First, a little background. State Senator Stacy Campfield has been pushing a bill for several years now regarding teaching about homosexuality is grade school. The text of the current bill is:
The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical
implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.
(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
Recently, Campfield was invited onto The Gist, a radio show by Mike Signorile to discuss the bill. During that interview, Campfield made some statements about the origin and transmission of AIDS that are not politically correct, including observing, correctly, that transmitting AIDS through heterosexual contact is much more unlikely than transmission through homosexual activity. Following the contentious interview, Mr. Signorile chose some of the more incendiary quotes and highlighted them in a blog post.
The blog post is a beautiful example of taking quotes out of context to make the subject look bad. For example, when Signorile asked Campfield why heterosexuality should be discussed in classrooms and not homosexuality, Campfield's answer was :
"The only reason well, natural reproduction. If you’re talking in science classes you need to be able to talk about how natural reproduction works XY chromosomes and that sort of thing. If you didn’t talk about heterosexuality, you would not be able to talk about natural reproduction."
Certainly not a controversial answer. Sexuality should only be discussed in a classroom when it is directly related to the science of the reproductive processes. The social aspects should be left to the family. You may disagree with that, but it isn't hateful by any means.
But in his blog post, Signorile substitute's this quote from a couple of minutes later in the interview as Campfield's answer:
"I just think there are situations where some kids maybe sexually unsecure [sic] in themselves or sexually confused and don't necessarily know clearly what direction they are. If someone, a person of influence, says maybe you're gay, maybe you should explore those things -- maybe the child, who is young and impressionable, says maybe I am gay."
Then juxtaposes this quote, also from another part of the interview:
"[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school."
The two quotes above come from different sections of the interview, but Signorile uses them to try and make Campfield look hateful. Additionally, he misquotes Campfield in the second quote, in my opinion deliberately, to make him look like he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality. In fact, what Campbell said was
"It happens in nature, but so does bestiality That does not make it naturally, necessarily something we need to talk about with children."
Now that is quite a difference. Signorile not only repositions a quote, he changes it from a simple statement of fact (There are some aspects of sexuality we don't need to discuss with children) to a value judgment on homosexuality.
I'm not going to go through the rest of the blog post. It's more of the same and Campfield does get some facts wrong. But the post is a hit piece plain and simple. Of course, it got widespread attention, and I'm willing to bet almost nobody went back to the original interview and listened. They just believed what they already prejudged about Campfield.
So, fast forward to yesterday. Martha Boggs, owner of The Bistro at the Bijou, reacting to the Huffington Post article, refused to serve Campfield, and asked him to leave the restaurant. She then posted on the restaurant's Facebook page, "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted[sic] against."
The irony of using unfair discrimination to protest unfair discrimination is amazingly obvious.
And amazingly stupid.
As the day has gone by, I've watched more and more people weigh in on this one, and they all seem to say the same thing. "Way to go Martha! That'll show 'em!"
Show them what? That prejudice and intolerance are okay, as long as the target is unpopular? How do we get to a point where we have people can say, and with a straight face, "Discrimination is evil, bad, hurtful, and ignorant. Unless I agree with it; then it's okay!"
After all, what Boggs did is no different than a bar owner throwing out a (insert minority of your choice here) and saying "We don't serve your kind here!" Does anybody think that this episode is going to do anything to cause Campfield to change his mind? Did it do anything to educate him? Did it show tolerance or acceptance? Or did it show that narrow minded jerks exist on both sides of the ideological divide?
Suppose a restaurant refused to serve the head of Planned Parenthood, or any of their supporters. Would that be okay?
Folks, tolerance isn't worth a flip if you only tolerate the folks you agree with. That's just good old high school conformity dressed up in flashier clothes.
Martha Boggs' actions were flashy, and drew a lot of attention, but ultimately petty, childish, and potentially actionable. I doubt Campfield will pursue it; his post on the matter is fairly simple and straight forward; certainly far more mature than Ms. Boggs.
