What will happen to Tammie Smith, the women who wanted to adopt Baby Gabriel from Elizabeth Johnson and Logan McQuery? Did she commit fraud? Did she have anything with Baby Gabriel's disappearance? Watch this interview to see what I think of the Tammie Smith trial.

If, in fact, imitation is the greatest form of flattery, then Mr. Edwards has taken that to a new level: he is on the verge of a conviction and is facing a prison sentence of up to 30 years. Personally, I never liked Bill Clinton. He was, and still is, a textbook neoliberal who ruined the New Deal and democratic party of President Roosevelt, and just as bad, incorporated the hawkish, predatory philosophy of the neoconservatives into the horrid New Democrats.

I never once felt sorry for Mr. Clinton and the various legal problems he faced were well deserved. But Mr. Edwards, in my mind, is a different story. Even though he is as vain and self-obsessed as any succesful trial lawyer and political canditate, his message "two Americas" was exceptional. "One America does the work while another America reaps the reward... One America pays the taxes while another America gets the tax breaks." According to the prosecution's main witness, former aide Andrew Young, Mr. Edwards once said "He said he could be to poverty what Al Gore was to the environment." 

Now, however, that is all gone. The only major political candidate of the past 30 years who espoused anything other than mainstream neoliberalism is about to go to prison. And for what? The government's indictment is, to be police, subtle and academic. Apparently, the federal government's allegation is that when Mr. Edwards campaign received money from wealthy Americans to hide and keep Rielle Hunter quiet, they were violating campaign financing laws.

Fair enough, right? Mr. Edwards campaign misspent campaign funds to cover up his affair, so that is what the government charged him with, right? Sure, the actual indictment charges, under 2 USC 349, that campaign funds were used to hush up Ms. Hunter. But there is one big, huge problem with the allegation: there is no proof the hush money were actually campaign contributions: 

The government's claim that Mr. Edwards committed a crime by not treating the money spent by Ms. Mellon and Mr. Baron on Ms. Hunter as "campaign contributions" is without precedent. Despite a century of campaign finance laws, there never has been a prosecution of this sort of crime and neither the courts nor the FEC ever has suggested that payments like those alleged in the Indictment could be federally regulated as "campaign contributions."

What a shame if Mr. Edwards goes to prison for something this mundane and tedious. 

Something still stinks in Scottsdale. But now it is now the stench of death and corruption faintly perfumed over by Scottsdale Police media apologists. In the never ending media rush to defend Scottsdale Police department's unlawful killing of Sgt. Prostrollo, the media conglomerate of Arizona Republic and KPNX has proclaimed yet another defense of Scottsdale Police. First there was Ofelia Madrid's abysmal "reporting", then there were tedious and worthless commentaries by EJ Montini and Laurie Roberts. Now there is the story above by Chris Hrapsky.

Mr. Hrapsky never asked Sgt. Mark Clark why did Scottsdale Police issue a press release that claimed it was too windy to use a taser or pepper spray when not a single officer on the scene said that was the case. Mr. Hrapsky, if you read this post, then I suggest you reread the police reports. Not one officer claimed it was too windy for non-lethal force. Mr. Hrapsky never asked why did Det. Lockerby of Scottsdale Police internal affairs spoon feed the answer "too windy" to the officers the day after the shooting. He never asked why did Scottsdale Police show more concern for their canine than Sgt. Prostrollo. Mr. Hrapsky never bothered to go the national weather service website, which would have taken all of two minutes, to find out the night of the shooting wind was average, and confront Sgt. Clark with that fact.

I am so dissappointed with the KPNX story for the following reason: if local media had been more interested in actual investigation of the Prostrollo shooting, maybe then John Loxas would still be alive. 

Of course, there is also Sgt. Clark's "cookie cutter" defense and his informal, casual, and quarter-hearted condolence to Mr. Prostrollo "we get it".  

Officers are trained to confront the situation that's presented to them. So to say that there is one cookie cutter approach for a specific situation, you can't do that... We understand that Mr. Prostrollo is upset... we get that... 

