Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

There Will Be Bloods & Crips: The Latest in Soft-On-Crime Initiatives



The news out of Richmond, California today is that a bloody fight broke out at City Hall...in the office of a gang prevention unit. The details are pretty funny... if you think bringing the ghetto into the corridors of power is a bad idea:    

A bloody fistfight broke out among rival gang members at Richmond City Hall on Friday, according to police.
Seven men from different parts of the city brawled in a third-floor suite that houses the city’s Office of Neighborhood Safety around 12:30 p.m. Friday, department director Devone Boggan said.
He said all of the men involved in the melee are enrolled in the office’s “Operation Peacemaker” fellowship and happened to show up at the office at Richmond’s Civic Center at the same time unexpectedly.
The fight stemmed from an “exchange of looks” and heated words after the men spotted each other, Boggan said.

Love how these bright young men - who are all in their twenties, grow the f*** up, please - are Operation Peacemaker "fellows." How intellectual...and ineffectual. 


Of course, there's always a bright side when your precious gang prevention group leads to more gang violence: 

The ONS director said he sees the unarmed brawl as a sign of progress, since the young men involved all have a history of gun violence.
“They decided to pick their fists up instead of a gun,” Boggan said. “Everyone got up and walked away—not one mother has to bury their child this week.”

And, over in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors will be considering whether to grant a tax break to City businesses that hire convicted felons. Great idea! Non-felonious people are placed at a disadvantage during a job search, and any employer foolish enough to hire a convicted criminal will be strapping a grenade to their business.   

San Francisco businesses that hire people with felony convictions would get a tax break, under legislation expected to be introduced today.
"Ex-felons are among the most challenged populations in getting work," said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who is crafting the plan.
...The goal is to shave about $10,000 off a business' companywide payroll tax burden for every new convict it hires full time. The tax relief for companies hiring part-time employees would be less.
The exact formula was still being developed Monday. The city's payroll tax is equivalent to 1.5 percent of the value of an employee's compensation package.

Supervisor Mirkarimi is running for sheriff by the way. We're going to have some tough as nails law enforcement in San Francisco, let me tell you. 


For whatever reason, liberals are forever pandering to the criminal element seeking to de-criminalize whole swaths of the criminal codes and trying to develop "alternatives" to the simple, easy-to-understand solution to crime: lock 'em up. 



Green Jobs: US Attorneys in CA Go After Big Marijuana



It's another one of those rare days when the Obama Administration launches an initiative that I wholly support. Today it was the four US attorneys in California launching a major crack down on the state's marijuana dispensaries:  

The four United States attorneys in the Golden State announced an initiative cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries on Friday in Sacramento, according to this Associated Press story.
In recent weeks, landlords of some pot shops have received letters from federal prosecutors warning them to stop sales within 45 days or risk seizure of their property and criminal charges

In addition, the IRS has slapped an Oakland dispensary with a $2.5 million tax bill, saying that they improperly deducted business expenses. 


I can't think of a sleazier enterprise than that of your typical "medical marijuana" dispensary. They hide behind sick and terminally ill people, all the while selling drugs to able bodied adults with notes from their doctors. The feds are explicit in saying they will not go after backyard growers tending plants for seriously ill people, but legalization advocates immediately began laying the guilt trip: 

“I assume the story you’re calling about is: Obama takes resources away from fighting terrorists and goes after old ladies with glaucoma,” Greg Anton, a lawyer for the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax, Calif., told the LAT.

I used to live a mile away from a dispensary in San Francisco. I never saw any little old ladies walking out of there. Instead, it was the same bunch of stoners you could see coming out of any Haight Street head shop. Why America has to turn its drug laws upside down to benefit these low-lifes is beyond me. 


There's a lot of talk in the linked article about how all of this is a reflection of the tension between states that want to legalize medical marijuana and the feds who classify marijuana as an illegal drug. While I'm always eager to have a discussion about federalism, I have to say that federal law should control, and appropriately so. We've spent the last 50 years convincing people to stop smoking, and 30 years convincing people that drinking to excess - especially when combined with driving a car - is bad news. Yet, pot advocates claim that a powerful intoxicant that combines the lung damage of cigarettes with the mental impairment similar to that caused by drink is somehow harmless. I don't buy it. 


Should be people who smoke marijuana be hassled by the man (at least when they're smoking at home)? No. Should people go to jail for possession? Doubt it. But, that doesn't mean we should just legalize something that's never really been legal in the first place. And there's something very wrong in a state where the biggest cash crop is also illegal. Criminals have free reign to make money any way they wish, while law abiding farmers and merchants struggle with the many demands government and the tax man place on them. This is a small step towards rebalancing what is legal and what is illegal in California. 



Prison (Un)bound: CA's Daring New Prison "Experiment"



You may have heard that CA was ordered to release tens of thousands of prisoners to deal with a level of overcrowding that is, apparently, unconstitutional. Even Jerry Brown is not eager to have a re-run of the soft-on-crime Seventies; but, since the one practical solution - that would be building some new prisons - is impossible in CA's can't-do society, prison "reform" is taking the form of releasing prisoners to county sheriffs.     

Starting Monday, California will radically change the way it sentences criminals, sending the first of thousands to serve time behind bars in their local county jails instead of in state prisons.
Drug dealers, shoplifters and other felons deemed to be nonviolent or non-sex offenders will become wards of the counties in which they are convicted, under a plan signed in April by Gov. Jerry Brown to reduce the flow of inmates entering the overcrowded state prison system.
The plan also changes parole rules so that thousands of inmates who are released from state prisons will no longer be considered "parolees" nor be supervised by state parole officers. Instead those inmates who served time for nonviolent, non-sex offenses will be "probationers" who are monitored by county probation officers - and the supervision period will be shortened.
Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten recently called Brown's plan the most "significant reform of California sentencing law in a generation."
Critics, meanwhile, have warned that the plan, known as realignment, will overwhelm counties with offenders who should be locked up in state prisons.

What's really lame about this - besides the state's refusal to pay for more than 9 months worth of jail-level incarceration - is that the counties will be just as ham-strung as the state. Want to bet that if some So-Cal sheriff decides to put his charges into tents that there'll will be an ACLU lawsuit and permanent injunction in place before the sun goes down? Instead of the state releasing criminals, now it will be county sheriffs, as if that makes a big difference. 


