Archives for: November 2011

Hinckley Wants Out

It’s been a few years since I sped read through “Psychiatry For Dummies” so maybe some medical break throughs occurred when I wasn’t looking, but can a person who is seriously mentally ill, become mentally NOT ill? I’m not talking about your typical lite weight, someone who suffers through anxiety, depression, nervous habits, or even someone who has difficulty concentrating (ADHD), all these can be regulated with medication. Prozac, Ritalin, anti depressants, even Lithium, wonder drugs that can help those afflicted to cope better and lead productive lives. But what about those bat shit insane psychopaths that have proven themselves dangerous to society by past actions? Once it is discovered that the wiring is faulty and the result of this haywiring is a deranged dangerous animal, can any amount of psycho therapy make him not dangerous, to the point where he is allowed to interact with society again?

The man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan is asking to spend more time outside a Washington mental hospital, but a government lawyer says John Hinckley’s request is premature and that he recently lied to cover up the fact he looked at books on Reagan and presidential assassinations.

It wasn’t for lack of trying that Hinckley failed in killing the president, a police officer and secret service guy also took bullets, and press secretary James Brady never recovered from his gunshot wound to the head.

Thinking you are Travis Bickle, winning the heart of your beloved by shooting the president definitely qualifies you as a looney tune, but now the doctors and his lawyer thinks he is right as rain, cured, and now ready to be turned lose on society again.

See, that is one the big advantage of going with the insanity defense (although in this instance, who doubts the diagnosis?) you don’t get incarcerated, you get treatment, and nicer digs. And given the right amount of persuasion, it is common for these doctors to declare themselves successful (do they right their own evaluations for themselves?) and declare the patient cured, happy days.

Hinckley has had unsupervised visits in the past to visit his mom, now he and his lawyer wants “convalescent leave” without court approval, which would allow him to live with his 85-year-old mother for an indefinite period, meaning he is out and about, walking amongst us.

Not all agree that Hinckley is a changed man:

“Hinckley still is not sufficiently well to alleviate the concern that this violence may be repeated,” United States Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. and other Justice Department officials wrote in a court document arguing against allowing Hinckley more unsupervised time away from St. Elizabeths. “Hinckley’s mental health is better, but his core diagnoses remain and there is recent evidence of deception toward his treating physicians as well as narcissism, both of which are significant risk factors for future violence.”

I wonder, is Hinckley getting a longer leash because he didn’t actually kill anyone? Does the actual outcome matter in instances like these? Spraying bullets into a crowd for the purpose of killing the President, can that act be mitigated at all because he was not successful?

Today I read that Anders Breivik was officially declared mentally ill:

The courts will still have to rule on the report, but if the conclusion is upheld than Breivik will face forced psychiatric treatment, rather than prison, and could be released if he’s later determined to no longer be a threat to others.

OK, what about this guy? He was more successful in his killing rampage, probably not any more mentally ill then Hinckley, given a sufficient amount of time (up to the doctors and their miraculous powers of healing) should this guy ever see the light of day?

Ditto with Jared Lee Loughner, his actions where fairly similar to that of Hinckley, yes, deaths were involved, but is there any doubt that insanity will play a major role in his defense? How many years does he sit on ice before his doctors (not a parole board, where victims and their families can speak and influence the decision) declare themselves successful, in making him sane again?

The main reason we have prisons (aside from making the criminal pay for his crime) is that society deserves to be protected from those that will do them harm. And in committing a dangerous deadly crime, you forfeit your right to interact with others, you don’t get the protection of the herd anymore and you get removed. Committing murder, or attempted murder, regardless of sane or insane, you have proven to society that you are not safe and they can’t be safe around you. Sorry, but Hinckley, Breivik, Loughner, and those like them don’t get a second chance, too risky.

Backing Off the War

Our War on Drugs is getting stupider and more corrupting by the minute. But … there may be some people out there who are not so dumb.

Flanked by former prisoners being trained at a food kitchen in Camden, [New Jersey Governor Chris] Christie called for expanding the state’s Drug Court Program — which offers non-violent drug addicts treatment and counseling rather than prison sentences — by making it mandatory for certain offenders.

About 8 percent of those who participate in the drug courts, which are available statewide and accept about 1,400 new participants each year, are convicted again — as compared to 43 percent of drug offenders released from prison, statistics show. Also, drug court participants cost taxpayers about $11,379 a year, as opposed to the $38,900 for the average prison inmate.