How on Earth Sgt. Clark is still the public information officer for Scottsale Police is beyond me, but it speaks volumes about the Scottsdale Police administration that he still has that job. If, Sgt. Clark, Scottsdale Police "get it", why did SPD lie about the wind? Why did the Scottsdale Fraternal Order of Police slander Sgt. Prostrollo and humiliate his friends? Why did Scottsdale police show more concern for a dog than Sgt. Prostrollo? 

I can almost imagine the following conversation taking place at Scottsdale Police Headquarters: 

Chief Rodbell: dude, guess what? Rambo's old man is totally bummed, and guess what bro?  

Sgt. Clark: No way, bro, what? 

Rodbell: the old man is suing us for freakin' killing his kid! Totally a bummer cuz our dog almost bit it.

Sgt. Clark: no way!! someone, should like, you know, tell him 'hey dude, chill bro', we like totally 'get it'. Ya know, it was like, totally too windy and gnarly. Ya know, what we do ain't cookie cutter. 

For some background information on this topic, see my posts on Scottsdale Police, Sgt. Jason Prostrollo, and John Loxas. 

UPDATE: For some very good news, the Prostrollo family filed a notice of claim against the City of Scottsdale seeking $5,000,000. You can see the notice here at NOTICE OF CLAIM.pdf The family hired Robbins and Curtain for the lawsuit, which is excellent news as I know that both Mr. Robbins and Mr. Curtain are excellent attorneys. 

While personal injury attorneys get a lot of grief for a variety of reasons, this is a perfect example of an attorney suing in the pursuit of justice. I hope and pray that Mr. Curtain and Mr. Robbins succeed in their pursuit of justice, that the Prostrollo family gets some relief, and the Scottsdale Police Department learns the error of their ways.  Maybe, after all is said and done, Scottsdale police will finally learn they can't kill unarmed civilians and lie their way out of trouble.

Finally, I was reading through the police reports of this case, and I saw Det. Lockerby's report. This is signficant because he was the internal affairs officer in charge of the investigation:

Offender threatened to commit Aggravated Assault with pool cue sticks against listed Scottsdale PoliceOfficers while at 12074 North 135th Place in Scottsdale, Maricopa County, Arizona. Listed Offender was shot and killed by Lt. Ron Bayne #559 while committing the Aggravated Assault.  

So, I ask again, if this is the official Internal Affairs summary of what happened and why Lt. Bayne killed Sgt. Prostrollo, what wind?

Is this the right result? 7.5 years in prison for a panic induced flight accidentally injuring one person? Or maybe is this so obviously wrong that something needs to change, like maybe sentencing reform? Is this maybe the straw that shows what America's vile Prison Democracy truly is?

I know Mr. Larsgard's defense attorney Criss Candelaria. When I graduated from law school, he was the County Attorney in Navajo County and I interviewed with him. He is a very good lawyer and I have no doubt he did everything he could to represent Mr. Larsgard. I suspect that the prosecutor overchaged Mr. Larsgard and he had no choice but to plead guilty. (see "Norwegian man gets 7.5 years for running over woman's toe" by Lindsey Reiser of KPHO Channel 5): 

"Completely a misunderstanding and blown out of proportion," said Larsgard's attorney, Criss Candelaria, to VGTV. Local defense attorney Vladimir Gagic, who is not connected to the case, agrees. 

"I feel bad for the guy, it's something that's completely out of proportion with decency and common sense," Gagic said. He added that while the sentence seemed a little harsh to him, it's not very surprising and is consistent with federal and state laws. That's because from the law's point of view, Larsgard used the car as a deadly weapon.

Also see "Winslow wrong turn leads to prison for Norwegian man-Norway captivated by countryman's collision with U.S. justice system" by Scott Craven, "A frenzied, 8-minute ordeal ended up with Larsgard facing 36 criminal counts, including attempted second-degree murder." 