I don't agree with everything Campfield says, and certainly not all of the legislation he produces. I do, however, believe that he should enjoy the exact same amount of protection under the law as everybody else.
Knox County Sheriff’s Department Comes Up Short on Drug Busts
Lags Behind Surrounding Counties as well as Similarly Sized Counties
According to records kept by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit, the Knox County Sheriff's Office has the lowest arrest rates for narcotics in the Knoxville Metropolitan area, and falls far behind the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, a similarly sized county in East Tennessee. The KCSO has a lower proportion of total drug arrests when compared to the Knoxville Police Department than any of the other city/county groups in our region.
Katie Granju's oldest son, Henry, died of a drug overdose two years ago. Tennessee Law states that anyone who gives drugs illegally to another person is guilty of Homicide in the Second Degree if that person dies from those drugs. Yet the Knox County Sheriff's Department closed the investigation into Henry's death without any arrests or charges being filed. Coincidentally, on the day Henry died, another Knoxville teenager, Amber Blizard, also died of a drug overdose. While her death was within a different jurisdiction, her mother received the same result. No arrests, no charges, no justice.
As Ms. Granju fought for Justice for Henry, the KPD responded. They looked into her allegations, and as a result, launched an investigation that resulted in felony indictments against the three adults involved with Henry's overdose. While those indictments were not specific to Henry's death, they did involve drug trafficking, including sales within protected areas, such as school zones. Additionally, the KPD is re-examining Amber Blizard's case, in the hopes of finally finding justice for her, and closure for her mother.
The KCSO, on the other hand, continued to insist that they did a thorough job, that there was no prosecutable crime, and that the folks who were present when Henry died were simple "Good Samaritans," trying to help a young man in trouble. Their arrests last September, combined with their criminal histories, put the lie to that claim. But the reluctance of the KCSO to conduct a truly thorough investigation led Ms. Granu to ask if Henry's case was unique, or if the way the KCSO handled Henry's case was standard operating procedure.
That question is now answered.
The records show a total of 276 Drug/Narcotics violations for the KCSO for 2010, while the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department notched 480 violations over the same time period. That difference is made more stark by the fact that roughly 250,000 Knox County residents are subject to KCSO jurisdiction while only 103,000 Hamilton County residents are outside city limits and subject to the County Sheriff's jurisdiction. Additionally, the budget for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office was just under $30 million in 2010; while the KCSO spent over $70 million. With twice the number of residents, and over twice the budget, the KCSO recorded roughly half the violations.
A survey of other crimes do not show this same level of disparity. Hamilton County and Knox County show comparable rates for Murder, Rape, Aggravated Assault, and Burglary. However, Knox County does show elevated levels of Robbery, Shoplifting, and Auto Theft. In fact, the only major crime statistic surveyed that shows Knox County at a significantly lower level than Hamilton County is Drug/Narcotics violations.
The KCSO shortfall becomes even more obvious when city statistics are examined. In Hamilton County, the Sheriff's Department has jurisdiction over 31% of the county's total population and accounts for 23% of all Drug/Narcotics violations. In contrast, the KCSO has jurisdiction over 59% of the residents in the county, yet accounts for only 11% of the total Drug/Narcotic arrests.
The KCSO fares just as poorly when compared to the eight surrounding counties. The KCSO has the lowest Drug/Narcotic arrest rate (1.09) per 1000 residents of any of the contiguous eight counties. The KCSO also has the highest disparity between city and county drug arrests with the KCSO notching only 9% of the KPD's arrest rate per 1000 residents.
The combination of the KPD/KCSO comparisons, the relative crime rates between similar jurisdictions, and the comparison with other counties in the region make it clear that there is a drug enforcement problem within the KCSO. The numbers discount the possibility that drug traffic within Knox County is exceptionally low, especially since Knox County's position on the I-75 corridor tends to suggest a higher level of drug activity when compared to similarly sized communities away from the Interstate.
