Michael Allen's Blog: Michael Allen Online, page 34

Jerry Sandusky on His Way to Hell

I had a good feeling I knew what the verdict was going to be on pedophile Jerry Sandusky. When I heard the verdict on the news, I saw a handcuffed man who had appropriately lost the sickening smile. He was looking around bewildered and I believe he was about ready to break down into tears before they put him in the police car.

The worst crime you can commit in this world is taking the innocence of a child. When you become a predator of children, to seek them out to have sex with them, you become the absolute bottom scum of the barrel. There aren’t words to describe how disgusting you are.

But, I knew it was coming. This guy was the best interview ever. When he talked, bones just fell out of his mouth. He gave interviewers like Bob Costas the material we needed to put him away for life.

Defending his statements he made in an interview with Bob Costas, in a later interview Sandusky talks about his attraction to young boys with his lawyer coaching him about his terminology, “If I say no I’m not attracted to boys, that’s not the truth because I’m attracted to young people, boys, girls…” and then his lawyer chimes-in to coach him.

Why couldn’t he just say, “No, I’m not attracted to young boys?” He knows the question that is being asked and he knows the nature of it. Give the interviewer a direct answer. Sandusky just couldn’t bring himself to answer the question without hemming and hawing, looking for gray area between the white of being decent and the black that was his soul.

In the interview with Bob Costas that originally aired, I was thrown when he said, “I could say I have done some of those things.” He was talking about showering with kids and horsing around with them. But, that was terminology coached to him and I could tell.

Later in the interview, he does flatly deny having any sexual contact. Finally, I hear him state clearly in the negative about the issue at hand, his sexual misconduct. But, the interview soon turned to one of the highlights of the case back in 2002 when Mike McQueary walked in on him raping a young boy.

An incident that lead to an investigation and later a confrontation with the boy’s mother, it seemed again spineless to me when he couldn’t exactly recall the confrontation and denied exact quotes Costas mentioned. “I wish I were dead.” “My genitals may have touched.”

Sandusky couldn’t recall the interview. I would think that particular interview would be embedded in his brain. But again, Sandusky turns to his spineless nature and refuses to recall, a political move that people have used over the years when you know damn well they can recall! They just don’t want to admit it.

Every time I hear someone say they can’t recall, I can’t help myself but know they are lying. If the answer were favorable, they wouldn’t have a problem recalling. But when the answer isn’t favorable, they can’t recall it for some reason. Spineless, Mindless individuals.

But then, the rest of the interview with Bob Costas was released in the days before the trial. If you ever wanted damning evidence that drives the nails in the coffin, it was in those transcripts. When Bob Costas talks about the nature of a pedophile to earn trust through most of the young boys so that he can have the opportunity to rape the others, Sandusky says, “…and I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.”

Guilty! I have no doubt. This is not a case of misconstrued conduct. This is not a case of people jumping on the bandwagon because one person doesn’t like Sandusky for some reason. Sandusky is a pedophile and will soon learn how it feels to be raped. His road to hell has been paved! I just don’t think he’s smart enough to know that yet.

The Beating of Kelly Thomas

From the video, I see an officer being very unclear about what he expects Kelly Thomas to do…

“Put your feet out in front of you…put your knees back…put your feet out in front…put your knees back…”

This while the entire time he’s putting gloves on like he’s suiting up for a fight. Then, he punches Kelly in the face. What grown man is going to sit there and take that? It’s like being put on a stove and told to sit there while they turn the heat up on you. They expect you to take whatever they dish out to you, pain and all. Resist and they start beating you with batons.

They were telling him to put his hands behind his back. But, I could see him holding himself up so that his face wouldn’t hit the road. It’s natural! If he moves his arms, he hits the ground.

With their knees in his back, pushing and pulling his body in different directions, how do they expect him to do anything they are asking him to do?  Then, of course the posse comes running into help.  At one time, I think I counted six officers.

While several knees are in his back and several officers are holding his extremities, one officer is beating him relentlessly.  Another officer is tasing him just for fun.  He’s just shooting watts through Kelly like he’s a lab rat and the officer is getting to use his taser for the first time.

Toward the end of the video, listen hard. One officer is asking another officer, “What are we doing?”

The other officer’s answer, “I don’t know.”

