt that we agree the officer was wrong. Ok,
Now; what would you have done? How short would your fuse have
Maybe it would be a good thing - a very good thing - if that question and
answer is taken into account for the officer.
(Oh, by the way, the leader of our congregation was publicly reprimanded
for what he did. To the best of my knowledge, the boy got away with
it. I'm sure he had a great celebration.)
***From www.jewfaq.org: "Bar
Mitzvah" literally means "son of the commandment." "Bar" is "son" in Aramaic,
which used to be the vernacular of the Jewish
people. "Mitzvah" is "commandment" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. "Bat" is
daughter in Hebrew and Aramaic. (The Ashkenazic pronunciation is "bas"). Technically,
the term refers to the child who is coming of age, and it is strictly correct to
refer to someone as "becoming a bar (or bat) mitzvah." However, the term is more
commonly used to refer to the coming of age ceremony itself, and you are more
likely to hear that someone is "having a bar mitzvah."