The traffic is there; it is the enforcement that is missing.
DISCLOSURE: I am a friend/acquaintance of Ms. Granju. While we have met in person less than five or six times, we have spoken extensively about this case, both professionally, as writers, and personally, as friends. It was this relationship that inspire me to dig into the records to find the answer to her question; however, the numbers come directly from state sources and are linked for easy verification. Statistics for this article came from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit and the US Census Quick Facts page. This article is available for reposting or reprinting in its entirety as long as authorship (Rich and Lissa Hailey) is acknowledged. An image of the spreadsheet used is available here.
Coincidentally, while I was writing the last post, Jack McElroy was also writing on his blog, The Up Front Page. He was reacting to the questions my wife and I, as well as others, are asking, namely, why didn't the KNS know about this a long time ago? And if they did, why didn't they publish?
In his answer, he reposted the question from Lissa, as well as Satterfield's response during the chat, then added the following:
When Satterfield broke the news that the TBI was investigating Baumgartner, she reported that he had appeared disoriented at the end of the Coleman trial. That report apparently triggered a subpoena for her testimony at the hearing over the motion for new trials in the Christian-Newsom case. The subpoena was waived after attorneys agreed that any testimony she gave would match what she reported in the story.
As it turned out, there was plenty of evidence of Baumgartner's problems beyond what a newspaper reporter could see from a courtroom bench.
That's the best he could do? Once again pointing his finger at the other people who should have done something, all the while refusing to notice that he and his staff also did nothing?
The phrase that really gets me is the last one, "...there was plenty of evidence of Baumgartner's problems beyond what a newspaper reporter could see from a courtroom bench." Is it too much to expect from our newspaper that its reporters occasionally get their butts up off the bench and actually do some real investigating? Or is that too hopelessly old fashioned?
Let's be clear; the newspaper does not have a responsibility to see that justice is done. That's the domain of the justice system. But the newspaper does have a responsibility to report the news, and to look for corruption in government before it becomes blindingly obvious and prohibitively expensive. And for future reference, a judge passing out during the delivery of a verdict in a major trial qualifies as blindingly obvious.
I left a comment on Mr. McElroy's post, a slight reworking of the tail end of my last post. I'll put it here just in case it doesn't make it through moderation:
Mr. McElroy, I appreciate that you are willing to address this issue openly, but your answer is lacking. While it is true that many people knew about Mr. Baumgartner's drug problem, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the News Sentinel should also have known.
Your paper is supposed to be the watchdog of the people. One of your highest functions, as you wrote so eloquently in your blog about the subpoena process, is to shine the light on local government, and to hold them accountable. The TBI report makes it very clear that many people in city and county government were aware of Baumgartner's drug use. It is just as clear that a fairly wide array of folks outside of the government knew as well; his doctor, his suppliers, his pharmacists, etc. Others were aware of how he was bending/breaking laws to protect his dealers, and other associates. In fact, what the TBI file makes most clear is that it appears that the only people who didn't know what was going on were employed by the News Sentinel.
So, how did your paper fail so badly at its primary function? How can so many people know about a prominent judge who is also a junkie, and your paper miss the story entirely? Why is it that you needed the TBI to release its investigation in order to find out what was going on when you had one of your senior reporters right there the whole time? More importantly, what steps are you taking to improve your performance?
On the other hand, if you believe that the KNS did a good job, then tell us why. How is it that you can miss criminal activity by a prominent judge that extends over a period of years and still claim that the KNS is doing its job?
Or to put it another way, what good is a newspaper that fails to find out and report the news?
I've never moderated comments or had members here, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should. I want to provide for solid discussion of the issues, but since I am dealing with issues that rouse a lot of passions, I want to maintain the level of the discussion, as well as the tone. The KNS removes only the absolute worst comments, allowing the noise to drown out any reasonable discussion. I don't want that to happen here, and I need to find out the best way to maintain the level of discourse without unduly burdening you.
