News outlets are reporting that former president Jimmy Carter said that Representative Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president. Wilson was formally rebuked in a House vote for shouting "You lie!" during the President's speech to Congress on September 9, 2009. Wilson shouted after the President said that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republican groans of disbelief were punctuated by Wilson's outburst.
“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American," Carter told NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview.
This office respectfully but strongly disagrees with President Carter's remarks. Polls show that more than half the country disagrees with President Obama's direction in general and some of his policies in particular, including the current incarnation of his national health care plan. President Carter appears to believe that the majority of these people are racists. What about the black people who disagree with President Obama on various issues? Are they self-loathing racists or does President Carter believe that blacks monolitically agree with President Obama, and if he does, isn't that a racist presumption? Were blacks who disagreed with President Bush racist? For that matter, if I happened to be black, would my strong disagreement with President Carter make me a racist?
President Carter's damaging remarks are yet another low point in the downward spiral of political discourse in this country. People demonize others rather than address the issues they raise. There is simply no room in the discussion of these important topics, or anywhere else, for this scorched-earth style of "debate," and it's time for this country to declare a collective moratorium on it. Among other things, it's become simply ridiculous.
President Carter's substantive input on the issues would have been welcome. His accusation that half the country are racists served no purpose other than to provoke animosity and division.
What do you think? If someone strongly disagrees with President Obama, are they probably a racist? Vote to the left and comment below.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Barbara Boxer: Call Me Senator
At a hearing on Tuesday, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) interrupted Brigadier General Michael Walsh to ask him to call her "Senator" instead of "Ma'am."
Watch the clip:
Senator Boxer was unacceptably disrespectful to a member of our armed forces. Brigadier General Walsh was addressing her in the respectful manner in which he has been trained to address female superiors. Ms. Boxer knows this. Further, Brigadier General Walsh, and any member of our armed forces, is as deserving of respect as any elected official.
Ms. Boxer owes the Brigadier General an apology for her grandstanding rudeness.
How do you see it? Vote to the left and comment below. Vote Closed. Was Senator Boxer rude to the General? Final tally: 580 yes (97%); 16 no (2%).
Watch the clip:
Senator Boxer was unacceptably disrespectful to a member of our armed forces. Brigadier General Walsh was addressing her in the respectful manner in which he has been trained to address female superiors. Ms. Boxer knows this. Further, Brigadier General Walsh, and any member of our armed forces, is as deserving of respect as any elected official.
Ms. Boxer owes the Brigadier General an apology for her grandstanding rudeness.
How do you see it? Vote to the left and comment below. Vote Closed. Was Senator Boxer rude to the General? Final tally: 580 yes (97%); 16 no (2%).
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Woman Told to Remove American Flag Offensive to African Immigrant Says No
The story according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html) is as follows:
Debbie McLucas, whose husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military and whose daughter is currently deployed in Iraq, was told that the American flag she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day was offensive. McLucas arrived at the Texas hospital where she works to find that the flag had been removed, wrapped around its pole, and put in a corner.
McLucas’s colleague, with whom she shares an office, had complained about the flag. The colleague immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago.
"I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down," McLucas said. The employer suggested to McLucas that the flag flying outside the building was enough, but it wasn’t for McLucas, and she refused to back down.
"It is more than I can even fathom, that you would find the American flag offensive, in America," McLucas said.
The hospital subsequently changed its position and invited McLucas to put the flag back up. And it will go back up and stay up, McLucas said.
Eye on the Law Commentary:
One wonders how the situation might have been handled had McLucas (or anyone else) complained about an African flag in their office. Aside from assuming she would have been branded a racist or a xenophobe, would the employer have initially removed the “offensive” foreign flag?
American jurisprudence rightly protects unpopular speech, but this is often misinterpreted to mean that the majority does not enjoy the same right to free speech and other Constitutional safeguards as everyone else. Frequently, one offended person is wrongly allowed to trump the rights of many others.
This office salutes and supports Debbie McLucas and all like her who stand up for their rights and tall for this country.
