Quote of the Day
Never anger a heathen, a snake, or a pupil.
Talmud
O'Reilly Attack on Anthony Juror Jennifer Ford: Thumbs DOWN!
O'Reilly had a bizarre attack on ABC interviewee Jennifer Ford, whom suggested that she couldn't rule out an accidental death. He seemed to think that Ford needed to prove any basis she had for reasonable doubt. This is a conceptual misunderstanding of how our justice system works. Even the prosecutor O'Reilly was interviewing tonight was trying to tactfully say Ford had her right to doubt based on the fact that the state's case was based on a theory of Caylee's death, which was supported by evidence that was suggestive, not definitive. It was CONSISTENT WITH a death by suffocation--but it did not prove death by suffocation or even that if duct tape did cause suffocation, Casey Anthony was the individual applied the duct tape. Because the remains had deteriorated in the elements and through passage of time, the tape was not contiguous with the front of the skull. The problem for the prosecution is they can't provide definitive proof of ANY cause of death. Presumably there's no way to tell from Caylee's remains (bones or whatever), whether she died of an accident or at the hands of (an) individual(s). The prosecution did the best it could given the suboptimal status of the forensic evidence it had to work with; the evidence deteriorated with time, something beyond the prosecution's control. I've already conceded--I don't think that people normally respond to accidental deaths by lying to the police and dumping her body in a swamp where it wasn't likely to be found (or visited by a grieving parent). The difference is between "probably" and "certainty", and the job of the prosecution is to close the gap. Sometimes it just can't do that because the evidence just isn't there.
I have been very impressed with what I've heard of the jurors like Jennifer Ford. They were sickened by what happened, and if they could have convicted Casey Anthony, they would have. But they took their responsibility seriously. To reference O'Reilly's famous gimmick: Jennifer Ford is the patriot; Bill O'Reilly is the pinhead.
Yarmuth (D-KY): Obama Landslide If Bachmann Nominated?
First of all, as someone who considers himself an authentic member of the Tea Party, responding to Rick Santelli's clarion call against the moral hazard of the current administration's policies, e.g., bailing out homeowners whom bought more house than they could afford, I have legitimate issues with Bachmann, whom has a mixed message when it comes to Big Government; for instance, she has been a strong supporter of the Patriot Act, including certain notorious provisions which most libertarian-conservatives regard as an end run around the Bill of Rights. As I have mentioned in past posts, Bachmann is better known for social conservatism, which is not part of the Tea Party agenda.
Much has been claimed by her recent debate prowess: I have not watched the CNN debate (I have only seen debate fragments like the Pawlenty ObamneyCare fumble and stupid novelty questions like thin-crust or deep-dish pizza), but I seriously doubt that it was a legitimate debate, i.e., a reenactment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with candidates cross-examining each other, going into the policy weeds per se. Today's debates, including the vaunted Presidential/VP Presidential debates, are debates in name only: during the last several debates I've listened to including the 2008 debates, served up little more than rehearsed politically spun talking points, and I suspect Bachmann did the same. Why? Because I really didn't see any novel policy threads emerging from the debate.
Let me point out that Bachmann should be able be deliver a sound bite on federal policy; she's been in Congress for the last 4.5 years counting. Her rivals have been independent of Washington, busy running states; many people believe that the Beltway has resulted in dysfunctional government and that people like Bachmann are part of the problem, not the solution. Bachmann can talk issues, but governors have to deliver solutions and work with the opposition.
I think Congressman Yarmuth is delusional: McCain got 46% of the vote in a change election almost a year into a recession, when over 4 million people lost jobs. We are now in the third year of an anemic recovery where employers can meet demand with improved productivity (e.g., new technology) without significant new hiring. We have seen Obama's approval ratings oscillate around the mid-40's just weeks after UBL died. It's very difficult to see how Obama changes people's minds, and I personally think the ratings exceed the likely votes. We know that the key element of an incumbent politician in trouble is to posture himself as the known, lesser evil.
I think Yarmuth is wary of a Bachmann Presidency because Bachmann has been very polarizing as a Congresswoman, has never done anything bipartisan in nature, and we could have more of the same hyperpolitical atmosphere we've seen over the past decade. He knows that other GOP candidates, e.g., Romney and Pawlenty, are far more popular with moderates and independents--those voters whom likely will decide next year's election.