It doesn’t appear at all throughout the video that the officers had a game plan other than to torture the man. It cannot possibly take that long to grab an arm and put it in handcuffs, then maneuver the other arm to cuff it. After a minute, you can have his feet in shackles too if you’re that insecure about it. But, I didn’t see any rhyme or reason to what they were doing and obviously they didn’t either.

Watch:

Hating Hatred

“Hate is such a strong word,” my aunt would say. “You should say you don’t like something, or you don’t like how someone was acting. But, you should never say hate.”

I grew up on these words, always trying to find another word for this strong emotion burning deep within me. I…don’t like when people pick on me in school. I…don’t like these clothes I have to wear. I…don’t like my life or anything else for that matter. But then, I grew up a little.

My life wasn’t so bad. I was buying my own clothes by then and I was bigger, much bigger.  Picking on me was a long, lost memory. But, by then I was closer to being an adult. I…don’t like paying taxes. Who is FICA anyway and why is he taking all my money? I…don’t like lies politicians tell. Why are they considered the elected royalty of America? I…don’t like thieves. Why do they think they are entitled to my stuff?

I grew up bottling down the hatred. I would have to agree that hate is a strong emotional word and we don’t have to use it. There are other ways to express our emotions. But, that’s a social remedy that allows us to stand tall among others and look everyone in the eye.

I have learned that it’s not a very healthy remedy. It’s a good way to develop ulcers. Holding in our true emotions and never letting what we really feel fly builds up so much hot air inside of us that if we unclenched our butts, they would whistle. Now, that can’t be good!

So to my aunt I say, “With all due respect, there are things I hate!” The word wouldn’t exist if we didn’t have a purpose for it.

I hate when children suffer.

I hate when animals are abused.

I hate when dreams get crushed.

I hate when people end up homeless, starving in soup kitchens, insurance companies withhold money, governments withhold cures, lives are euthanized, and the “haves” hoard it all.

I hate back-stabbing, two-faced people…Ah, that felt so good!

An excerpt from Michael Allen’s Thoughts and Reconsideration

Posted in: Hatred by michaelallen / Tags: animal abuse, bullying, child abuse, hate, hate crimes, homelessness, michael allen, poem, poems, poet, poetry, thoughts and reconsideration

How To Handle A Salesperson

My conversation with the cable company this morning:

"I'm calling about cable service."

"Do you want a bundle package?"

"No, just cable please."

"Are you sure? Our bundle packages are really great!"

"No, I don't need anything but cable."

"So, you have phone and internet?  Who is your phone service through?"

I know salespeople are only doing their jobs. But, I would love one day to be able to make a purchase without all the hassle.  I wish one day a salesperson would actually treat me like I'm an informed consumer and I might know what's best for me.

But before you start thinking I'm some grumpy guy, imagine my voice in a calm, professional manner…

"Well, when I called I knew exactly what I wanted and that's all I wanted. But since you are so insistent, I'll tell you all of my business that isn't any of your business. First of all, I have a cell phone package with my daughter. Her phone service is much more than mine when it comes to separating the services, so it would make no sense to have a home phone when my daughter still needs her phone. Second, the community where I live has wifi. It's high speed internet access that is faster than any of the packages you offer because I took the time to look.  We have a gym, a volleyball court and two pools too. But, that's beside the point. So, all I want is to talk about your cable service. Is that ok that I might know what I need more than you do and ask that you quit wasting my time thinking I'm not a responsible consumer?"

So much of my time gets wasted by people who want to use it for my convenience.

 

Internet Monsters Google and Facebook

Earlier this evening, I watched a video on Youtube about Google and Facebook. It was based on their complex algorithms and the selections they feed us. A form of censorship was the issue that was raised and I agreed whole-heartedly with the conclusion.

Preview the video:

Surfers, internet users, should be left to deal with the hassle of filtering their own information. Neither Google nor Facebook should attempt to do that for us. We miss information that we need to see.  We miss information that we might have wanted to see. But based on some robotic scheme, it's being censored out for us.

It's just that before you start to feel ill of Google or Facebook like they are some kind of monsters, just do a little thinking about the subject again.  Remember the old saying, "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it?"  Well, it's what you've been asking for since day one and all they were trying to do was give it to you.