If you agree that this sentence makes no sense, then the only realistic option left is clemency by Gov. Jan Brewer. I sent her the following tweet, which you can retweet by clicking on the link below: 

Show the world that Arizona is fair and honest. Plz commute John #Larsgard sentence to time served and let him go home @GovBrewer

One point needs to be made though. While a lot of people from Norway are claiming, with quite a bit of justification I may add, that this sentence is far too harsh, I would not jump to the automatic conclusion that Norway's criminal justice system is better. As I wrote before in "Female Sex Offenders and Punishment: Europe Does it Better?", while it is the case American sentences are too harsh, European sentences are too lenient: 

For example, Norway might sentence mass murderer Anders Breivik to only 21 years in prison (Norway shootings: Anders Breivik cannot get more than 21 years- Despite his mass killing spree, the maximum sentence Anders Breivik could be handed by a court is just 21 years.) The thinking in Europe is that 21 years is enough time to reform and deter Mr. Breivik from committing crime again.

But what Europe does not realize is the message it sends to the public at large: while 21 years in custody may stop Anders Breivik from committing more crime, it is no where near enough punishment to deter future Anders Breiviks from thinking "I kill 90 children, spend 21 years in prison, and then come out as a celebrity? Sounds like a good deal to me."

Bernardo de la Rionda's Nancy Grace-ish cross examination of George Zimmerman is maybe the most despicable part of this entire tragedy. Yes, even worse the the doctored 911 call because Mr. de la Rionda, like every prosecutor is supposed to be, is supposed to be a "minister of justice" speaking for the The People. 

Zimmerman: I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not.

After that statement, the prosecutor begins his terrible cross examination with the silly, tedious point about how Mr. Zimmerman didn't make the comment to the judge, but to Trayvon Martin's parents who were sitting in the courtroom. I suppose the prosecutor was trying to make the point Mr. Zimmerman's statement was not sincere but only an act for the media.

Watch the video above and tell me who was acting the for the cameras, Mr. Zimmerman or the seemingly mad, blood-thirsty prosecutor, Bernardo de la Rionda. As a side note, if Mr. Zimmerman was acting, he is the best actor I have ever seen. I seriously doubt he is a emotionless, pathological psychopath as no psychopath would tell police he felt bad for the victim's parents, nor would one say as much in open court against the well-placed advice of his lawyers. 

Prosecutor: Sorry sir, you are not really addressing that to the court. You're doing it here to the victim's family. Is that correct?   

Zimmerman: They are here in the court, yes.

Prosecutor: I understand, but I thought you were going to address Your Honor Judge Lester, but not... that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be. Isn't that correct Mr. Zimmerman? 

Zimmerman: No, to the mother and the father. 

Then the prosecutor accuses Mr. Zimmerman of having only apologized at the bail hearing- implied in the prosecutor's accusation is that he only did it now to get out jail- but not the police at the scene. 

Prosecutor: Tell me after you committed this crime, you spoke to the police and did you make that statement to the police sir? You never stated that?

Zimmerman: I don't remember what I said, but I believe I did. 

After that exchange, there is a tedious line of cross examination regarding when and to whom Mr. Zimmerman made that statement. Needless to say, Mr. Zimmerman does not remember the specific details, but I don't think anyone doubts he made a statement along to the lines of "I felt sorry for the family" to the police, and he hoped the police would tell the family of his sorrow.

Then Bernardo de la Rionda really steps in it and makes his biggest mistake. It's sad that a prosecutor forgets that the victim's bill of rights forbids criminal defendants from contacting the family of victims, and even if it did not, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers would have told him to keep his mouth shut.  

Prosecutor: Why did you wait so long [the 54 days from the day of the shooting until his testimony] to tell Mr. Martin and the victim's mother, the father and mother, why did you wait so long, to tell them?

Zimmerman: I was told not to communicate with them.

It is without a doubt a horrible tragedy that a 17 year old boy is dead, and that his family has to grieve his loss. The only thing worse than that sad fact is that the media crucified an innocent man, George Zimmerman, to sell more papers, that a NBC producer doctored the 911 call to make it seem Mr. Zimmerman was a racist, that glory seeking prosecutors like Bernardo de la Rionda are embarrassing themselves and the American legal system to gain fame, and that putative community activists like Al Sharpton are mocking the entire notion of social justice and civic responsible. As bad as all that is, I can only hope that is the extent of it, and that latent anti-Semitism played no part in the rush to convict Mr. Zimmerman. 