Debbie McLucas, whose husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military and whose daughter is currently deployed in Iraq, was told that the American flag she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day was offensive. McLucas arrived at the Texas hospital where she works to find that the flag had been removed, wrapped around its pole, and put in a corner.
McLucas’s colleague, with whom she shares an office, had complained about the flag. The colleague immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago.
"I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down," McLucas said. The employer suggested to McLucas that the flag flying outside the building was enough, but it wasn’t for McLucas, and she refused to back down.
"It is more than I can even fathom, that you would find the American flag offensive, in America," McLucas said.
The hospital subsequently changed its position and invited McLucas to put the flag back up. And it will go back up and stay up, McLucas said.
Eye on the Law Commentary:
One wonders how the situation might have been handled had McLucas (or anyone else) complained about an African flag in their office. Aside from assuming she would have been branded a racist or a xenophobe, would the employer have initially removed the “offensive” foreign flag?
American jurisprudence rightly protects unpopular speech, but this is often misinterpreted to mean that the majority does not enjoy the same right to free speech and other Constitutional safeguards as everyone else. Frequently, one offended person is wrongly allowed to trump the rights of many others.
This office salutes and supports Debbie McLucas and all like her who stand up for their rights and tall for this country.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Does President Obama's Agenda Threaten the Constitution?
Best-selling author Ann Coulter was a guest yesterday on Boston’s popular Howie Carr radio show. Ms. Coulter, who is also an attorney, fielded the following question from one of Carr’s listeners:
I have a two-part question regarding the Constitution. What protects Americans from [President] Obama abrogating the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendment?
Ms. Coulter responded as follows:
Well the courts first of all, and if you know anyone in the military, as probably many Howie Carr listeners do, I keep telling my friends in the military no matter how bad it gets, no matter how much they force you to room with gays, no matter how much they stamp out any mention of religion in the military, you cannot leave the military for the next four years, because ultimately that’s what protects us.
Ms. Coulter was clearly implying that President Obama is exceeding or may eventually exceed his presidential authority to an unprecedented degree. Her statement is noteworthy. One may disagree with her political views, but she is an undeniably intelligent, well-informed, and influential voice in any political debate. Ms. Coulter is part of a growing chorus of Americans, who, justified or not, are expressing concerns that President Obama’ s aggressive agenda threatens the fundamental Constitutional and capitalist structure of the United States.
What do you think? Is Ann Coulter a partisan alarmist, or is the Obama Administration a potential threat to the Constitution and the country?
Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.
I have a two-part question regarding the Constitution. What protects Americans from [President] Obama abrogating the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendment?
Ms. Coulter responded as follows:
Well the courts first of all, and if you know anyone in the military, as probably many Howie Carr listeners do, I keep telling my friends in the military no matter how bad it gets, no matter how much they force you to room with gays, no matter how much they stamp out any mention of religion in the military, you cannot leave the military for the next four years, because ultimately that’s what protects us.
Ms. Coulter was clearly implying that President Obama is exceeding or may eventually exceed his presidential authority to an unprecedented degree. Her statement is noteworthy. One may disagree with her political views, but she is an undeniably intelligent, well-informed, and influential voice in any political debate. Ms. Coulter is part of a growing chorus of Americans, who, justified or not, are expressing concerns that President Obama’ s aggressive agenda threatens the fundamental Constitutional and capitalist structure of the United States.
What do you think? Is Ann Coulter a partisan alarmist, or is the Obama Administration a potential threat to the Constitution and the country?
Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Alleged Animal Cruelty: What Should Be the Punishment if Convicted?
The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) is reportedly investigating a possible case of animal abuse caught on video allegedly at Blanchard's Liquors on Harvard Avenue in Allston, according to a news report by WCVB TV in Boston.
According to the report, the video clip, which was posted on YouTube, claims to show a man jumping up and down on a metal dog cage containing a small dog until the top of the cage crashes down on the animal. A NewsCenter 5 correspondent reported that the man stomped on the cage following an argument in the store’s parking lot.