Through an executive order, Christie also created a task force that will, for the first time, coordinate the state’s programs to help prisoners return to normal life.

“We’re not giving people the skills they need, and we’re not giving them the treatment they need to overcome some of the problems that led them to crime in the first place,” Christie told a small crowd at Cathedral Kitchen in Camden, which serves food to the city’s poor and needy.

I have thought for some time that if we are ever going to end the War on Drugs, the impetus for it has to come from the Right. Democrats are too spineless to expose themselves politically. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Clinton could reform welfare. Only Republicans can back off a war on our own people.

Note particularly the cost savings. The Drug War is fucking expensive. Prisons, guards, cops — they cost money. People who go from smoking a joint to full-time criminality cost money and deprive us of working taxpayers. Treating people’s addictions is both cheaper and more effective.

Even the current GOP front-runner, a notorious drug warrior who thinks we should model our policies off of Singapore and drug test for federal benefits, is starting to get the hint.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long term policy.

The day we realize that this country’s drug problem is, first and foremost, a medical problem, we will have taken a step back from the abyss. It’s good to see that a few people are starting to get it.

Christie Tees Off

More Chris Christie common sense porn:

He essentially asks the question everyone else is asking: what was Obama doing while the Supercommittee floundered? Why can’t Washington do what everyone knows must be done — cut spending, reform entitlements and, possibly, raise taxes?

Now to be fair, Obama was very active in the deal that created the supercommittee and gave us some budget cuts. And a grand bargain was supposedly left on the table. We are also now facing a “dual trigger” situation where inaction will result in defense spending cuts and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts — although neither is automatic and both will probably be put off.

But the budget crisis is too big for “woulda coulda shoulda” bullshit. Obama also walked away from Simpson-Bowles and has gone conspicuously silent on the budget since. He has been campaigning while the budget is hammered out in Congress. That’s not his job description.

Detention Hall

I’ve been warning for some time that the regime of indefinite detention of terror suspects — started by Bush and continued by Obama — would not stay confined to foreign terrorist (it never really was, as Jose Padilla could tell you). Well, here we go:

Either Monday or Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that allows the US military to imprison civilians with no formal charges and hold them with no trial.

The ACLU reports even US citizens wouldn’t be immune as the legislation aims to declare national territory part of the “battlefield” in the War on Terror.

The bill gives the President unilateral power to detain anyone, mandates detention of civilians outside of military control and transfers control of detention to the Department of defense.

Mark Udall and Rand Paul are trying to strip this provision from the defense bill and Obama is threatening a veto. The ACLU has more here.

McCain and Levin — the authors of this provision — respond here. Almost all of their points address concerns that we’re not giving the President enough power to declare anyone to be a terror suspect and turn him over to DoD indefinitely. The closest they come to addressing civil liberties concerns is a claim that they are simply codifying what the President is already doing:

No provision in the legislation expands the authority under which detainees can be held in military custody. On the contrary, it codifies detention authority that has been adopted by two administrations and upheld in the courts. The bill states clearly that it does not expand or limit the president’s authorities under the original 2001 authorization of the use of force against al-Qaeda.

Even if this were true — and the ACLU thinks it isn’t — the detention power the Presidents have assumed since 9/11 already goes too far, is too arbitrary and has no review or oversight. To call it “Star Chamber justice” is to insult star chambers. It grants our president the power no president should ever have: the ability to declare someone an enemy and throw them into a prison for as a long as he wants. This includes American citizens caught on American soil.

Notice something else about the McCain-Levin op-ed. It includes a plethora of phrases that Terror Warriors use to try to frighten us into surrender:

the unprecedented kind of war that came to our shores on Sept. 11, 2001 … the threat posed by al-Qaeda … al-Qaeda terrorists who participate in planning or conducting attacks against us …

Whenever I see these asides in an article, post or speech, I know what follows is likely bullshit. They are the War on Terror’s answer to liberal asides like “corporate power” and “wealth disparity”. They are the grease for the multi-pronged dildo that is to follow.

Al-Qaeda is waning as a threat. This President has taken out their nominal leader and most of their upper echelons. And the response is … to increase our government’s anti-terror powers? What McCain and Levin are unwittingly revealing is what civil libertarians have been claiming all along: that this was never about terrorism; this was about increasing government’s power.