What's especially galling (a lot of things have been galling me) is that this has become a back-door method of doing away with the three-strikes law, which is one of the few law & order initiatives that has bi-partisan appeal, at least among voters. Liberal politicians hate it, of course, and now they look to be on the verge of getting rid of it by refusing to build new prisons. Add this to the long list of CA woes that you can blame on liberals who seem electorally immune to the consequences of their lousy ideas. 



Hands In Pocket: CA Dems Betrayed By Embezzler


I kind of slept on this story when it broke in the local papers, but the Wall Street Journal has made a national story out of a Californian woman who has served as treasurer for dozens of California Democratic campaigns, and who (it turns out) was embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from her clients.

Kinde Durkee was arrested Sept. 2 and accused by federal authorities of stealing campaign funds and using the money to pay for an array of personal expenses, including mortgage payments, cosmetics and nursing-home care for her mother. Based in Burbank, Calif., the 58-year-old had long managed money for scores of Democratic campaigns.

According to the federal criminal complaint, Ms. Durkee "misappropriated money from her clients' bank accounts and filed false disclosure reports to hide the misappropriations." Ms. Durkee "admitted that she had been misappropriating her clients' money for years," according to court documents.

Her lawyer didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

The complaint against Ms. Durkee focused solely on her alleged misappropriation of more than $600,000 from the campaign accounts of state Assemblyman Jose Solorio's campaign accounts. But prosecutors said the case is set to widen as evidence surfaces that more politicians were alleged victims and millions of dollars in campaign donations may be missing.

The best part is that her current clients have no idea how much money they may or may not have in their campaign coffers. Some of them even claim to be locked out of their accounts! Hilarious!

What's not so funny: no one among her clients seems worried that they might have some exposure to campaign finance violations. But, Durkee was able to get away with her crimes by, at least in part, by commingling federal and state campaign donations, and then mixing up those accounts with her own as well as those of other clients. Don't candidates have some responsibility for where their campaign donations go? Didn't Tom DeLay get a prison sentence for what was essentially depositing the wrong funds into the wrong account? Durkee, for her part, had previously been flagged for major violations, but these never seemed to affect her career, or redound against her liberal clients.

While some California political figures expressed shock at the allegations against Ms. Durkee, there are growing indications that there were potentially serious problems in her operation for years.

"There definitely had been red flags that have gone off in the last few years," said Stephen Kaufman, a campaign attorney who worked for clients of Ms. Durkee's. Mr. Kaufman said he was working with a number of clients to find out the status of the bank accounts that Ms. Durkee had controlled.

Ms. Durkee was cited for financial reporting misdeeds 11 times by the state agency that oversees campaign finances, starting in 2002. The fines totaled $190,000.

Compared to other campaign treasurers, the number of citations stood at "an extreme level," said Ann Ravel, chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state oversight agency. Ms. Durkee was "the subject of quite a few major violations."

One of the investigations found unusual fluctuations in the campaign accounts of a statewide regulatory board candidate. Investigators noticed similar irregularities in the accounts of other clients of Ms. Durkee, including one official for a federal office, prompting the state agency to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Ms. Ravel said.

A "statewide regulatory candidate," huh? Names, please. Like I say. Why didn't these violations redound against her clients? If there were "unusual fluctuations" in campaign accounts, doesn't that deserve a little more scrutiny of the candidate?

Also, note that the guy who seems to be her biggest victim was State Assemblyman Jose Solorio, who lost $600,000 to his rogue treasurer. California's government is too big, and its legislators too powerful, when a mere state assemblyman can have a campaign account so large that it takes a while for him (or whomever) to realize it was $600K short.

Durkee was motivated, in part, by greed - she clearly wanted to live a larger lifestyle than that which a political bookkeeper could afford. But she was also paying for her mother's rest home bills. Looks like Utopia wasn't coming quickly enough for Durkee.

There's a lot of talk in the article from people like Diane Feinstein bemoaning the betrayal of trust. Personally I would never trust a liberal, but I certainly would never trust someone who looks like this:

DURKEE

Geeesh! My eyes! When conservatives talk about fighting Leviathan, they aren't kidding.



Do The Dumb Thing: A Death In Bayview


San Francisco's Bayview/Hunter's Point neighborhood has been up in arms after a 19 year old kid died in a firefight with police. Kenneth Harding was a parolee who shot first and was from Seattle (i.e. not really a member of the "community"). And, on top of all that, the fatal bullet came from Harding's own weapon (!) as Mr. Thugg Life was apparently firing wildly in all directions. Nonetheless SFPD police chief Greg Suhr finds himself facing hostile questions from community activists and unflattering media portraits from local journalists.

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr faced his first big test as the department's leader when he appeared before hundreds of people in the Bayview on Wednesday night to quell anger over Saturday's fatal shooting of a man by police officers.

But within 30 minutes, the forum fell apart.

More than 300 people packed into the Bayview Opera House to weigh in on the shooting Saturday, when Kenneth Wade Harding, a 19-year-old Washington state parolee, was shot and killed after he allegedly fired at two officers. But Wednesday, people in the opera house booed Suhr and repeatedly interrupted his address. Things didn't improve when the chief gave up and opened up the floor to questions: Those trying to question the officials could barely be heard above the crowd's cries of outrage.

Suhr stepped off to the side for a bit, then returned to the microphone to continue answering questions.

"I get how upset everyone is, but everyone came here to talk to me, and I came here to listen," he said. "I don't care if you disrespect me, but don't disrespect the people who came to talk."

Afterward, he said the reaction was what he expected.

"Everybody is upset. Everybody wants to vent," Suhr said. "They want to see me and have a conversation in their community. Here I am. I love this community, and I'm telling you right now, there are some hurting people in there, and they needed to hear us say, 'Here we are.'

"They shouted me down - that just means I've got to come back again," he added.

There's all sorts of moaning about how young black men are being "murdered" by the police and by one another. No one seems to have thought to educate these mopes that pulling a gun on the police is a bad career move regardless of your age or race. That, of course, is not going to stop ghetto activists/hustlers from whipping up a mob, and it certainly won't stop journalists from following the hoary "Cops Oppressing Minorities" storyline, regardless of how much Harding deserved his sorry fate.


San Diego Confidential: Tabloid-Ready Deaths In SoCal


Odd doings in one of California's Sprekel's Mansions as first a pharmaceutical company's CEO girlfriend, and now his son, have died under mysterious circumstances. How long can Nancy Grace stay away?