I have a couple of options.
I can moderate comments. The advantage is that nobody has to sign up or do anything different. The only change would be that comments may take a while to show up as I don't have time to revewi comments all day. That could significantly hinder the discussion.
I could set up moderation so that site members comments would post immediately, while guests would have their comments moderated. The benefits are that folks who signed in would be able to comment freely while others would have their comments moderated. The draw back is the sign in process.
I'm not sure which idea I like better or if I will implement this at all. I'm undecided which is why I'm asking for your input.
I've also thought about requiring people to post with their real names; there's nothing like a little accountability to get you to think before you type, which is one of the reasons I've always posted and commented under my own name. I've decided against that for now, since some people have valid reasons for maintaining their privacy, and hen you're discussing drugs, addiction, and criminal activity, discretion is extremely important.
So, you tell me. Comment moderation? Site membership? Or just keep it open and delete/archive where necessary?
In between the barbecues, the sales, and the safe boating tips, please take a moment to remember the people who believed that they needed to give back to this country and wound up giving everything. In this day when most Americans have their hands out, looking for what they believe they are owed, the sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives defending our nation is all the more worth remembering.
Yeah, I know what I said, but there's just too much going on that's too important to just sit by quietly and let it happen.
The last time I posted here, I was tired of being angry at what I saw going on. I knew that nothing I said would make a difference, and that most of what I said was being said by other writers, and probably better, clearer, and certainly more concisely.
I've decided I don't care. There are certain things that need to be said, and if there's several of us saying it, then that just adds a bit more weight to what we say. besides, even though I consider America to be on an irreversible downward spiral into decadence, maybe, if we try hard enough, we can slow the inevitable decay down long enough for my kids and grandkids to have a shot at a decent life.
I'm not done writing; I'm just not going to be doing it here.
I had my fill of writing about politics about a year before the election, but just when I said I was through, Democrats launched one of the most offensive smear campaigns I have seen in my life, targeting the Palin family for destruction. Democrat campaigners showed no honor, no respect,and no restraint as they attacked each and every member of that family.
It was a disgusting display of partisanship made worse by the fact that so-called moderate liberals did nothing, giving their tacit approval to the process.
And so I go fired up again. I dug into Obama's past political campaigns, his history as an executive, short lived and unsuccessful as it was. I learned that nobody should have been surprised at the treatment the Palin family got because that was the standard M.O. of the Obama political machine. His ascension to power was waged as a scorched earth campaign, regardless of the cost to others. As he said when questioned about the ethics of one of his early campaigns, he simply said,"If you can win, win."
I put that information out, and was met with a collective yawn.
The far left thought Obama's tactics were wonderful, while the moderate left (all two of them) were upset that I and others who were presenting the facts were "muckraking."
But I kept on, thinking in the back of my head that there were liberals out there who were interested in the facts, who could handle a debate, and could put together a sound argument that would explain their position in a rational manner.
I was wrong.
My mistake has been thinking that liberalism,or more properly, progressivism, is an ideology, as is conservatism. That is, an idea, based on facts and reason, useful for describing te behavior of a society, and the best manner of organizing that society. It isn't. It has more in common with religion than anything else, complete with hierarchy, a rigid orthodoxy, excommunication for dissenters,and an intolerance for questioning.
And you can't talk a man out of his religion. All you will do is piss him off.
The Nobel Peace Prize was the final straw. There is no rational way to defend giving it to President Obama. Not without debasing everything the Prize used to stand for. The Committee has said that they wanted to help shape the direction of American policy by giving the award to Obama. Many progressives find nothing wrong with that. But let's think about it for just a minute. Here we have an external group attempting to shift the course of American policy by giving an award to the sitting President.
Is it just me, or did the Nobel committee just try to buy off the US President?