My point is not that Mr. Zimmerman is a good person, just that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever he is guilty of second degree murder. He should not be going through this indignity. I hope he is free soon, and when he is free, I hope he sues the state of Florida for malicious prosecution and sues everyone and anyone who falsely accused him for slander, libel, and defamation.

Mark O'Mara, Mr. Zimmerman's defense lawyer is on twitter @Markomaralaw. I sent him a tweet as I am concerned, not as a criminal defense lawyer, but a free, proud, American citizen that Florida prosecutors are persecuting, that's right persecuting, Mr. Zimmerman because of the contrived, vile media campaign against him. I am worried that his client will plead guilty to a lessor charge to avoid facing trial on the second degree murder charge.  

It may be the right thing to do legally, but if so, that is a very sad commentary on our democracy, legal system, and the Bill of Rights, allegedly the finest in the world. If you agree, tweet him your own message or retweet mine: 

.@Markomaralaw Plz don't plead guilty just to avoid trial. This case is bigger than just Zimmerman/Martin. It is about our democracy.

Also see the video below of Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz as he accuses Angela Corey of unethically overcharging Mr. Zimmerman. 

New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton was suspended without pay for the 2012 season by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams was banned indefinitely on Wednesday because of the team's bounty program that targeted opposing players.

Handing down sweeping and serious punishment for a system that paid out thousands of dollars when hits knocked specific opponents out of games, Goodell also suspended Saints general manager Mickey Loomis for the first eight regular-season games next season, and assistant coach Joe Vitt for the first six games.

When I first heard of the story and the suspension, I thought that the punishment was appropriate, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought the punishment was excessive. In fact, I don't think anyone should have been suspended at all. First, anyone who thinks the NFL is a civilized sport is deluding themselves. They are modern day gladiators and have the short life expectancy to prove it (see "Is the NFL the Most Dangerous Job in the World?"). And the bounty system seems to me to fit right in.

Second, the fact is, while the bounty may have encouraged and rewarded players to hit their opponents hard enough to hurt them, there is not a single allegation, as far as I know, that the coaches encouraged or rewarded any illegal hits.

In other words, the players were encouraged and rewarded for making clean, legal, albeit violent and aggressive, hits. So if that's true and if we live under the rules of capitalism, why should Sean Payton, Gregg Williams, and Mickey Loomis be punished at all? If paying someone to work harder and longer at their accounting job is reasonable, why shouldn't the bounty system be legitimate as well? Isn't that the just the invisible hand of the free market at work? 

We reward security contractors (ie, mercenaries) in Iraq and Afghanistan with great pay to help fight our wars. We reward poor Americans to enlist and fight our foreign wars. We reward athletes to ravage their bodies with excessive training, drugs, and extreme diets, and we reward successful boxers very nicely for pummeling their opponents into mental illness. We reward rural Americans to spend their life working in coal mines. So if those incentives are appropriate, isn't what the New Orleans Saints did mild by comparison? 

Or could it be, as I wrote before (see "Rich Costa Concordia Passengers Buy Their Way on to a Lifeboat. Was it a crime?"), the neoliberals are wrong and that there are moral limits to the free market? Could it be that the "commodification of everything" is not such a good idea? There is a great examination of this very issue in the latest issue of The Atlantic by Michael J. Sandel called "What Isn't for Sale?". 

If you're out of work, Arizona lawmakers want to make you take a drug test before you get an unemployment check. And the unemployed worker would have to pay for it.

Arizona state Sen. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, said he wrote Senate Bill 1495 to ensure people who get unemployment benefits are deserving. He doesn't consider anyone who uses drugs fit for assistance.

"If you are so fortunate to live in a nation to get an unemployment check ... when you're down on your luck, the very least you should be able to do is prove you're of sound mind and body to earn -- earn -- that benefit," Smith told members of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

Fair enough, Rep.Smith doesn't want to spend taxpayer money for people who are abusing drugs. My only question, why not include the biggest welfare recipients of all time? Why not force Wall Street banks that received billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars in 2008 under the same microscope? 