The 6-year-old son of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. founder and Chief Executive Jonah Shacknai has died from injuries suffered in an accident in his California home last week, two days before Mr. Shacknai's girlfriend was found dead at the same property.

The news came in a joint statement late Sunday from the 54-year-old Mr. Shacknai and his ex-wife, Dina, the mother of Max Shacknai. In the statement, they asked that the public respect the privacy of the families and expressed gratitude for "the tremendous outpouring of support provided during this very difficult time."

Medicis makes dermatological and aesthetic drugs, including acne treatment Solodyn as well as Dysport, which competes with Allergan Inc.'s Botox. The Scottsdale, Ariz., company had $700 million in revenue last year.

Max was severely injured after falling down the stairs at the Shacknais' California home last Monday. Two days later, his father's 32-year-old girlfriend, Rebecca Nalepa, was found dead in a case that authorities described as bizarre and unusual. Ms. Nalepa was discovered nude with a rope around her neck, hanging from a balcony off the main house, with her hands and feet bound.

Authorities have said there is no investigation into Max's fall in the house and there has been no connection made between the two incidents.

Uh, you guys sure you want to stick with the "no connection" line of investigation?

The son's fatal injuries occurred before the girlfriend - who has been identified alternatively as "Rebecca Nalepa" and "Rebecca Zahau" - died, but the boy managed to linger for a week. Apparently Nalepa/Zahau was alone in the house with Max when the boy fell down the stairs, while Shaknai's brother was alone in the house with Nalepa/Zahau when she died. The police say they are "comfortable" in knowing Shaknai's location on the days his son and girlfriend suffered their fatal injuries, so that wraps that up, I guess. Anyone comfortable with a 6-year old being left alone with his dad's girlfriend? The obvious suspect in Zahau's death is the brother who was "living in a guesthouse" - can you say wastrel sibling? - while all of this was going on, but right now no one knows if the girlfriend's death was a homicide or a suicide.

All of this looks, not just mysterious, but also convenient with two deaths in the home of someone who wasn't there, and whom the police are going out of their way to handle with care. After the DSK fiasco, it's probably best to not send a prominent person out for a light perp walk, but I hope the police aren't leaving anyone off of their list of suspects.

Car Wash: LA's "Pop-Up" Used Car Lots


The NY Times looks at a phenomenon that is sweeping LA: pop-up used car lots, where someone will gather some vehicles together along the sidewalk and boldly sell his wares without regard for zoning laws, parking regulations, or - I assume - sales tax. Would it surprise you to learn that these fences, er, dealers have a distinctly Latino flavor?
They show up bright and early on Saturday mornings, parking cars and trucks along the side of Pacific Boulevard and polishing them inside and out. Once they have chalked prices onto the windshields (an old Honda Civic for $1,900) they are open for business: a pop-up used car lot on the side of the road.

But like so many other pop-up markets in Southern California, the dealerships are unlicensed, unregulated and, according to public officials, illegal.

Now, local governments are trying to curb the unlicensed dealers by making it illegal to park any car with a “For Sale” sign in the areas where these markets proliferate. TheCity of Los Angeles has already enacted a ban on two major streets, and the county is set to add Pacific Boulevard and many more roads to that list after a final vote Tuesday.

“This attempt to use the street as a place of business creates a hazard for businesses and residents who pay taxes to maintain those streets,” a Los Angeles County supervisor, Gloria Molina, said. “We are trying to correct a public nuisance.”

These used car markets have appeared all over Los Angeles County in the past 15 years, especially in the largely Latino communities southeast of Los Angeles like Walnut Park, where they conduct business entirely in Spanish.

The Times notes that unlicensed businesses are common in the area (No! You don't say!) with everything from bicycles to fruit to women for sale at different times of the day. Why it's almost as if, having broken the law to come to the US - why, yes, I am assuming that most of these unlicensed businessmen are illegal aliens - they don't feel constrained by any other laws we have here. Btw, I love how these are called "pop-up" used car lots, which gives them a hip, H&M sort of flair.

LA is trying to figure out how to crack down on these clowns, as if no zoning laws exist regarding where vehicles can or can't be sold. You want a crack down? Ask Crazy Juan how many of his vehicles are stolen. But, instead, city officials proclaim the problem to be intractable and "impossible" to eradicate.

Though it is illegal to operate a car sale business without a license in California, county officials call the law almost impossible to enforce.

The dealers hang around in a nearby park, playing cards or lying on park benches, waiting for customers to call. County officials say they bring the cars in from mechanic shops and nearby dealerships, in hopes of moving vehicles that have not sold. Many of the cars have the same phone numbers listed on them. Mr. Carvajal said sellers sometimes dropped cars off on tow trucks, two or three at a time.

When the dealers saw a photographer snapping pictures of the chalked windows, they quickly wiped the prices off all the windshields. They all denied they were selling cars — one man polishing a car ran away when a reporter approached him, and five others in the park said they were waiting around for a party that would start later. One pointed to a man sleeping on a bench and said, “It’s his birthday.”

Yeah, that's a real gathering of criminal masterminds there. You can see why they're untouchable. All I know is that, if I tried to pull this sort of stunt in my neighborhood, I would be ticketed into penury in short order. It's "impossible" to stop someone from operating an unlicensed used car business? Has anyone asked any of these guys for, you know, their license? Better yet, has anyone checked the VIN numbers for these vehicles? Works in the rest of the city, I'm sure, but not in the barrio, it seems.



Compact DSK: Rape Case Against Strauss-Khan Falls Apart


The "Rape Case Against DSK Falls Apart" story is a few days old, but I didn't want to neglect mentioning that Free Will - along with the motley crew of Stogie, Ben Stein (who wrote a precient and much-mocked piece early on), and Bernard Henri-Levi - expressed skepticism about the whole thing:
Much as I would like to believe that the "socialist" (as if he could survive 5 minutes under real socialism) head of the IMF actually sodomized a hotel maid yesterday...I find it hard to believe.
...

DSK is no stranger to sex-capades, which I have discussed before. That's the magic of being a "socialist." You can live like an old-fashioned potentate, so long as you mouth the right words about equality and justice.