Bye Bye Barn

I’m sure all of us here at RTFLC need a group hug to deal with this:

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a prominent 16-term liberal Democrat from Massachusetts and arch-enemy of political conservatives nationwide, will announce Monday he does not intend to seek re-election in 2012, according to a statement from his office.

Frank, 71, will hold a news conference in his district to discuss the decision at 1 p.m. ET.

The reasons for Frank’s largely unexpected decision to retire from Congress were not immediately clear, though some analysts speculated they may be tied to changed boundaries for his 4th Congressional District after Massachusetts’ recent redistricting process.

Translation: he didn’t want to fight for a district that wasn’t gerrymandered.

There are some nice things I could say about Frank. Uh … he has fought against the stupid internet gambling ban. Um … help me out here guys.

CBO downgrades the Patronage Bill

In a move that doesn’t surprise people like me a bit, and which the LSM will simply ignore and thus allowing others that feel unless the LSM says it word for word, it isn’t so, we now find out that the stimulus patronage bill has had it’s price tag increased and its positive impact majorly downgraded:

Recovery: After nearly all the stimulus money has been spent, the Congressional Budget Office now admits it cost more than advertised, did less to boost growth and will hurt the economy in the long run. In its latest quarterly report on the economic effects of the Obama stimulus, the CBO sharply lowered its “worst case” scenario while trimming many of its upper-bound estimates for stimulus-fueled growth and employment. The new report finds, for example, that the stimulus may have added as little as 0.7% to GDP growth in 2010 — when spending was at its peak — and created as few as 700,000 new jobs.

Both are down significantly from the CBO’s previous worst-case scenario. The report also lowered the best-case estimate for added growth in 2010 to 4.1% from 4.2%. In addition, the CBO says the extra infrastructure money didn’t boost growth as much as it previously claimed, because states reacted by spending less out of their own budgets on highways. So in other words, the CBO now says it’s possible In our view, even the CBO’s downgraded estimates are too high, because they’re still based entirely on Keynesian economic models that simply assume extra government spending results in added economic growth.

You don’t have to look very hard to see this isn’t what happened. Wile Obama promised the massive stimulus would “ignite spending by businesses and consumers,” unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction,” and keep unemployment under 8%, what we actually got was the worst recovery since the Great Depression.

Look this was the biggest rip off of the American tax payer in our history. We were “Bernie Madorffed” by the one party that controlled the two houses of our government that does the spending. All the problem makers stepped up and demanded that they be allowed to “fix the problems”. We got a ton of new regulation, government driven crony capitalism, massive uncertainties that prevent private sector businesses from doing any growing or hiring in the near, and maybe even far future, leading to horribly high unemployment, deeper in debt, and unless you count democrat friends, donors, lobbyists, politicians, and campaign coffers making out like bandits, no tangible assets to show for all that cash spent. And the fundamental underlying problems not only remain there, intact, but in addition to the “social engineering” problems of the housing market, we now are staring at another one in education.

Oh wait. I know. It’s Bush’s fault. The donkeys inherited all the problems from Bush and the porkulus failed because it was just too small. At this point we should ask if we would not have been better off without any of it.

Adorable Marxist

The mother/creator/inspiration for OWS is tanned, rested, has hammer/sickle in hand, and is raring to throw down against that male stripper. Ya know, I bet she was a looker 10 years ago:

Alright, admit it, during this whole video you were hoping that camera would pan just a bit farther south.

Personally,I think Brown is toast. Mass. has no business having a GOP senator, that would be like California having one, ridiculous. Technically anyone would be hard pressed to prove Brown is a Republican, given his voting record. He would say that his only chance of staying employed representing a soviet satellite you have to embrace your inner Mao, a fair point.

I can’t think of anyone more “out there” (maybe Van Jones, is he also running?) then Warren. Sure, if Hugo Chavez can’t be president then Obama would do nicely, and she certainly would rubber stamp anything coming out of this WH, but the type of damage she would do would not be good, whoever was president. It might be time for Brown to start sending out his resume, and working on that six pack for his next photo shoot.