One of the many criticisms of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that they are nothing more than pot-smoking malcontents seeking free benefits. If that is true, is that any different from many of the investors working for Wall Street banks? For example, from "Drugs and Today’s Wall Street": 

[I]n the latest issue of Investment Dealer’s Digest, Tom Granahan reports that abuse of cocaine, prescription drugs and alcohol remains widespread on the Street... many seemed to agree that the fast pace, lucrative salaries and the nightly ritual of courting clients can lead to substance abuse among the financial services ranks.

And see the following from "Drug Abuse Trends among Wall Street Investors" by Bethany Winkel: 

While cocaine used to be high on the list of Wall Street users, it has dropped in popularity. Found in 16% of positive tests in 2007, in 2008 it was only found in 7% of positive tests. The drug of choice now, by far, is marijuana, coming in at 80% of positive tests. Amphetamines are also growing in popularity, up to 10% in 2008 from 3% a few years ago.

Most importantly, while the reported drug use by Wall Street employees is low: 

It simply means they are getting caught less often. Random drug tests are not as common on Wall Street as they are in many factory settings, for example. And given the power and money that Wall Street investors hold, some employers simply deny that their workers have a problem.

When one considers that Wall Street is the biggest casino in the world, is it so hard to believe that maybe many of the terrible gambles Wall Street banks made the in past 10 years were under the influence of illegal drugs? If driving with marijuana is illegal, shouldn't gambling with billions of taxpayers dollars be too? The amount of money taxpayers have given to unemployed Americans is nothing in comparison the money taxpayers gave Wall Street banks, so shouldn't Wall Street be under the same amount of scrutiny? Which is the bigger threat to our nation, unemployed Americans or Wall Street bankers snorting crack? 

Of course, Arizona does not have jurisdiction over Wall Street, but many of the Wall Street banks that received the TARP bailout have branches and employees here in Arizona. If what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then a law requiring Arizona employees who work for those banks and receive performance based bonuses should be under the same microscope Rep.Smith has proposed. 

If you agree with me, then you can retweet what I sent to the Arizona House GOP: 

U want to drug test unemployed Arizonans? But what about Wall Street Banks? Don't the same rules apply http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/social-justice-politics/welfare-recipients-should-be-drug-tested-so-that-includes-wall-street-banks-right/ @AZHouseGOP

Scottsdale has agreed to pay a woman $315,000 as compensation for being wrongfully strip-searched last year inside her apartment by a city police officer who subsequently resigned.

Officer Chong Kim resigned in June 2008 after he was questioned about the incident by police internal-affairs investigators...

According to internal police documents, Kim admitted that he improperly searched the 19-year-old woman after she called police to her apartment for help.

The internal affairs file of the investigation is available here chong kim internal affairs 002.pdf. There are a couple of interesting points with regard to this investigation.

First, the supervising Scottsdale Police internal affairs officer who investigated Ofc. Chong Kim is none other than the same officer who shot and killed Sgt. Jason Prostrollo, Lt. Ron Bayne. Of course, Scottsdale Police internal affairs "investigated" Lt. Bayne after he killed Sgt. Prostrollo. In other words, in Scottsdale the police literally police the police. That this is an incestuous conflict of interest is obvious. What real incentive does Scottsdale PD internal affairs have to properly investigate officer misconduct when they know the officer they are investigating may very well one day be doing the very same to them?

Second, a former Scottsdale Police officer told me that during this same internal affairs investigation that not only did Officer Chong Kim admit to the allegations contained in the civil complaint against him, but he also admitted to have sex with an underage female.

During the IA investigation, Ofc. Kim not only admitted to having acted in the same manner in some 15-20 incidents; but, also admitted to having sex with an underage female. The legal and moral obligation of the IA detectives was to stop the interview and to turn the investigation over to the sex crime unit detectives (as anything that is revealed to IA cannot be used to charge the officer criminally in a court of law).