Still, a rape accusation is a harsh thing, something that has already ended DSK's career at the IMF and likely ended his political career as well. The details are so bizarre - supposedly a naked DSK entered the room, found the maid, and ordered her to give him a BJ (what, no teabagging?) - as to be almost incredible. If he really did do this, it can't have been the first time.
My basic rule of thumb is this: rape accusations against famous people - even when their "fame" is that of BMOC at Duke - are always bogus. Always. I would have sooner believed DSK killed the maid, rather than believe that he raped her.

That doesn't mean he didn't have sex with her, but it was Kobe Bryant-style, consensual sex with the woman deciding after the fact that she would use her (double entende alert) brush with fame to her advantage. The whole thing reeked of a set-up, but whether DSK was the object of an old-fashioned shake-down by petty thieves, or was the target of darker forces (French secret service? Goldman Sachs? Irene LaGarde?) remains to be seen. I suppose the wealthy DSK could have bought off the maid, but I find that to be as incredible as the original rape charge.

Whoever set him up knew that DSK already had a reputation as a roue who liked to rough-up women, so it wouldn't take much to convince many people that DSK had forced himself on a poor hotel maid who was a devout Muslim (with a little prostitution on the side). I doubt this will change his habits, but he really ought to consider whether shagging the help is really in the best interests of his political career, no matter how much the French are willing to look the other way.

And let's not forget a basic fact long obscured in the murky world of the war between the sexes: for every outraged feminist writing about "power imbalances," and the like, there are a dozen women for whom the idea of rough sex with a powerful man is a real turn on. The reptillian DSK had a lot of willing partners over the years, after all.

In a way, the system "worked." DSK was originally accused of a serious crime by a hotel maid. Prosecutors and the police investigated it seriously. And when doubts set it about the credibility of the accusation, they investigated that, disclosing everything along the way. There's something admirable in that.

On the other hand, there's nothing admirable in how DSK was handled. Haul him off the plane at LaGuardia? Sure, he was an obvious flight risk. A perp walk? Unseemly under the circumstances. A rape accusation is an instant reputation destroyer and should be treated as such. And two weeks on Riker's Island instead of house arrest? Totally gratuitous. For the short time DSK was in the clutches of the justice system, he was abused for no better reason than to show that, hey, we treat everyone equally around here. Equally shi**y, I guess. Never mind the presumption of innocence.

The fact is that there is something seriously wrong with the way rape accusations are handled in the United States. The man is publicly displayed like an animal while the woman remains anonymous. Supposedly this is to make up for the Bad Old Days when a woman would find her reputation under assault from defense attorneys. But, rape arises from the often hidden world of sexual politics where miscues and regrets often hold sway. A woman walking down the street who is raped at knife-point is not "asking for it," but those sorts of stranger rapes are relatively rare. Mostly, we seem to deal with the dreaded "acquaintance rape" where the woman's motivation and consent are very much at issue, no matter what Katha Pollit and Susan Estrich might say otherwise.

None of this is to defend DSK's "lifestyle," if you want to call it that. The man's a pig. But, we don't put pigs in prison. And we don't ruin men's lives to satisfy the crocodile tears of the feminist mob.


MS-13 Mystery Theater: Gang Member Murders Baby in


The most disgusting thing to happen in the last 24 hours was not the dissemination of a picture of a shirtless Anthony Weiner. (my eyes!) It was this case, supposedly of "mistaken identity," in East Palo Alto where gang member shot a baby in the head:

East Palo Alto police have arrested a 17-year-old boy in the fatal shooting of a 3-month-old baby, a killing that investigators said stemmed from a case of mistaken identity.

The teenager was out for revenge after being beaten up May 31 by Sureño gang members in Redwood City, police said at a news conference today. At about 1 a.m. Sunday, he thought he saw one of the gang members getting into a car on the 400 block of Wisteria Drive in East Palo Alto, said acting police Capt. Jeff Liu.

In the car, however, was a family of four leaving a baby shower, not the gang members who had fought with the teenager. The suspect opened fire, killing 3-month-old Izak Jesus Garcia-Lopez and wounding the boy's parents.

Izak's mother, Ivonne Garcia-Lopez, was shot in the leg as she threw her body in front of her 4-year-old son, Isaiah. When the shooting stopped, she saw that her baby had been shot in the head.

"He was such a precious angel," Garcia-Lopez, 28, said at the news conference, sobbing. "He is my everything. I was making my own little family and we were happy, and this person came into my life and destroyed it. They killed my baby and they destroyed my soul, too."

Mistaken identity?? A husband and wife and their two little kids? Maybe his gun was hacked.

The shooter is only identified as a "teenager" because, naturally, we can't identify juveniles as being criminal suspects. I'm sure his immigration status, or lack there of, will also be a jealously guarded secret.


Mellon Head: The NY Times Covers the John Edwards-Bunnie Mellon Story


The NY Times had a (not very big) story in today's paper about "Bunnie" Mellon, the billionaire dowager who gave John Edwards millions of dollars to hide his pregnant mistress during the 2008 campaign. As the story describes events that occurred 3-4 years ago, and comes 3 years after the National Enquirer ran Edwards to ground (after a solid year of being the sole media outlet outside of Kausfiles to cover the Edwards story at all), 18 months after Andrew Young's The Politician described the events in detail, and one year after I blogged about "Bunnie Money"...I'd say the Times is late to this story.
Mrs. Mellon, a Democrat in a world of Republicans, first met Mr. Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, through Mr. Huffman five years ago. She expressed an interest in Mr. Edwards because he reminded her of President John F. Kennedy, she told the decorator. And he arranged a first meeting, over tea, at her estate, Oak Spring Farms, in Upperville, Va.

Mr. Edwards ingratiated himself with Mrs. Mellon to the point where she gave him millions of dollars as well as a gold necklace as a good-luck charm for the campaign trail, according to a tell-all memoir by Andrew Young, Mr. Edwards’s former aide, who is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.

In May 2007, when Mr. Edwards’s mistress, Rielle Hunter, told Mr. Edwards she was pregnant, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Young began looking for people who could give them money to help conceal the affair, the indictment said.

About the same time, it said, Mrs. Mellon wrote a note to Mr. Young, saying: “I was sitting alone in a grim mood — furious that the press attacked Senator Edwards on the price of a haircut. But it inspired me — from now on, all haircuts, etc. that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. ... It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.”

At that point, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon had already contributed the maximum permitted by law — $2,300 — to Mr. Edwards’s campaign.