The internet was the information superhighway compared to newspapers and magazines.  There was never going to be a day when a researcher was going to be able to pour through all the newspapers and magazines throughout the world, narrow down just the pertinent information and then filter it by preference without the help of infinite information compilation and a very quick spider to index it all.  Thank you Google!

Then, of course we invited Google into our homes. We wanted to know who was viewing our information. Then, we wanted to know where they were coming from, where they were going when they left, how long they stayed, which pages they visited…etc.  So, Google gave us analytics.  Thanks Google!

We placed greater and greater demands on a growing conglomerate that before long, it was doing everything for us as long as we were feeding it. But, Ms. Jones down the street doesn't want the same information that Mr. Jimmy does on the other side of town. Not even if they do the same exact search, they don't want the same exact results.  Once again, it's Google to the rescue.  Thanks a bunch Google!  You're really swell!

Then along comes a social media platform that gobbles up all the rest and spits them out before lunch. People Like Facebook!  In fact, they love it! They love it so much they like to like it.  They like to like everything that walks, makes a noise, makes them laugh, makes them think, but not too much, Facebook is supposed to do that.  Thanks Facebook!

Everything we like is being recorded so that Facebook can offer us more things we like. So, we keep liking things. It's a simple little click that gives us all the power in the world.  Good things come!  Bad things go away!  Thanks Facebook!  I like liking you.

What did we expect them to do?  If a name brand cereal came out with something that gave us an awful taste in our mouths, would we keep buying it? Would they keep making it and marketing it to us? Everything we buy is presented to us based on our personal preference.  If you don't believe that, then you don't know how long you've been watched.

So, they've been watching every move I make and catering to their view of my wishes. I don't see that as evil. It had good intentions.  But, I don't want filtered from the bad things of this world. I want to be educated about people who are not like me, or who do not like me.

I want to know when a girl wins a spelling bee and when a boy gets stung by a bee.  I want to know about the next Tsunami and I also want to know about the tourist attractions there. I want the scores from the football game and I want to know about the war in Afghanistan.

Don't try to figure me out!  I haven't done that yet and I'm way ahead of you.

Total Shiznit Ballsnatch Backward Judge

It is this kind of shiznit, this total ballsnatch, that undermines any notions of a legal system! 

What is this about? This judge is considering taking the children away from both parents because, and his only reasons are, they can't get along and they can't agree on anything.

"You can't get along, you can't agree…you can't agree…you can't get along," are the only reasons he could state!

I have often wondered what would be the remedy for the courts if the parents appear to know nothing about what's best for the child.  I would hope that the court system, in this type of situation, would have something in place to help the parents.  There always seems to be a program somewhere for some reason.  I'm sure there are parenting classes and educational programs that can teach parents how to raise their children.

But, the court oversteps its bounds when it removes the children from both homes simply because the parents can't agree and can't get along.  There was a solution when I went to court, give one full custody and the other gets visitation.  It wasn't the best solution, but my daughter didn't go to foster care.

This wreaks!  It really does!  There is something else in play on this one and I'd like to know what it is.  Is money involved?  Is a system in place that gets compensated for placing children in foster care?

Draconian Law by the way, which is something the judge mentions in his condescending tone, are very heavy punishments for even the smallest of crimes.  Draco wrote the law of Athens, 7th Century BC. It was put in place because prior to that the law was oral and it was interpreted whimsically. Draconian Laws though were written so harshly that they called for death for even minor offenses. Plus, the laws were flexible when it came to who you were.  The lower class had different laws from the upper class.

Therefore, Draconian Law is considered "Cruel and Unusual" punishment in America, to the U.S. Constitution, which this judge is "elected" to interpret. Cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the 8th Amendment.  Therefore, this judge needs removed by the evidence we have in video, by his own words.  The children need restored to their parents and let's start the custody proceedings again, only this time with a judge who is actually sane!

I love this list of questions that brings to light a few interesting matters.  From the grandmother's perspective:

http://grannyleaks.webs.com/apps/blog/entries/show/10010656-questions-i-ask-myself

By the way, after reading through the Granny Leaks site, it seems this matter is sufficiently resolved.  But, how many others go on like this unnoticed and no one has any power to do anything about it?