There is no mention, however, of that putative admission in the internal affairs file. Did he actually confess to felony sexual misconduct and Scottsdale PD is covering it up? I asked Scottsdale Police that question on twitter:

@scottsdalepd was a sex crimes detective brought in for Ofc Kim's internal affairs interview? If not why not.

.@ScottsdalePD Did Ofc Chong Kim admit to child molestation during an internal affairs interrogation?

I have not received any response back to either of these two tweets. If you are concerned about the incestuous nature of Scottsdale police internal affairs or the possibility they are covering up officer crimes, tweet them and ask them the same questions I did. 

According to news reports, Scottsdale PD turned over the Ofc. Kim investigation to the FBI. However, I did not find anything online that Ofc. Kim was ever prosecuted in state or federal court. And even if Scottsdale PD did turn over the putative criminal investigation over to the FBI, that does not excuse, if true, Scottsdale PD from learning everything they needed to from Ofc. Kim before ended the interrogation. Did he confess or was he about to, but Scottsdale PD cut him off to protect both him and themselves? If this interrogation was recorded, which it should have been, then I think it's time Scottsdale PD released it. 

I believe the former Scottsdale Officer is credible as he told me personally about Officer James Peters penchant for slamming on his brakes while a prisoner is in the backseat so the prisoner will hit the cage divider. He told me this a couple of weeks before Scottsdale PD released Officer Peters' internal affairs file and the media reported the same incident ("Personnel files released of officer involved in 6 deadly shootings".  

His superiors said in August of that year, he and a trainee were transporting a handcuffed prisoner in the backseat of a patrol car. While on the freeway, the suspension letter said his trainee sped on the freeway, braking several times and causing the prisoner to strike the cage divider in the car. The report called it an excessive use of force, saying that he did not do anything to stop the trainee.

"A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials."- Seneca

We live in a bizzaro nation: The Thought Police watch us, Big Brother tracks our every move, and if we believe the wrong thing, the Political Correctness Police will put us in prison. But the Wall Street criminals who have impoverished us all walk among us unscathed.

No, this is not 1984, Stalin's USSR, or even the dogmatic right wing of the Republican Party. This is the modern day neoliberal state, and identity politics has criminalized what we think ("Student guilty of hate crimes for spying on gay roommate"): 

A former Rutgers University student who used a computer webcam to spy on a sexual tryst of his roommate, who later committed suicide, was found guilty of hate crimes on Friday in a case that put a national spotlight on gay bullying.

Dharun Ravi, 20, faces 10 years in prison on the most serious charge of bias intimidation against Tyler Clementi, 18, who committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge three days after learning his gay encounter was seen by webcam.

Predictably, for advocates of identity politics, or better yet, vanity politics, this is a signal moment to triumphantly proclaim the verdict as a victory for justice ("Even Nonviolent Crime Needs to Be Fought" by Hayley Gorenberg): 

With regard to the Ravi trial, our legal system recognizes that not all crimes draw blood. It’s possible to strike deep at one’s core without a bullet or a knife blade. Whether or not the proof is mustered to a New Jersey jury’s satisfaction, justice is served by a system that has properly acknowledged that if hate is a legal factor, it should be recognized in all of its most virulent forms, including those leveled at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for who they are.

The fact that Mr.Clementi is dead is a tragedy, but only one person is responsible for that fact: Mr.Clementi. He is the one who decided to commit suicide, and only he should receive any blame for that fact. I know that gay men and women bear a difficult burden and have much higher rates of suicide. My point is not to minimize that struggle or that Mr. Ravi is a good person, but to send Mr. Ravi to prison is no different from the KGB sending a political malcontent to the Gulag. That Mr. Ravi may go to prison is vile, and it is an example of how far our nation has degenerated.

No one should ever go to prison for what he believes. No one should be punished for anything other than for what he has done. But no longer are the ups and downs of life to be tolerated and overcome. No longer do we endure hazing as a right of passage. Instead, we are all victims and if our feelings are hurt, someone must pay. I blame Oprah, Nancy Grace, and media's promotion of the cult of the victim, self-pity ideology. I blame modern culture that insulates and shelters children without the slightest attention paid to self-reliance and overcoming.