And the progressives are okay with it. Of course, we know buying and paying for politicians is the Chicago way,but even in Chicago they try to be a little bit more subtle about it.
Putting the whole bribery thing aside, the act that many progressives,including people I know and respect, are so caught up in the idea of an Obama Presidency that even this farce, that tops Pia Zadora's Golden Globe and Milli Vanilli's Grammy, must be defended.
It's ludicrous
And then I see CNN running a fact checking story on a Saturday Night Live skit about Obama. Yeah, a real news organization investigating a comedy sketch show for factual references because they dared to poke fun at Obama.
That's scary. It's not surprising; after all, we've seen other news organizations target critics of President Obama, both before and after the election. What makes it scary is how few people seem to mind.
If they don't care, then why should I? As the progressive agenda is crammed down our throats over the next few years, and as people trade away basic rights and liberties in exchange for government supplied security, they will quickly learn that when you put your faith in men, you will always be greatly disappointed. And government is nothing but a group of men.
I'm out of the fight. Not because I somehow think I'm too good to get my hands dirty, or that I'm above the fray, or that I'm debating the issue on a higher plane. All that crap is nothing more than the loathsome lies of a man too cowardly to stand on his principles. Rather than choose to stand, he chooses to abandon principle in favor of a deluded sense of self aggrandizement, based on his supposed ability to stand above it all. To those, I simply leave the words of Rev 3:16;
So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
I'm out not because I refuse to commit but because the fight is lost. I used to hope that what I wrote might make a difference,even in a small way. I'm not egotistical enough to believe that I could change the course we're on, but that maybe I could contribute to a flood of writers that could energize people, get them involved, and maybe get this thing called Americaturned aroundand back on the right track. I no longer believe that can happen. I think it's too late.
Over a million people marched on Washington to demonstrate their anger at the course our government is taking. Most of these people had never demonstrated before in their lives. The march was a culmination of months of demonstrations and town hall meetings. meetings where the people spoke to their representatives, and voiced their concerns. And after this unprecedented display of grass roots activism, nothing has changed. The President claimed to be unaware of the march. The media downplayed it. The progressives caricatured the people,using offensive epithets to mock and demean the participants.
It was a shining moment, but it came too late. Most people are too ignorant or too apathetic to realize exactly where we are being taken by our dully elected government. (No, that isn't a misspelling.)
So, I'm not going to fight the tide anymore. We're going to get government health care whether we want it or not. That's the message Washington has sent and I'm getting it loud and clear. Cap and trade will pass as well, and I suspect Obama will then move on to education reform, to make sure he indoctrinates kids as quickly as possible. The world is sensing weakness, not just on the part of our President, although that's bad enough, but on the part of the American people, because we elected him. And folks, there's nothing worse than showing weakness to a pack of wolves. We're about to see the dollar fall like nothing anybody has ever seen before. We're about to see America become a laughingstock as our powerlessness is demonstrated over and over again. We're about to see Israel face extinction as she is hemmed in by enemies on every side, without the strong support of the United States.
We're about to see hard times like we've never seen before, and my efforts are going to be aimed at getting ready for them.
Wisdom and knowledge will be the stability of your times, And the strength of salvation; The fear of the LORD is His treasure.
I don't know about wisdom, but I do have a lot of knowledge. More importantly, I know here to find out things that I don't know, and I have the ability to help people understand these things. While the site is barely built and as ugly as the north end of a south bound mule, it is functional, and it's time I started using it .I'm sure that when she gets time,my lovely wife will drop in and spruce the place up a bit.
I'll still cover a lot of the same topics, but you can expect a lot more posts about what I'm doing, and why, and how, along with posts on natural philosophy, and most importantly, my journey as an awakened Christian. I also hope that as I purge the poison of politics from my veins, my sense of humor will return as well. I've been missing it.
And so, after 7 years, Shots Across the Bow is out of ammunition. The guns are silenced, but the ship is still afloat. I hope you all make the switch over to Stability, but more importantly, I am honored that so many of you have found my ramblings a worthy way to spend a little bit of your time.
