James L. Paris's Blog, page 76
July 5, 2017
Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted
Wrongful convictions, long regarded as statistical anomalies in an otherwise sound justice system, now appear with frightening regularity. But few people understand just how or why they happen and, more important, the immeasurable consequences that often haunt the lucky few who are acquitted, years after they are proven innocent.
Now, in this groundbreaking anthology, fourteen exonerated inmates narrate their stories to a roster of high-profile mystery and thriller writers?including Lee Child, Sara Paretsky, Laurie R. King, Jan Burke and S. J. Rozan?while another exoneree���s case is explored in a previously unpublished essay by legendary playwright Arthur Miller. An astonishing and unique collaboration, these testimonies bear witness to the incredible stories of innocent men and women who were convicted of serious crimes and cast into the maw of a vast and deeply flawed American criminal justice system before eventually, and miraculously, being exonerated.
The Financial Meltdown Of Illinois
On this episode Jim discusses the financial crisis in the state of Illinois. After missing the deadline and not having a budget for three state years, Mega Millions and Powerball pull out of the state. Financial ratings services threaten to lower the state's bond rating to junk. As more and more people leave the state due to high taxes, legislators meet over the weekend to again raise taxes. Trump accused of inciting violence against the media, article says wealthy members of the Church Of Scientology involved in black market baby scheme, Obamaphone program fraud as high as 65 percent, and Nevada legalizes marijuana for recreational use.
University Might Actually Remove Bibles & Crosses from Chapel After Receiving Complaint
A public university - in Oklahoma, of all places - is giving serious consideration to removing overtly religious items, including Bibles and crosses, from its chapel.
Huh?
Although the latest twist in the saga, as reported by KFOR.com, is that the school, East Central University, is now reconsidering its decision in the wake of tremendous pushback from both members of the school community and the public, at large, the fact that the prospective move is being weighed at all is startling, to say the least.
To what should be a surprise to no one, the school did not arrive at the decision to remove the items on its own, but, rather, as a response to a complaint letter it received from a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The letter ECU received from the group reads, in part, ���While it is legal for a public university to have a space that can be used by students for religious worship so long as that space is not dedicated solely to that purpose, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to display religious iconography on government property. Please remove or cover the religious displays and items.���
And ECU, in response, decided to do just that.
However, as news of ECU���s decision to acquiesce to Americans United���s demands spread, the school immediately began to get an earful���from, basically, everyone. It was at that point that ECU decided, at least for now, to hold off on evacuating all religious articles from its chapel.
���We moved too quickly,��� said ECU President Katricia Pierson. ���We regret not taking time to pause and thoughtfully consider the request and the results of our actions on all of the students, faculty and community members who we serve.���
Commenting on the issue, Randall Christy, founder of Ada, Oklahoma���s Gospel Station Network, said that ���it���s time for Christian people to take a stand for our history and heritage.���
���The idea that the cross excludes people is not true ��� it���s the opposite,��� Christy said. ���The cross represents that all are welcome, that people of all walks of life are loved by God.���
���I urge Gov. Fallin to stop this removal of the cross until all legal options can be examined.���
For now, the removal of the religious articles from the chapel is on hold until a committee comprised of faculty members and students, as well as members of the local community, can be assembled to discuss the matter.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
Despite Much Stronger Employment, Americans Slowing Down on Paying Credit Card Obligations
Employment numbers are looking much better, but, oddly, Americans seem to be getting worse at repaying their debt obligations.
As noted by Newsmax, a report from Moody���s has found that banks have seen a notable increase in charge-offs of credit card debt over the course of the two most recent fiscal quarters. As a matter of fact, the jump in charge-offs is the biggest since 2009.
According to experts, the seemingly-curious juxtaposition of good employment figures with the higher rates of non-performing credit card debt is attributable to a loosening of underwriting standards that���s come about precisely because employment numbers are so much better. Alex Morrell of Business Insider writes that ���American consumers haven���t fallen on hard times so much as banks have started to loosen their standards and issue credit more aggressively.���
In a statement, Warren Kornfeld of Moody���s said, ���Although card standards were extremely tight in the years following the financial crisis, if underwriting then loosened materially, as the rise in charge-offs suggests, asset quality could continue to deteriorate rapidly going forward, especially in the event of a recession.���
In the years immediately following the ���Great Recession,��� lending standards on behalf of all kinds of financial products, notably home mortgages, were significantly tightened. However, it is no secret that banks suffered mightily as a result of the inability to loan money to anyone except the most qualified applicants. Indeed, the economic engine of the entire country slowed to a near-halt as access to credit was greatly restricted during that period.