$6.6 Billion Just Shows Up One Day

[image error]Okay, so I'm not entirely an understanding individual when it comes to the sheer amount of money our government seems to go through.  But, in news today it seems that $6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash is all of a sudden accounted for says inspector Bowen, specal inspector for Iraq reconstruction…

$6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash now accounted for, inspector says | The Envoy – Yahoo! News

Now, I've lost like $10 a couple of times.  One time I even managed to lose $100.  There was a weekend where I blew through about $500, and woke up on Sunday wondering where that was.  But, that really doesn't count.  I blew that!

So, $6.6 billion huh?  It's an easy thing for the government to just lose $6.6 billion?

But, oh wait!  They found it!  In fact, it was never missing.  It was there all along.  It was just not accounted for apparently.

"Hey guys, I found that money!"

"What money?"

"The $6.6 billion we lost during the war."

"Oh yeah?  That's great!  Where was it?"

"Uh, right here.  Behind this book."

Warren Buffett wouldn't even be able to missplace $6.6 billion.  But a quote I heard from him recently says it all, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection."

Hmm, I wonder what he'd do about this…!

Muslims Plan Protest on 9/11…In London

With a site that hypes up what they deem as the failed battle against terrorism and a graphic that shows a plane flying into the World Trade Center, Muslims Against Crusades and Sharia 4 America are touting a protest for the Moment of Silence Americans and American sympathizers will share on 9/11 at 8:46 am. But, their protest will take place in London.

The World Trade Center is in America. The tragedy happened in America.  If the war against terrorism has failed and as these sites claim, that Islam is taking over the world, then why not have the protest in America? In fact, do it right at Ground Zero where the twin towers fell!

No, like the cowards they are, they will hide out in London and make noise from over there. The war against terrorism has not failed. Islam is not taking over the world. It's like saying "Ta Da" when you do a magic trick. Your magic is weak!

All the hype the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers put out is layered with so many lies, they can't keep up with it. Most recently, we got Osama Bin Laden. Until then, terrorists have been running all over the earth like little roaches trying to get out of reach of the battle against terrorism.  How many people have we arrested and tried?  How many people have we hunted down and killed?

So, what I see is a lonely guy sitting in a run down building cut off from the rest of the world except for his small television and laptop. He types a message to the Muslims Against Crusades, "Tell the world terrorism is not dead.  It's not dead.  I swear to it.  Please, let everyone know.  Terrorism is not dead."

Maybe if he keeps saying it to himself, he thinks it will become true.  Your magic is weak! "Ta Da" says to the audience, "Hey, I've done a magic trick" when they should be able to see it for themselves.

I learned about "Ta Da" on the latest episode of Royal Pains, airs Wednesdays 9/8c on the USA Network. Watch "Ta Da For" on usanetwork.com right now!

4FNVQRNSEJYY

4FNVQRNSEJYY

Law Isn’t Always Right

Watching The Conspirator the other day, I wondered how our law ever got to the point it is now and if it still needs work. A movie directed by Robert Redford, The Conspirator is about putting on trial co-conspirators of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Robin Wright plays the role of Mary Surratt, the mother of John Surratt, a friend of John Wilkes Booth. Mary Surratt runs a boarding house in which John Wilkes Booth and other co-conspirators are documented to have stayed plenty of nights and held meetings to organize a plot to kidnap the president. Obviously, the plan to kidnap the president turns into a plot to kill the president and John Surratt checks out of town.

The assassination went as planned and John Wilkes Booth was hunted down and killed, leaving in his dust several Southern allies who will be found and charged with co-conspiracy, including Mary Surratt. Of course, because of the fact that it was the president who was shot, swift justice is the only way to remedy the situation and to restore confidence in the government, the military and the American way of life.

This brings the discussion of law to light. The movie is based on fact and the trial of Mary Surratt was going to be held by military standards, by military officials, and conducted in a way that would undermine strides that law has made to be righteous. Military standards are very different from civilian standards. Military personnel are property of the U.S. Government and law doesn’t have to be conducted in the same manner as a regular court of law.

But, Mary Surratt was not military and even though the trial was about co-conspiring to assassinate the president, Mary Surratt should have been given the same rights as any other civilian charged with a crime. She should have been able to stand trial and be judged by a jury of her peers.