It’s Labor Day (AKA The Jimmy Hoffa Memorial Cement Integration Day)
So watch out for SEIU thugs. They aren't at work (Are they ever?) so they may be at your tea party, ready to rumble.
Hooray Labor!
I've worked in three places that were unionized. In every one of them, productivity was negatively impacted by the union. I saw workers on probation being told to slow down and work less, because they were making the rest of the employees in their shop look bad. I saw shops file grievance after grievance against other shops in the same plant for doing their work. I saw union workers watch somebody do work, then file a grievance, rather than telling them it wasn't their work. I watched union workers commit major safety breaches, get fired, then rehired on arbitration, with full back pay. I saw union workers go on strike just because it was the third Friday of the quarter. I saw a union organize a hostile takeover of another union, resulting in a loss of pay and benefits for the workers involved. (BTW, that was the SEIU.)
I'm sure there are good unions out there somewhere. I'm sure there are shops where the union works with management for the benefit of all.
I just acquired a new bare bones, nothing special, 12 gauge Mossberg 500.
Now I want to kick it up a bit. Stocks, lights, pistol grips, whatever. I'm not really interested in lasers or major optics because, well it's a shotgun. Effective firepower without supreme accuracy is kinda the point.
According to Contessa, Calling a Woman a Slut is OK, as Long as it’s a Joke
Oddly, I'm not laughing.
First the setup.
David Letterman thought it would be funny to say during his Monday monologue that Willow Palin, Gov. Palin's 14 year old daughter was "knocked up" by New York Yankee player Alex Rodriguez during the seventh inning stretch. Tuesday night he continued his assault on the Palins by insinuating that Willow was a prostitute.
Yeah, he's a riot that Dave. His humor is always on the cutting edge.
Apparently Dave is miffed that Palin refuses to do his show, so he figured he would just go after her child as revenge.
Now the last New York person to make a crack like this was Don Imus when he insulted the Rutgers basketball team a "joke" that cost him his job on the radio. Will Letterman, whose offense is far worse than anything Imus said, face similar repercussions?
Of course not. Imus insulted a team of young black women; Letterman insulted a young white girl from a conservative family. That makes it okay. We're already seeing the media rushing to his defense.
Check the video below from MSNBC. Contessa Brewer interviews John Ziegler and asks why Sarah Palin would be upset about being called slutty. Think about that for a moment. Either Brewer had no idea what actually was said, which given the current state of journalism is not that hard to believe, or she knew exactly why Palin called Letterman "pathetic" and deliberately chose to try and change the subject from sexual assault to simple slander. Again, given the state of modern journalism, not too hard to believe.
Aside from the fun of watching Ziegler make Brewer look completely incompetent and unprofessional, this interview demonstrates just how out of touch MSNBC is. Think about it. Brewer doesn't operate in a vacuum. She has producers, editors and such who have to buy off on a proposed segment. All of them thought that this interview was a good idea, that it would be hard for Ziegler to explain why Palin was offended. Apparently they thought they could focus all of the attention on the "slutty" remark and defuse the time bomb of implied statutory rape. Thanks to John Ziegler, they failed miserably.
But what will happen to Dave? Will he pay a price? Probably not. He's already released a statement that when talking about Palin's daughter, he was talking about Bristol, not Willow. That's just self serving BS and I don't buy it for a second. Willow was the one in New York with Gov. Palin. She was the one at the ballgame. And she was still the daughter in New York when he made his second attack Tuesday night. He knew exactly what he was doing, and that's why he didn't use her name, to give himself deniability.
It is the job of government to protect its members from the actions of others. It is not the job of the government to protect its members from their own actions. That's the difference between being a citizen and a subject.
Bible Verse of the Day
“[Psalm 18] For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. He sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul. He said: I love you, LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.”
