I've been mulling over starting a new feature on this blog. Since this was inspired by Senator Johnson, I thought of calling it The Johnson Watch, but as I'm sure I'll want to include other legislators in the joy, I'll have to find a different name. Suggestions, please.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
The more I read of the tragic case of Raquel Nelson, the more outraged I am at the prosecutor who apparently filed charges only when a story on jaywalking mentioned her, the jury that convicted her, the unsympathetic public in Atlanta, and the city planners who did such a poor job of placing the bus stop.
The jury that convicted her was a jury of white people who all had replied that they never took public transportation. (Incidentally, this makes me question the defense attorney's expertise.) The jury was unsympathetic to the fact that the bus stop was right across from her home, with the nearest cross-walk 3/10 of a mile away (keep in mind that's a walk both ways, so 6/10 of a mile lugging bags and young children).
Let me tell you right now; if you're going to tell me you've never jaywalked once in your life, I'm going to flat-out call you a liar. But somehow, this woman ended up charged with-let's see, what was it? "Reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle." Each is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. In the meantime, the person who killed her son, who previously was convicted of two hit & runs, is already out of prison after serving six months of a five-year sentence. As Radley Balko noted, she could serve three times more time in prison than her son's killer.
So we have an over-zealous prosecutor (I'm lookin' at ya, Barry Morgan, although Barry Moron would be more fitting), an unsympathetic jury who has never taken public transportation and does not understand the frustration of poorly placed bus stops, an indifferent public in Atlanta region, many that blamed her, and the planners who thought it'd be a good idea to place the bus stop in the middle of a block rather than at the intersection.
What's interesting to me, though, is this sentence, emphasis mine: "She and the children crossed two lanes and waited with other passengers on the raised median for a break in traffic." Were those other passengers charged with two of the three charges that Ms. Nelson was? Surely they were listed as witnesses to the hit & run? No? Then that's a good indication of a grandstanding prosecutor.
There are many levels of good policies needed for a good community; we need good design (better bus stop placement), a justice system that is not abused by grandstanding prosecutors, and a public that actually cares. For Rachel Nelson, society has failed her on so many levels.
The jury that convicted her was a jury of white people who all had replied that they never took public transportation. (Incidentally, this makes me question the defense attorney's expertise.) The jury was unsympathetic to the fact that the bus stop was right across from her home, with the nearest cross-walk 3/10 of a mile away (keep in mind that's a walk both ways, so 6/10 of a mile lugging bags and young children).
Let me tell you right now; if you're going to tell me you've never jaywalked once in your life, I'm going to flat-out call you a liar. But somehow, this woman ended up charged with-let's see, what was it? "Reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle." Each is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. In the meantime, the person who killed her son, who previously was convicted of two hit & runs, is already out of prison after serving six months of a five-year sentence. As Radley Balko noted, she could serve three times more time in prison than her son's killer.
So we have an over-zealous prosecutor (I'm lookin' at ya, Barry Morgan, although Barry Moron would be more fitting), an unsympathetic jury who has never taken public transportation and does not understand the frustration of poorly placed bus stops, an indifferent public in Atlanta region, many that blamed her, and the planners who thought it'd be a good idea to place the bus stop in the middle of a block rather than at the intersection.
What's interesting to me, though, is this sentence, emphasis mine: "She and the children crossed two lanes and waited with other passengers on the raised median for a break in traffic." Were those other passengers charged with two of the three charges that Ms. Nelson was? Surely they were listed as witnesses to the hit & run? No? Then that's a good indication of a grandstanding prosecutor.
There are many levels of good policies needed for a good community; we need good design (better bus stop placement), a justice system that is not abused by grandstanding prosecutors, and a public that actually cares. For Rachel Nelson, society has failed her on so many levels.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Debt Ceiling Thoughts
After reading this, I'm wondering about something. Historically, Congress has passed debt ceiling increases with little fanfare. To be sure, the minority party usually votes symbolically against the debt ceiling, just as they vote for it when in power. Even though the Congress is divided between the Republicans in House and the Democrats in the Senate, it shouldn't have mattered.
And yet, this year for the first time, the Republicans have decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to policies they want to see passed. Hostage may seem like a strong word, but how else do you describe it? All of sudden, after numerous negotiation attempts have broken down because the Republcians have flat-out refused to increase revenue (even by changing the deprication chart for private jets to be in line with commercial jets), the ability of United States to pay its bills is suddenly in doubt.
Standard & Poor has now said that it's not good enough that the United States pass a debt ceiling vote-Congress has to show that it can work together in the future. The impact of a possible downgrade in America's rating is that it will be more costly to borrow money in the future, not just for the United States, but also for many states, and perhaps even municipalities. As Ezra Klein notes, "So S&P is literally saying that America is not acting like a country that deserves a AAA-credit rating. Nice job, Congress."
Except, of course, it's not the "Congress" but the Republicans that are causing this.
Let's see; something that unncessarily costs the United States a tremendous amount of money, out of political spite.
How do you not use the word treason? A strong word that Democrats, to their credit, have not used, but consider how often the Republicans tossed it around after 9/11 against any doubters. If they can toss it around so blithely against people who simply disagreed with their policies, can we not use the word when there is actual harm to the United States?
And yet, this year for the first time, the Republicans have decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to policies they want to see passed. Hostage may seem like a strong word, but how else do you describe it? All of sudden, after numerous negotiation attempts have broken down because the Republcians have flat-out refused to increase revenue (even by changing the deprication chart for private jets to be in line with commercial jets), the ability of United States to pay its bills is suddenly in doubt.
Standard & Poor has now said that it's not good enough that the United States pass a debt ceiling vote-Congress has to show that it can work together in the future. The impact of a possible downgrade in America's rating is that it will be more costly to borrow money in the future, not just for the United States, but also for many states, and perhaps even municipalities. As Ezra Klein notes, "So S&P is literally saying that America is not acting like a country that deserves a AAA-credit rating. Nice job, Congress."
Except, of course, it's not the "Congress" but the Republicans that are causing this.
Let's see; something that unncessarily costs the United States a tremendous amount of money, out of political spite.
How do you not use the word treason? A strong word that Democrats, to their credit, have not used, but consider how often the Republicans tossed it around after 9/11 against any doubters. If they can toss it around so blithely against people who simply disagreed with their policies, can we not use the word when there is actual harm to the United States?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Ezra Klein Nails It
Exactly what I've tried to tell people.
It's about what you prioritize. Labels doesn't matter when it's money going toward something rather than a different policy option. But because it happens to be labeled one way, it's somehow treated differently.
It's about what you prioritize. Labels doesn't matter when it's money going toward something rather than a different policy option. But because it happens to be labeled one way, it's somehow treated differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