But most of all I blame the modern, neoliberal establishment that equates vanity politics with social justice. But social justice and vanity politics are not, however, as Professor David Harvey has repeatedly made clear, necessarily compatible ("A Brief History of Neoliberalism"): 

Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social justice through the conquest of state power.

It has long proved extremely difficult within the US left, for example, to forge the collective discipline required for political action to achieve social justice without offending the desire of political actors for individual freedom and for full recognition and expression of particular identities.

For anyone who wonders how the so-called 1% maintain control over the rest of us, the so-called 99%, this is exactly how they do do it: divide and conquer by way of vanity politics. Instead of a nation that is united in its pursuit of social justice, every single particular group, whether it be defined by sex, religion, race, orientation, etc... looks out for itself. No longer are working class Americans, as was the case during the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the Great Society, of all races, sexes, religions, identities united to provide our nation with the highest standard of living attainable for all its people. Instead, we are all just looking out for number 1.  

But that hasn't always been the case. The great economist John Maynard Keynes, the architect of the post-War World Two middle class democracies, was essentially a Christian Democrat, even though he was gay and an atheist: "Western civilization of which the institutional foundations are... the Christian Ethic, the Scientific Spirit and the Rule of Law. It is only on these foundations that the personal life can be lived." ("Hayek versus Keynes: The Road to Reconciliation" by Robert Skidelsky)

While the Ravi/Clementi masquerade of justice was on-going, a former Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith exposed the Wall Street hog for what it truly is (see "Why Greg Smith Is 'Dead Right' About Goldman Sachs"). But this is our nation now, Mr. Ravi goes to prison for being a jerk, but the Wall Street hog goes unpunished. I wonder how many Americans committed suicide after they lost their jobs and livelihood as a result of the Wall Street meltdown, but yet, not a single Wall Street criminal is in prison. 

And while I am no fan of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, I hope he does the right thing and either pardons Mr. Ravi or commutes his sentence to no prison time. If you agree, you can tell Gov. Christie that by tweeting him at @GovChristie. Below is the tweet I sent him. You can send your own or retweet mine. 

Please do the right thing and pardon Dharun Ravi. America is not the USSR @GovChristie http://www.azcriminallawsexcrimes.com/social-justice-politics/dharun-ravi-convicted-for-hazing-tyler-clementi-a-masquerade-of-justice/

UPDATE: There is a interesting story in how racism is on the rise in Europe as a result of the economic problems ("European Network Against Racism (ENAR) said in its annual report that economic crisis incites racial discrimination)": 

The most common victims of racism are African nations. General public believes that migrants and ethnic minorities have caused the high unemployment and poor working conditions at the time of the economic crisis, ENAR activists explained...

In Great Britain, for instance, black people are at least six times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person, ENAR stressed in the report.

I cite this report to make the obvious point that civil rights can only advance when the common class isn't worried about basic surival. It is no coincidence that the civil rights movement started in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, in the heyday of the post-War World Two Keynensian economic miracle. The fact that it did not happen before then, as in during the Great Depression or the Gilded Age, is not because Americans were less charitable or there were fewer civil rights champions around, but because the common class was impoverished and in no mood to care about racism.  

We should remember that lesson now: let's fix the economy, get average American of every identity a decent job and life, and mabye then, if ever, focus on identity politics. 

After Scottsdale Police killed Jason Prostrollo, I made the obvious point that if no one held Scottsdale Police accountable, his sad death would not be the last one. A short two weeks later, as everyone else is aware, Scottsdale Police killed John Loxas. In between the two shootings, Ms. Madrid, the Arizona Republic public safety reporter covering Scottsdale simply repeated Scottsdale Police press releases back to her readers. She could have saved everyone the trouble and just given Sgt. Mark Clark, the Scottsdale PD spokesperson, the by line on her stories.

After the Loxas shooting, Ms. Madrid did the exact same thing yet again. But even worse, she made it seem as if it was her own story, thereby giving the story the credibility of an independent investigation (from my comments on twitter):

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Plz tell me you are going to do more than just repeat what @scottsdalePD tells you back to us

.@ofeliamadrid Will reporters ask SPD basic questions (ie, investigate) or just repeat SPD's statement word for word to the public?