RCP shows Romney in a couple of NH polls now ahead of Obama for the first time in weeks, and Bachmann roughly about 10 points below him. I think Bachmann would almost certainly hold most of the McCain states (except maybe Missouri), regardless of what happens over the next 16 months. I think if the economy heads south over the coming year, even Bachmann can pick up several battleground states. Can she beat Obama? I don't see it short of some last-minute disaster affecting Obama. He's going to have almost a billion dollars to run a negative campaign against the opposition, and Bachmann's more strident positions make it easier to present himself as a pseudo-centrist fear-mongering over her positions on the minimum wage, etc. Republican voters may prefer Bachmann's red meat rhetoric and style, but if the big item on their wishlist is the White House, Romney gets them there, and Bachmann likely doesn't.
I think Obama started in 2009 with his high point of 53% from the election. All you need is 1 out of 25 Obama voters voting for the Republican. I think Romney and/or Pawlenty are the two candidates most likely to get those. Right now, I think Romney sees his biggest competition as Pawlenty even though Pawlenty is currently floundering; their principal argument is electability, which is why Romney has consistently led the GOP polls over the past several weeks and running a campaign smartly on the economy and Obama. Bachmann right now is getting a honeymoon and sucking the oxygen in the room away from Pawlenty.
The Humberto Leal Garcia Execution: Some Comments
I am pro-life and oppose the death penalty. But I am not shedding one tear over the demise of an evil man, a Mexican national named Humberto Leal Garcia.
On May 21, 1994 in San Antonio, a beautiful 16-year-old girl, Adria Sauceda, at a party where she had been plied with alcohol and drugs, was stripped and then surrounded by a group of 8 or 9 men, whom took turns raping her. A 22-year-old Humberto Leal then abducted Sauceda from the party; police subsequently recovered her body near a creek, a piece of lumber with a screw protruding from it (which Leal used to rape her) still wedged in her vagina and a 35-lb. chunk of asphalt nearby used to crush Sauceda's head and kill her. (The murder no doubt was motivated, like in the Medellin case, to prevent Sauceda from identifying her rapists.) Leal was arrested with visible fresh cuts and scratches.
Leal was subsequently convicted (based in part on DNA evidence) and sentenced to death under full applicable US Constitution and Texas rights, protections, and resources. The current issue involves applicability of jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice established under the US-ratified UN Charter; it should be noted that the US in 1985 withdrew from general ICJ jurisdiction in 1985. The ICJ serves as a referee of treaty disputes, including the US-ratified Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 36 of the said convention says that foreign nationals should be informed, without delay, of their right to have their national embassy or consulate notified of their arrest. Medellin, a similarly convicted rapist/murderer, asserted on appeal that Texas violated his rights by not informing him of his Article 36 rights and hence demanded to have his conviction vacated. The appeals court basically argued that no harm was done and Medellin should have addressed the issue earlier.
Mexico filed the Avena suit against the US with the ICJ in 2003 over some 51 of its citizens whom had not been informed of their Article 36 right. The ICJ in 2004/2005 found in favor of Mexico and demanded reconsideration of all relevant convictions and sentences. The US responded by withdrawing from the Optional Protocol (the enforcement mechanism for the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations).
The Supreme Court in 2008's Medellin v Texas held that the treaty approvals in question (using my terminology) were necessary, but insufficient to implement in domestic procedures of jurisprudence. Additional Congressional work is necessary to implement the Article 36 notification procedure. Medellin was executed.
Obama, who with his 111th Congress super-majorities showed his wisdom in setting priorities by not passing Article 36 implementation, was out with Chicken Little demanding a stop to today's execution (SCOTUS rejected a last minute appeal 5-4.) Obama, arguing he should have another 6 months to get the legislation through Congress, is no doubt worried that American tourists in Mexico caught gang-raping and then bashing in the skull of a Mexican teenage girl might not be told they have the right to notify the US embassy of their arrest. Assuming overwhelming evidence as in the Leal case and Mexico allows our constitutional protections, which were provided to Leal, I'm not worried about the right of notification. Any American monster who does what this Mexican monster did should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
To foreign critics whose own justice system and individual rights pale against ours, the Cadillac of justice systems across the globe: buzz off. What I remember tonight is a beautiful gift from God and now an angel, Adria Sauceda, whom no doubt left behind grieving parents and siblings and endured the worst indignities a woman can imagine; the true justice is that Sauceda will never meet Leal in heaven.
The bleeding-heart liberals will espouse their usual nonsense, i.e., DNA science has improved since Leal was convicted and hence prior DNA test results are unreliable, Leal didn't have resources to hire the best lawyers to get him off, etc. As a libertarian-conservative, I'm sensitive to any government abuses to individual rights, but I never forget if government has a purpose, it's to guarantee due process to any infringements on the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Humberto Leal had the right to bring his case all the way before the Supreme Court. Beautiful Adria Sauceda was given no appeal from Leal's death sentence to her.
Rest in peace, sweet Adria.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Can't Get It Out Of My Head"