However, as Kornfeld suggests, if credit becomes liberally available, as it was in the years leading up to the 2008 collapse, a whole, new financial disaster could be in store for the nation.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
July 4, 2017
Disney���s Iconic ���Pirates of the Caribbean��� Ride to Be Politically Corrected
The Pirates of the Caribbean attraction at Disneyland and Walt Disney World, so iconic that it actually inspired a successful movie franchise, rather than the other way around, is being fixed.
Didn���t know it was broken, did you?
It seems that the ride is now viewed by some as being so far out of step with current sensibilities, that it needs to be corrected.
Politically corrected, that is.
As you may know, the Disney ride features a scene in which a red-haired ���wench��� is auctioned off to a crowd of lusty pirates, and that is simply not going to work any longer.
According to CNN, the ride is to be changed so that instead of the pirates bidding on a woman, they���ll instead be bidding on a grandfather clock, a picture frame, and some goats.
And the wench? She will be armed with a gun���because she���ll now be a pirate.
���Given the redhead has long been a fan favorite, we wanted to keep her as a pivotal part of the story, so we made her a plundering pirate,��� said Kathy Mangum, senior vice president of Walt Disney Imagineering.
Reportedly, the Disney Imagineers who created the original Disneyland ride back in 1967 are rather displeased with the changes, to say the least, with one Imagineer, Francis Xavier Atencio, going as far as to suggest that the new ride might now be more appropriately referred to as ���Boy Scouts of the Caribbean.���
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
If Actor Woody Harrelson Can Have a $500 Wedding���Can���t You?
Well, sure you can. You just have to resolve in your own mind that it���s OK to do it.
The trend toward looking at less-expensive ways to celebrate marital unions started to gain traction several years ago, when, apparently, the dad of some bride-to-be woke up one day and asked, ���Tell me again why we���re spending $100,000 on this wedding?���
As many have figured out, if you dig past the contrived glitz and glamour of the ceremony and reception, and get down to what many recognize as being the real purpose of a wedding���the public expression of love, loyalty, and fidelity to one another in front of family members and valued friends���the rest of it seems so unnecessary that it looks almost silly, in the light of day.
Indeed, some came to this very conclusion long ago, including actor Woody Harrelson.
As detailed in an article posted over at CNBC.com, Harrelson tells Davy Rothbart of the online investing platform Wealthsimple that he���s learned ���the least expensive things can be the most personally rewarding. Take my wedding, for example. The whole event cost a total of $500.���
���We didn���t feel the need to shell out a ton of cash and do anything over the top,��� Harrelson goes on to say. ���It was basically just a bunch of good friends getting together in Maui. I paid for some food and drinks, a few hundred bucks, and that was about it.���
Obviously, getting to and from Maui is not included in the $500, but don���t let that cause you to miss the point: the celebration itself was a very inexpensive affair.
Ask yourself this question: When you think of the most fun, most memorable times you���ve ever had in social settings, were those settings characterized by great expense and ���pageantry���? Or were they very casual and relaxed?
If you���re like so many others, it was the latter.
So why fight it? Recognize that, and plan your wedding accordingly.
Oh, and the money you save? It may well be enough to make a tremendous, positive impact on something of great significance as you get started on your new life together, like a home purchase, or the elimination of all existing debt.
Now THAT would be a wedding present.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
July 3, 2017
Mayors Emanuel & De Blasio Fight Against National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry Licensees
With Donald Trump now in the White House, the move to finally establish nationwide reciprocity for concealed weapons license holders has finally gained real traction.
One of the problems that���s long beset concealed weapons licensees is that once they cross over into another state from that which issued the permit, their legal status as bearers of firearms oftentimes becomes invalid; depending on the laws of the state into which they���ve traveled, they might be charged with serious weapons violations that can potentially result in years of prison time.
While individual states have worked hard in recent years to establish reciprocity agreements with other states, it has been, by far, an imperfect - and incomplete - system.