Over the next eight months, the indictment said, Mrs. Mellon sent checks for Mr. Edwards through Mr. Huffman totaling $725,000, “falsely” referring in memo lines to things like “chairs,” “antique Charleston table” and “bookcase.” (Mr. Huffman refused to discuss this aspect of the case.)

Forget campaign finance violations, when is the trustee of the Mellon Trust going to sue Edwards for elder abuse?

In the wake of Edwards's indictment, John at Powerline and Steven Hayward have written that prosecuting Edwards was prosecutorial overkill, and not supported by federal election law. There's nothing illegal about a one party giving another $6 million to hide their mistress, goes the reasoning. All I can say is, read The Politician. Mellon was giving Edwards millions of dollars for his campaign, not for his mistress. (I doubt she had any idea Rhielle Hunter existed). Her money was being laundered through Edwards's campaign, either by Young or the late Fred Baron. At some point reading The Politician you start to wonder, hey, how is that people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have to justify really penny-ante "violations" like whether the right RNC office saved the right Neiman Marcus receipts, while John Edwards can use hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source to hide his pregnant mistress from the media? Well, Mellon's money was a gift! Of course! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this before? Well, no one's thought of it before because that would eviscerate the campaign finance laws.

I'll join with anyone out there who says the present system for financing elections is an incumbent protection racket that has done nothing to keep $$ out of politics. But, the laws are on the books and Edwards is subject to them, same as evil Republicans (whose campaign "violations" are usually reported on the weekend before elections, rather than years after the fact).



In Our Hands: Why Crime Hasn't Gone Up As the Economy Has Gone Down


James Q Wilson looks at a phenomenon that has surprised many people: crime rates have not gone up appreciably during the Little Depression. In fact, they continue to fall. Wilson sorts through a number of factors, (including a reduction in lead poisoning. give me a break), but concludes that a "change in culture" is what really lies behind this trend.
At the deepest level, many of these shifts, taken together, suggest that crime in the United States is falling—even through the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression—because of a big improvement in the culture. The cultural argument may strike some as vague, but writers have relied on it in the past to explain both the Great Depression's fall in crime and the explosion of crime during the sixties. In the first period, on this view, people took self-control seriously; in the second, self-expression—at society's cost—became more prevalent. It is a plausible case.
I'll agree that American society and popular culture is much improved from the loose and tacky Sixties and Seventies when the Great Crime Wave swept the nation. Just as an example, try to find some old World Series footage from Yankee Stadium. People were storming the field, scrambling around wildly, and looking generally like an out-of-control mob. Or look at the infamous "Disco Demolition" at Comisky Park. People laugh about it now, but what you are seeing is a thuggish, depressing riot.

By contrast, when a city-wide blackout hit NYC in 2003 (I think that was to year), nobody rioted, or smashed windows, or looted stores. Everybody quietly and calmly walked across the bridges to get home, or stayed put, but otherwise behaved themselves. The contrast with the Murder City of two decades earlier was stark, albeit in a good way.

Wilson identifies a Sixties-era social dynamic of self-expression uber alles as being part of the crime wave. And, yeah, people were expressing themselves, but more important, society's guardians failed to lay down a fundamental rule: stay off my lawn. This found expression in a myriad of ways. The most obvious were the Warren Court's criminal procedure reforms, which were widely seen at the time by liberals as being part of the civil rights movement, and widely panned by "right wingers" and other normal people as giving the criminal class too many undeserved rights. Well the wingnuts were right about that one. Reading a Miranda warning to low-lifes had very little to with Rosa Parks. It only placed her and her neighbors in greater jeopardy (since most crimes, then and now, were committed in poor neighborhoods). Nixon was running as a tough on crime candidate as early as 1972. As late as 1988, Republicans could tag a Democrat as "soft on crime" and torpedo his slim chances for winning the presidency.

As important, there was an explosion of drug use at all levels of society. While narcotics have never been legal, there was a de facto decriminalization back in those days. The quintessential event of the era was Woodstock, where celebrations of LSD and marijuana were as important as the music. Much of the crime of the era was related to drug use, from selling and distributing to collateral crimes like stealing TV's to score some dope. Setting the crime part aside, drug use contributed to a breakdown in society because the drugs themselves caused their users to break down in one way over another.

Mostly, though, there was a failure of leadership, especially in urban areas. Liberals were in charge of the most crime ridden areas of the country, whether NYC, Detroit, DC, or what have you. No matter how many innocent people were victimized, they never seemed comfortable with the idea of sending the police into a crime zone to knock heads, make some arrests, and send people to prison. Instead, they preferred to lecture us about poverty and "root causes" and how legitimate fears about crime were a figment of suburbanites' racist imaginations (that's the Bowling For Columbine theory).

And, liberals still don't get it. Just this week, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court ordered California to release tens of thousands of prisoners from its "overcrowded" prisons, a back door way of eviscerating California's effective and popular 3-Strikes initiative, which is based on the crazy theory that if you lock up criminals, you will have less crime.

The liberal approach to crime prevention, then and now, has been twofold: first, give us a ton of money so we can attack the "root causes" of crime by redistributing wealth downward. Second, restrain the police so they can no longer unfairly "target" minority communities. Unsurprisingly, this did not result in any reduction in crime, but rather to a disastrous increase. It took decades to dig ourselves out, but liberals seem hellbent to throw us back down.




Death Wish VI: Supreme Court Orders The Release of 37,000 California Inmates


Looks like liberals are determined to bring back every social ill from the Seventies: inflation, an overweening regulatory state, racial tension, and now the return of mass prison releases. In a 5-4 decision (try to guess who joined the 4 liberals on this one), the US Supreme Court has declared California's prison health system to be unconstitutionally overcrowded.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered California on Monday to reduce the population of its jammed prisons by more than 30,000 in two years to repair a health care system that lower courts found was defying constitutional standards and endangering guards as well as inmates.

Federal judges rightly found that overcrowding in a prison system that has held nearly twice its designed capacity for more than a decade was the main cause of "grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care," the court said in a 5-4 ruling.

"Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the majority opinion.

He cited evidence from two decades of litigation: mentally ill prisoners waiting up to a year for treatment, suicidal inmates held for 24 hours in phone booth-sized cages without toilets, waiting lists of 700 inmates for a single doctor, and gyms converted into triple-bunked living quarters that breed disease and violence victimizing guards and inmates alike.