The Left Wing’s Anti-Left Conspiracy

First Michael Moore and now Naomi Wolf are speculating that the recent crack-downs on OWS were … are you sitting down? … coordinated by Obama. Citing a single unnamed source (actually, citing the same source twice through two different bloggers, so that she can claim confirmation), she alleges that DHS has coordinated the crackdowns. The sinister right-wing Obama Administration did this because OWS was threatening politicians’ ability to make money from campaign donations.

So, when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.

Wait a minute. Only one side is choosing violence? What about those who tried to disrupt a conference held by the eevil Koch brothers? Or those who turned on food vendors when they stopped giving them free stuff? Or the allegations of rape and sexual assault? That’s just what I remember off the top of my head. That’s not to mention the tradition that OWS has inherited from previous violence in Seattle.

Now the government’s response has been more organized. And while I think some of it has gone too far, organized violence is the government’s job. Leftists like are Wolf are wont to forget this. They forget that the healthcare mandates and taxes and regulations that they so love are, ultimately, enforced by the threat of violence.

And this is the first threat against the Congressional money train? Give me a break. The entire Iraq War protest was centered around “no blood for oil”, the idea that Congress and the President were invading Iraq for huge oil company profits. The last time the “get money out of politics” crowd go their way, we got McCain-Feingold. It was passed without violence and it was completely effective in decreasing the power of special interests to … stop that laughing back there. The protesters do want to overturn Citizens United and eliminate corporate personhood (even though, as Bainbridge points out, corporate personhood is a good thing if you believe in regulation). But the likelihood of that happening is pretty close to zero.

Further deconstruction of Wolf’s idiocy can be found here and here. The most that can be said is that the small number of cities had crackdowns after asking the protesters to leave multiple times and these crackdowns may have involved some consultations with experts, including maybe some at DHS. That’s about it. The evidence of a national coordinated campaign simply does not exist.

Look, I’ve said multiple times I’m somewhat sympathetic to OWS. But let’s be honest. They are not complaining, as Wolf speculates, about some obscure provision affecting corporations in Delaware. The most common hue and cry is for a bailout of their student debt. I’m sure what few private interests remain in the student loan market would love for the government to pay off loans in full.

And I drew fire last week for objecting to some of the violent tactics used by police. But how desperate to you have to be to believe that this was the idea of Barack Obama and a bunch of liberal Democrat mayors?

Of course, a complete lack of either evidence or logic has never been a problem for Wolf (or Moore, for that matter). It’s usually just proof that we need to dig deeper!

Ain’t Love Grand?

The powers of attraction (or the compulsion to get laid, your call) has been with us since day one, it has consumed man’s passion, causing him to waste more time and commit more energy and effort then pretty much anything else. That, and eating of course. And as the old saying goes, there is no accounting for taste. I am always amazed when I see an absolute knock out arm and arm, fawning over some dirtbag. It can’t be only that he has a big dick, or has access to the best supply of blow. Similarly, guys that have it together, firing on all cylinders, some of them are sporting bargain basement ladies, throwing that whole “Beautiful people” ass over tea kettle.

And when a man pines over that which is allusive, there is no end to the hilarity:


Redneck Video Dating Disaster - Watch MoreFunny Videos

After Janice sees this video, Randy is a shoe in. Although, taking a man’s truck (and his house………ummmmm) does not sound very loving. I like the parts where he describes her as 5-1 and healthy (translation, she is built like a fire hydrant), and she has the best boobs ( translation, these are the only female boobs he has ever seen.). And having kids so that they can bring you beer, genius.

I have never put much stock in these online dating sites, but if it can get these two whacky lovebirds back together, I suspect they are soul mates, then there will be joy in Mississippi. And she best act fast, while she still has some teeth left.

Black And Blue Friday

After writing a post on the virtues of capitalism………………I’m starting to reconsider:

Ya know, maybe it would be better to stand in line for hours waiting for a Commissar to give you one pair of shoes, one gallon of gas, and your daily allotment of bread, all courtesy of the state.

Granted, this is Walmart (too bad the video did not show the 3 people that were trampled to death by the herd at opening time) so we have to factor in a certain amount of barbarity, but I’m not getting what seems obvious to me, unless the stuff they are grabbing is free, is any bargain worth this kind of aggravation?

Alright, I doubt anyone would admit it, but has anyone here actually gone out and shopped on Black Friday? We won’t laugh at you, maybe you got the deal of the century, but I’m curious as to what savings out there is worth 3 broken ribs, some pulled hair, and having to park in the next county.