Reverdy Johnson, a Maryland State Senator at the time, argued before the military tribunal that Mary Surratt deserves to have a trial and be given proper counsel. His arguments were what makes our law what it is to this day and it makes the foundation of law look rather weak. But, we get some insight into what makes up our law. We get to see that it hasn’t always been right and that people haven’t always agreed with it. Johnson’s arguments prove that fact because they are after all, basic premises of law. The fact that he even had to argue them makes the whole law system look like it started on some real shaky ground and could have gone either way, the way it did or the way toward dictatorship.

The officials who ran the trial were blood thirsty. Seeing their attitude toward those standing trial, it’s a wonder they agreed to anything. The prosecutor had all the leverage he wanted while the defense had very little rope to hang. The prosecutor’s objections were sustained while the defense’s objections were overruled, without fail. It was a one-sided trial and it was blatantly obvious, not even an attempt to appear unbiased.

It reminds me of another trial. Paul a disciple of Jesus Christ, was arrested by the Jews and handed over to the Romans to be charged with a crime. But, the Jews had no specific crime. In fact, it’s interesting to hear how Festus presents Paul’s case to King Agrippa, “There is a man here who was left in prison by Felix. When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me about him and asked for a sentence against him. I told them that it was not the custom of the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met the accusers face to face and had been given an opportunity to make a defense against the charge. So when they met here, I lost no time, but on the next day took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought. When the accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the crimes that I was expecting. Instead they had certain points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus, who had died, but whom Paul asserted to be alive.”

These arguments are the arguments of law. They establish a documented sense of logic in approach to the law. For reference, Acts 25:13-27 is where you can find them. Festus understood the basic premise of law and how law should be fairly constructed. A charge has to be concrete, not a difference in theology. An accuser has to be able to face his or her accuser. A defense has to be presented. From there, we have further defined these basic premises.

A defense can be constructed by a defense expert. The charges have to be substantial and the prosecutor has to prove it. That’s what we hold to be our law. Paul got justice. Mary Surratt didn’t.

The weakness of our foundation can be seen in the lack of spirit for the law the military officials demonstrated in the “trial” of Mary Surratt. Even her own appointed defense attorney was reluctant at first. He didn’t understand why he had to be her defense attorney. He didn’t want the people to hate him or to judge him for “taking her side.”

He almost mounted a poor defense and at first, tried to get out of being her defense attorney at every turn. That is until Reverdy Johnson gives him an assignment, Mr. Aiken, Mary Surratt’s attorney played by James McAvoy, can be released of his duties to defend her if he can prove that she is guilty, a task he soon finds more difficult than it seems.

A person can only be found guilty if the evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt. There can’t be one ounce of doubt. Even when everything else says yes, not one thing can say no. This is another premise of law.

It’s just that I find it remarkable how law has evolved over the years and how it got to where it is today. It took a few people with some idea of logic to present theories of law to others and to get them to agree. What were they fighting?

The “Shadow of a Doubt” is one thing. How many times have you just known someone was guilty? If the evidence can’t prove it, the person might not be so guilty after all. Of course, sometimes the evidence we need can’t be found. But, sometimes the evidence we have points to false conclusions.

Having a proper defense is another stipulation they were fighting. The scum of the earth deserves a proper defense. Who we perceive as the scum of the earth just very well may be the most innocent person we know, but we won’t without a proper defense.

A defense can be provided by the State. That might seem to run counter to fairness.  But, remember that there are three branches of government. The legal system itself technically is not the entity providing indigent individuals with defense attorneys. That money is coming from another source, making them an independent party to the legal system itself, which supplies the court houses, the judges and also the prosecuting attorneys.

But, people who can’t afford an attorney have every right to be provided one in criminal cases. Otherwise, our government could easily fill jail cells with indigent people. What good would that do?

Let’s see. Let’s say there’s a case the police can’t solve. It would be easy just to pick someone who is poor and charge them with a crime.  They would be found guilty and the confidence in the legal system would be restored.  That’s just one example why the poor must be provided an attorney if they can’t afford one.

Let’s say there’s a community of people the government wants taken off the streets for some reason. Maybe they are living on property where some rich and privileged individual wants to build. Maybe they are driving down the value of real estate in the area. Maybe certain government officials just don’t like them at all. It would be easy just to round them up and charge them with fallacious crimes. Who would help them? Who would be there to stop it?

Good thing nothing like that ever happens today…

Author of A Danger to Society, a tale about the notions of law, crime and criminal behavior.