Now, however, there���s a formal effort in process to try to standardize reciprocity throughout all of the 50 states. H.R. 38, introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) back in January, would make a concealed weapons license issued in one state valid in all of the others.
Simple and sensible, right?
Well, not to gun-grabbing politicians, including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.
According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Emanuel and de Blasio, together at a June 27 meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, spearheaded a declaration of the assembled that said the core components of national reciprocity ���are completely antithetical to all of the efforts to reduce and prevent gun violence.���
De Blasio���s part in all of this seems bad enough, but Emanuel���s, considering the outrageous level of gun violence in his city from the hardened criminal element that cares not a whit about gun control laws���is a flat-out injustice.
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
Poll: Majority of American Voters Support Baker���s Right to Refuse Service to Same-Sex Wedding
The results of a Rasmussen poll on the issue of Christian business owners being required to provide services to same-sex weddings suggest that how America���s citizens feel, overall, on the subject may well be a lot different from the popular narrative pushed by the so-called mainstream media.
1,000 likely voters were surveyed by Rasmussen on June 26 and 27, and it turns out that 57 percent of them support the right of a Christian baker to refuse to make a cake for a couple having a same-sex wedding.
Here is the exact wording of the poll question, as it was posed by Rasmussen:
���Should it be legal for a baker to refuse for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or should that baker be prosecuted for discrimination for refusing to make the wedding cake?���
According to the results, just 29 percent of people think the baker should be ���prosecuted for discrimination,��� while another 14 percent are undecided.
The timing of the poll is meant to coincide with the recent announcement made by the Supreme Court that it will hear the case of baker Jack Phillips. Back in 2012, Phillips informed a gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, that he would not make their wedding cake out of deference to his religious beliefs. In response, Mullins and Craig decided to file a discrimination complaint against Phillips.
Commenting on the Supreme Court���s decision to hear the case, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, ���The First Amendment has long protected Americans from being compelled by the government to advocate a message to which one objects. As Americans, our consensus on religious freedom has historically recognized the God-given right of Americans to live all aspects of their lives according to their faith. This is no different today. Attempting to restrict religious conviction to the four walls of a church is not freedom, that is tyranny.���
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
July 2, 2017
UCLA Gets Rid of Popular Conservative Instructor
The war against anything even resembling conservative thought on America���s college and university campuses appears to be entirely boundless.
The College Fix is reporting on a conservative professor at UCLA, exceedingly popular with his students, who has been dumped by the school because he supposedly failed an employment review.
Keith Fink is known in some circles as a high-profile attorney who has both represented and sued a variety of celebrities, but is even better known to some as a staunch, vocal advocate of free speech. As a function of this advocacy, Fink had been an instructor at UCLA���s Division of Social Sciences, where he taught a course called ���Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus.��� However, the Dean of Social Sciences, Laura Gomez, wrote to Fink that his appointment as a continuing lecturer would not be renewed because, as she put it, his ���teaching does not meet the standard of excellence.���
In a statement issued to The College Fix on Fink���s behalf, teaching assistant Andrew Litt said that ���this outcome is entirely politically-motivated��� by those at UCLA ���who do not like his message on issues [such] as free speech and due process which UCLA routinely flout.���
���His termination is an injustice to the students and the taxpayers of the state, a threat to all teachers and academic freedom and a slap in the face to the notion of due process and fundamental fairness. He will not give up the fight here based on principle,��� Litt went on to say.
In an interview with Breitbart News, Fink made it clear what he thinks happened.
���The decision was purely political. By UCLA���s own metrics I had the highest ratings of any teacher in the entire department. I laid out in great detail to Dean Gomez how I easily met the criteria to be deemed excellent and continue teaching at UCLA. It shouldn���t be forgotten the prior chairs of the department both thought I was an outstanding teacher and they kept giving me additional classes to teach. The students love my classes.���
Fink also told Breitbart that he believes an earlier appearance with Tucker Carson on Fox News irritated colleagues at UCLA, as well as others at the school.
���Professor [Kerri] Johnson was livid that I went on Tucker Carlson���s show which is quite ironic given she is the head of a Communications Department,��� said Fink. ���After the appearances on the show, the department received scores of letters from upset alumni and students. I don���t think ultimately it had any effect as the outcome here was preordained.���
���Professor Johnson, who never met me until this year, has stated she never liked me and thought someone with my views shouldn���t teach in the department.���
By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large