This is not just bad public policy. It is also a backdoor way to overturn California's Three Strikes Law, which is the sort of popular crime fighting initiative that we had to pass in order to clean up the after-effects of the Seventies crime wave.

What's really frustrating is how little effort seems to finding practical solutions to this problem. Has it occurred to anyone to release into half-way houses those prisoners who are terminally ill or permanently disabled such that they are no longer a menace to society? Has anyone thought of releasing prisoners who are either legal or illegal immigrants to the tender mercies of their home countries? I keep hearing that prison overcrowding is due largely to pot busts and the like. Can't we figure out who those guys are and release them first? And so on.

Two of the votes for this ruling came from Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. (You'll remember their performances before the Judiciary Committee where they paid lip service to the idea that they would be careful and judicious. The mass release of God knows who into a state 3,000 miles away from their homes would not seem to be in keeping with this, but that's the Left for you). I am sure the President who appointed them, and the millions of Californians who voted him into office, will be happy with this result.


Kobe Beef: Did The Head Of The IMF Really Rape A Hotel Maid?


Much as I would like to believe that the "socialist" (as if he could survive 5 minutes under real socialism) head of the IMF actually sodomized a hotel maid yesterday...I find it hard to believe.
The arrest in New York of one of France’s leading global figures and a possible next president, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, on charges of attempted rape produced an earthquake of shock, outrage, disbelief and embarrassment throughout France on Sunday.

The country woke up to the tawdry allegations that Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, a leading Socialist and the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, had waylaid and tried to rape a maid in a $3,000-a-night suite at a New York hotel, and the reverberations were immediate.

The government of President Nicolas Sarkozy responded cautiously, saying the presumption of innocence must be maintained and the courts must be allowed to do their work, while the leader of the Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, admitted that she was “totally stupefied” by the charges against the man who had been considered most likely to bring her party back to power in next year’s presidential elections by defeating Mr. Sarkozy.

DSK is no stranger to sex-capades, which I have discussed before. That's the magic of being a "socialist." You can live like an old-fashioned potentate, so long as you mouth the right words about equality and justice.

Still, a rape accusation is a harsh thing, something that has already ended DSK's career at the IMF and likely ended his political career as well. The details are so bizarre - supposedly a naked DSK entered the room, found the maid, and ordered her to give him a BJ (what, no teabagging?) - as to be almost incredible. If he really did do this, it can't have been the first time.


MS-13 Mystery Theater: Gang Trial Begins In SF


San Francisco is not a particularly violent city, but we do have gangs. Seven members of the infamous El Salvadoran gang MS-13 have just gone on trial in the City for various acts of violence and mayhem. Is street crime one of those jobs Americans won't do any more?

San Francisco's biggest gang trial in years opened Monday with a federal prosecutor accusing seven men of terrorizing city neighborhoods with assaults, shakedowns and four 2008 murders.

They are "a group that lives, breathes and celebrates violence," said Justice Department attorney Theryn Gibbons.

From the mid-1990s onward, Gibbons said, local leaders of El Salvador-based Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, have used fear and intimidation to control their Mission District turf, extort money from drug dealers and phony-document peddlers, and eliminate rivals.

Gang members are initiated by undergoing a brutal beating - which lasts 13 seconds - and then "rise in the ranks through acts of violence," Gibbons said in her opening statement in a U.S. District Court trial that could last six months.

She said their attitude was illustrated by the July 2008 shooting death of Armando Estrada, 30, of Rodeo, a seller of fake documents who had refused to pay "taxes" to MS-13 in its territory.

Gang member Guillermo Herrera, 20, fired a shotgun into the back of Estrada's head in broad daylight at 20th and Mission streets, then got into a car, "pulled down his blue bandana and laughed," the prosecutor said.

The defendants all face life sentences if convicted.

Naturally, this is a case brought by federal prosecutors, and not the local district attorneys office. Former DA Kamala Harris was well known for turning a blind eye to crimes committed by young men of a certain, shall we say, undocumented status. Luckily for us, she left office last fall, but, ha ha, she only left to become California's latest soft-on-crime Attorney General. You'd think her Republican opponent would have made a big deal about her tendency to coddle illegal alien perps (not to mention her low conviction rate and staunch opposition to the death penalty), but loser Steve Cooley is one of those "moderate" types who doesn't like negative campaigning.


Look, we all know that most illegal immigrants are hard working, salt of the earth types who wouldn't hurt a fly. Still, the City has gone out of its way to shelter these MS-13 guys. There was a long running program whereby the DA was flying juveniles out of the country rather than turn them over to the feds. Worse, one of the beneficiaries later killed a local butcher and two of his sons. A local principal once tried to prevent the police from arresting a student for murder. And so on. What's saddest is that all of this mollycoddling has hurt the Hispanic community (like the murdered "seller of fake documents") hardest, even though they are the ones for whom white progressives claim to be working so hard to protect.




Footnote: The 30th Anniversary of the Reagan Assassination Attempt


Steven Hayward notes that today is the 30th anniversary of John Hinkley's attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Not only does this make me feel old, it's also a reminder of how easily history has forgotten that the Reagan Revolution nearly died that day. In fact, Al Haig's "I'm in charge here" gaffe was probably its lasting legacy.

The shooting and near death of President Reagan on that March afternoon provides another occasion for reflection on the radical contingency of human affairs and for counterfactual "what-if" speculation. What if Winston Churchill had been killed when he was struck by a taxi on Fifth Avenue in New York in 1932? What if Oswald had missed his target in Dallas? Most such speculations are ultimately fatuous, but in the case of Ronald Reagan one can speculate with confidence that the "Reagan revolution" as it came to be known would not have been consummated under the presidency of George H.W. Bush. . .

One of the quips Reagan scribbled on a note pad after waking up after surgery was Winston Churchill's famous line from his autobiography My Early Life that "there is no more exhilarating feeling than being shot at without result." But the bullets missed Churchill. While Reagan survived his bullet, it was not without "result." In addition to the severe pain of his wounds (whose treatment required strong medication including morphine), Reagan contracted a staph infection in the hospital that was as life threatening as the bullet wound. He had to be placed back on oxygen and given powerful antibiotics. Three days after the shooting House Speaker Tip O'Neill was the first outsider to visit Reagan in the hospital. "He was in terrific pain, much more serious than anybody thought," O'Neill said. In an extraordinary moment, O'Neill, in tears, knelt next to Reagan's bedside, held the president's hand, and recited the 23rd Psalm with Reagan in prayer.