Plz someone, anyone ask @scottsdalepd why No TASER!!

@KimRSchofield even worse the poor question reporters were asking at the PR conference. That's why SPD gets away with this behavior

@ofeliamadrid @azcentral If gun found in "lunge area" why 2hrs ago SPD said no gun recovered? anyone bother to ask SPD that question?

Wonderful how local media falls over backwards to exonerate/congratulate police who shoot 2 kill.

I take it from local media coverage of police shootings they are terrified of upsetting @scottsdalePD

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral "Search warrant"?? why would @scottsdalePD have needed a search warrant for? that smells really rotten

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral is @scottsdalePD saying he was shot and dropped the gun or didn't have it when shot? did you ask SPD that?

@kinseyschofield @KFisher15 I hate to say it, but local media doesn't care or is scared. S.Cal doing much better on Loggins shooting

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Did you ask why no taser or dog used?

And when Scottsdale PD finally released the Prostrollo police reports, she simply cut and pasted the police reports as her story. She only added the obvious point about wind not being an issue after I criticized her on twitter (her replies to me start with Ofelia Madrid and my direct replies to her start Vladimir Gagic):

.@azcentral if I want to apply for a job, can I just cut and paste someone else's resume? Thats how ur reporters get write their stories

@kinseyschofield @ofeliamadrid @scottsdalepd "in love" with cutting and pasting police reports and making it her story. Cushy job...

Working for @azcentral would be super easy. All I would do is cut and paste from police reports like this one story http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/02/21/20120221scottsdale-police-officer-report-outlines-fatal-shot-fired.html

Am I the only person who thinks that some members of media are either too close or too scared of law enforcement to report accurately?

Ofelia Madrid ‏ @ofeliamadrid @vlga Of course.If you're read my response to you, I said, several officers mentioned that it was windy. I didn't add the rest about Tasers

Vladimir Gagic ‏ @vlga.@ofeliamadrid Most important part of shooting is @scottsdalepd blatantly lied about why they had to kill him. How you don't see that...

@ofeliamadrid Don't you think its important @scottsdalePD said 2 windy for taser but no officer does?? how does that not make ur story?

Ofelia Madrid ‏ @ofeliamadrid@vlga Actually several officers mentioned windy conditions that night. Here's the report if you want to read it: tinyurl.com/8yg8gcv

Vladimir Gagic ‏ @vlga.@ofeliamadrid I hope u understand diff b'w "too windy" to use taser and "it was windy", which was spoon fed to them by IA afterwards

@ofeliamadrid I've read it many times. NOT ONE OFFICER said it was too windy to use taser or pepper spray. You should reread the report.

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral Why didn't you mention @scottsdalePD said it was "too windy" to use taser, but that excuse not in report?

Even then, her paragraph regarding the wind was pathetic. She did not even check it for grammar as she had a comma separating two independent clauses. 

.@ofeliamadrid @azcentral wrote the lame, timid paragraph re wind in a rush and b4 proof reading? ; b4 "however" not ,

Mr. Montini's commentary was just as bad. It is obvious to me his days as Arizona's progressive voice are long gone. Either he is terrified of offending law enforcement, or he actually believes police never lie. Either way, it is time for both Mr. Montini and Ms. Madrid to go; maybe that way we can a police force that actually "protects and serves", and even more importantly, local law enforcement will finally know hunting season of unarmed civilians is over. 

For a clear example of the point I am making, compare the NC Times commentary "Shameful Acts in the OC" regarding the shooting of Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. and Mr. Montini's lame commentary "Marine, vet, patriot ... and threat".

And watch the video below to see what a motivated reporter can actually accomplish. If only we had someone...

P.S. A very good friend of mine who used to be a police officer asked me a very good question that Ms. Madrid should have asked Scottsdale PD from the very beginning: why was Scottsdale Police letting Officer Peters, someone who had killed 5 people before the Loxas shooting, respond to emergency calls in the most dangerous part of Scottsdale? He should have been locked to a desk job a long time ago.