Although Reagan returned to the White House after 13 days in the hospital, his working hours were severely curtailed for weeks. Al Haig, one of Reagan's first visitors back at the White House, said "I was shocked when I saw him. He was a shell of his old self." It would be two months before he worked a full day. His personal physician said that he didn't think Reagan fully recovered until October, seven months later. Reagan never mentioned his discomfort. His only complaint was that he wouldn't be able to ride a horse for a while.

One thing that sticks in the craw is how Hinkley was able to get off relatively lightly after shooting the president, along with three other men, one of whom - James Bradey - was left permanently brain damaged. The guy got off on an insanity claim and has been living out his days at St. Elizabeth's in DC. Not only that, there are occasional flurries of legal activity as he and his wealthy family seek out ever increasing freedoms, including weekend passes and unsupervised visits to his parents' homes. I recall reading a while back that Hinkley even managed to have a couple girlfriends, although Jodie Foster is apparently still playing hard to get.

Squeakey Fromme and Sarah Moore took shots at Gerald Ford, which missed their target, but were enough to send them to prison for decades. Why the soft treatment for Hinkley? Surely his parents' wealth is a factor. They could get the best defense money could buy, after all. It wouldn't take much effort for a hustling defense attorney to look through the detritus of Hinkley's pathetic life, find some odd ramblings about Jodie Foster, and use that to put on a show. This was the era of the "Twinkie defense" and an overall soft-on-crime approach to crime, and Hinkley took full advantage.

Still, you can't help feel like Hinkley was spared a real prison sentence because of who he shot. I can remember people being shocked by the shooting, but within a few months it was back to "Reagan = dumb cowboy." A short time later, Saturday Night Live broadcast an (admittedly funny) satire of presidential assassinations, which included a lot of Reagan elements. And, of course, a DC jury found Hinkley not guilty by reason of insanity despite the fact that he seemed to have put a certain amount of planning and forethought into his efforts. It's damn hard to imagine a similar reaction if, say, Bill Clinton was shot. But, because it was the hated Reagan, it didn't seem to matter so much.


Die Another Day: How to Avoid Being A Murder Victim


The Other McCain passes along some sage advice, gleaned from watching a First 48 Hours marathon, on how to avoid being murdered:

...Let’s face it, if you refuse to pay a dope dealer, and he shoots you dead, how is that anybody’s fault but your own?

Either pay the man, or don’t do dope. It’s really not complicated.

But the lowlife scum have difficulty coping with even these uncomplicated rules of street life.

It’s kind of a rarity on The First 48 for the victim to be entirely innocent. Not that anybody deserves to be murdered, but a majority of the victims in the cases featured on the show end up dead because, at the very least, they were hanging out with lowlife scum.

Lowlife scum with “street names”: Avoid them, and your chances of getting murdered are significantly decreased.

For liberals, the above is too complicated. It must be society, or The Man, or the KKK or someone killing all those bright lights in America's trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos. Personal responsibility, even at the most de minimus level can never enter into the equation.

It may be true that America is a violent place compared to other developed nations, but we're not exactly losing the next Jonas Salk (or even the next Hitler) every time some drug deal goes bad.


Gone In 6 Seconds: Celebrity Lamborghini Stolen in SF


San Francisco hosted the heist of the year Tuesday night, as someone broke into a luxury car dealership and stole a $200,000 Lamborghini Gallardo. The best part? The car belonged to celebrity chef Guy Fieri.

The thief pulled the heist with panache and was gone in a flash, but will he get the cash?

Most likely not, investigators are saying with somewhat bemused - though still serious - shakes of their heads.

That's because it's going to be mighty hard to sell what an unusually athletic thief using climbing gear stole from a swanky car dealership in San Francisco early Tuesday morning: a 2008 Lamborghini Gallardo sports car.

For one, as one of the most exclusive, distinctively designed and longed-for vehicles in the world, the car will stand out like neon wherever it is driven. It's even bright yellow, making it even more conspicuous.

For another, the car is worth more than $200,000 - and is owned by celebrity chef Guy Fieri, star of the game show "Minute to Win It" and "Diners, Drive-ins and Dives." Not the sort of thing that peddles easily on a used car lot or in the want ads, investigators note.

Pretty impressive and obviously an inside job. The thief gained access to the roof and then rappelled down into the showroom. Presumably the getaway happened pretty quick once he got the car started. Now that he has it, though, it's hard to know what he's going to do with his Italian supercar. It's virtually unsellable, at least in this country. But right now, he seems to just be enjoying the ride. The car has already been videotaped crossing the Golden Gate Bridge twice, even going through the tollbooth. Excitable San Franciscans are calling in tips as the thief lingers, inexplicably, in the Bay Area.



Let The Punishment Fit The Crime: Should John Edwards Be Indicted?


Word on the street is that John Edwards may be indicted for campaign finance violations relating to his alleged use of campaign funds to buy off and hide the pregnant Rielle Hunter. Mickey Kaus, who was virtually alone among the media in writing about Edwards's mistress, thinks that would not be a just result:

Everything John Edwards did–every breath he took–for four years was designed to get him elected president, after all. His antipoverty work was designed to make him look good. The payoffs to Rielle Hunter were designed to make him look good (by preventing him from looking bad). If the latter is a campaign expense, and has to be paid for with funds subject to individual limits, why not the former? And don’t say it’s because the former is a good thing and the latter is a bad thing. Criminal law isn’t supposed to be a blanket warrant to punish things we think are bad.

If you’re going to enact a criminal law which requires such squirrelly distinctions–including an absurd attempt to figure out what part of a politician’s life isn’t related to getting him or her elected–the only way to save it, it seems to me, is to cut people a lot of slack when it comes to applying it. That’s especially true when it comes to laws regulating the core democratic practice of running for office. Otherwise you wind up with what lawyers like to call a “chilling effect”–chilling in that it will prevent candidates from doing lots of things that should be legal, chilling in that it will deter non-insiders from running. …

All I know about Edwards's efforts to bankroll his mistress come from former Edwards aide Andrew Young's book The Politician. Young spends quite a bit of time describing his and Edwards's meetings with rich liberals who donated enthusiastically to Mr. Two-Americas. Hootie & The Blowfish, for example, were big Edwards supporters.

But, their biggest donor was Bunnie Mellon, a ninety-something dowager billionaire who was enthralled with Edwards. (you can practically hear her say, "Such a nice young man!") Mellon gave Edwards literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, laundered through Young and others, no questions asked. It was this money that funded a year-long cross country tour of spas and luxury hotels by Hunter, Young, Young's wife and their children; a tour that ended with a Santa Barbara sojourn in a rented mansion with Young's kids going to a pricey private schools. All of this paid for with "Bunnie money." Mellon, in case you were wondering, earned her pile the old fashioned way: she married an heir to the Mellon banking fortune. Mellon, Edwards and Young apparently liked to joke about how the Republican Mr. Mellon's money was going to support progressive causes. Haw! Haw!

Now, at some point reading The Politician you start to wonder, hey, how is that people like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell have to justify really penny-ante "violations" like whether the right RNC office saved the right Neiman Marcus receipts, while John Edwards can use hundreds of thousands of dollars from a single source to hide his pregnant mistress from the media? Well, Mellon's money was a gift! Of course! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this before?

Anyway, if this isn't the clearest possible example of how campaign finance laws are little more than an incumbent protection racket, I don't know what else there is. Back in Ye Olden Days (pre-1974) people like Bunnie Mellon could bankroll someone's campaign without going through all of these dodges. Supposedly this was a corrupt system, but I don't see how you can read the Edwards/Mellon tale and not conclude that the current one is even worse. Pre-1974, a would be politician would need to impress some deep pockets with his intelligence, skills and confidence. Now, there's much more a premium in being a glib salesman.

As for Edwards, I'm still waiting for someone - isn't there some kind of Mellon Trust trustee out there? - to sue him for elder abuse, which would be much more fitting for what he did during his "fund raising" visits to Bunnie Mellon.


Free Silly: Legal Liberals Petition For The Release of Kidnappers


The only thing I hate more than the progressive's demand for ever increasing government spending is their green eye-shade act. That is, when they suddenly become flinty-eyed fiscal conservatives when time to cut basic government services that they don't like. We saw an example of this yesterday when a group of liberal legal figures demanded the release of the Chowchilla kidnappers. Who are the Chowchilla kidnappers? These guys:

Thirty-five years ago, three men in their 20s kidnapped a bus full of schoolchildren in the Central Valley town of Chowchilla (Madera County), stuffed them and their driver into a makeshift underground dungeon and demanded a $5 million ransom.

The 27 prisoners dug their way to freedom after 16 hours, the abductors were nabbed and given life terms in prison, and the victims all tried to get on with their lives.

...

The Schoenfelds lived in Atherton and Woods lived in Portola Valley. They told relatives they hijacked the school bus at gunpoint on a road in Chowchilla on July 15, 1976, to get money to pay off a $30,000 debt they'd racked up in buying a house.

After piling the driver and all the children into vans, they drove them 100 miles north to Livermore, where they left the prisoners buried in a moving van in a quarry.

That's when, failing to get through overloaded phone lines at the Chowchilla police station, they took a nap. When they woke up, they learned from the radio that their victims had dug themselves free. Richard Schoenfeld turned himself in eight days later, and the other two were captured less than a week later. The Schoenfelds' only brother, John Schoenfeld of Belmont, said his siblings would have jobs waiting if they got out. Richard Schoenfeld, now 57, could work at drafting, and James Schoenfeld, 59, could work in air conditioning, he said.

I can remember reading a compelling Weekly Reader story back in the day that was based on the kidnapping. I was surprised to learn years later that this crazy incident actually happened. (and not so surprised that it occurred in California). But, still...kidnapping two dozen kids and burying them alive? Life in prison sounds appropriate.

But, now the kidnappers are making some noise about getting released and have found some unusual allies, among them are the lead investigator for the kidnapping and one of the appellate judge's who upheld the original convictions.

Retired state appellate court Justice William Newsom, who took part in the 1980 ruling giving the three a chance at parole, said Wednesday that they have paid their debt.

"This is a gross injustice to leave them in prison," Newsom said. "Nobody was physically injured in the kidnapping, and that is a major factor."

Also speaking out for parole was retired Madera County sheriff's Detective Dale Fore, who led the kidnapping investigation. Lead prosecutor David Minier, now a retired Madera County judge, sent a letter in support.

"These were just dumb rich kids who tried to rip a city off, and they've paid hell of a price for what they did," Fore said.

Yep! Just dumb rich kids! (in their mid-20's!) Newsome certainly knows a thing or two about dumb rich kids. In addition to being an administrator for the Getty Trust, he is also the father of Gavin Newsome, SF's former mayor and CA's current Lieutenant Governor. In other words, Newsome is as much a liberal as he is a retired appellate judge. Not that you could learn that from the linked article.

Still, it's kidnapper Schoenfeld's attorney who raises the "fiscal" argument for release

"Vengeance is a luxury California can no longer afford," attorney Scott Handleman said, noting that it costs about $50,000 a year to keep a state prisoner behind bars.

$50,000 a year?! Wow, just imagine the savings! Let's empty the prisons! We can't afford "vengence!" (cut to Gov. Brown nodding enthusiastically).

This is a perfect example of how liberals refuse to learn from the failures of their lousy ideas. The Chowchilla kidnappers were active during an era when legal leftists happily endorsed "soft on crime" policies that left criminals to run wild. Newsome, no doubt, was active in this effort. There really was a major crime wave back in the Seventies and Eighties that was only abated by conservative strategies such as "enforcing the law" and "sentencing criminals to long prison terms." The Chowchilla kidnappers were part of that wave, and well deserve their punishment. Next!

UPDATE: can't write about the Chowchilla "rich kids" without mentioning heroic bus driver Ed Ray, who saved all of those children. If Ray's kid was in prison, I doubt Newsome would be holding press conferences on his behalf. Needless to say, Ray gives the idea of parole a big thumbs down.

Bus driver Ed Ray, 89 and ailing in health, feels just as adamantly that the kidnappers should stay in prison, said his wife.

"We're not for them getting out," Odessa Ray said at their Chowchilla home. "We're thinking those three knew better. They really jeopardized a lot of lives."

That's straight talk from a decent man who did more in one terrifying afternoon that those three guys in prison have done in their entire lives.




Best Retirement Invesments Auto Search