Be advised that the video is disturbing to many people as evidenced by the strong reactions to it wherever it is posted on the Internet. (Note: this video has been removed from YouTube and is no longer available.)
Mass. General Laws c. 272, section 77 states that whoever tortures, cruelly beats, torments, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon an animal in his charge or custody shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2-and-a-half years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
If the person in this video were charged, tried, and convicted of animal cruelty, what should the penalty be?
Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.
According to the report, the video clip, which was posted on YouTube, claims to show a man jumping up and down on a metal dog cage containing a small dog until the top of the cage crashes down on the animal. A NewsCenter 5 correspondent reported that the man stomped on the cage following an argument in the store’s parking lot.
Be advised that the video is disturbing to many people as evidenced by the strong reactions to it wherever it is posted on the Internet. (Note: this video has been removed from YouTube and is no longer available.)
Mass. General Laws c. 272, section 77 states that whoever tortures, cruelly beats, torments, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon an animal in his charge or custody shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2-and-a-half years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
If the person in this video were charged, tried, and convicted of animal cruelty, what should the penalty be?
Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Christian Bale: An Alleged Assault Does NOT a Beating Make
The word assault is often misunderstood, and in Batman's case, the confusion seems widespread on both the Internet and the street. Recent allegations that "Dark Knight" star Christian Bale assaulted his mother and sister have been translated by far too many people into "Did you hear he beat up his mother and sister?"
Roughly speaking, assault generally means putting someone in reasonable fear that harmful or offensive contact with them is imminent. For example, in a heated argument, anything from harsh words to a raised fist could lead the recipient to believe that an offensive contact was about to follow, and that they are therefore being assaulted. In fact, no contact need occur at all: an assault charge can stand on its own in most jurisdictions.
Whatever happened between Mr. Bale and his family, the public must remember two things. First, an allegation, until proven, is only an allegation. Second, the word assault is not synonymous with the words "beat up."
Please comment below.
Roughly speaking, assault generally means putting someone in reasonable fear that harmful or offensive contact with them is imminent. For example, in a heated argument, anything from harsh words to a raised fist could lead the recipient to believe that an offensive contact was about to follow, and that they are therefore being assaulted. In fact, no contact need occur at all: an assault charge can stand on its own in most jurisdictions.
Whatever happened between Mr. Bale and his family, the public must remember two things. First, an allegation, until proven, is only an allegation. Second, the word assault is not synonymous with the words "beat up."
Please comment below.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Prominent Boston Talk Radio Host Calls for Massachusetts Attorney General's Resignation and Impeachment
Jay Severin, popular talk radio host at WTKK 96.9, has called upon the Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, to resign and has also encouraged his listeners to petition for her impeachment. On his show on July 14, 2008, Severin relentlessly blasted A.G. Coakley, calling her incompetent, stupid, unqualified, and disqualified, among other criticisms.
Severin's criticisms and call for action stemmed from A.G. Coakley's comments concerning an incident that allegedly occurred at a Raynham Market Basket, about which the Metrowest Daily News reported that, according to police reports, an elderly janitor allegedly reached under a bathroom stall petition and touched a four-year old's leg while the child was standing on a bucket in order to use a urinal. The boy’s father allegedly flung open the janitor's stall door and punched the janitor, giving him a cut on his lip and a welt on his forehead.
According to the Metrowest Daily News, the police report indicates that the janitor, 71, of Providence, told police through a translator that he was wrong for touching the boy, but that he was "only fooling around.” The janitor was charged with indecent assault and battery of a child under 14, but the police also charged the father with assaulting the suspect.
Discussing the incident with Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on their midday WTKK talk show, Attorney General Coakley engaged in the following exchange:
Jim Braude: Excuse me but the guy assaulted your child, you're supposed to call 911 and wait 'til the cops get there while this guy is there. Is that what you're supposed to do, Martha Coakley?
A.G. Coakley: Well, I, you know, uh, look, every situation is, is different. But, I don't know, how old was the boy?
Jim Braude: Four.
A.G. Coakley: Ok, so, where is the boy while you are doing this I mean, the kid is not at risk now, because the assault has ended. So you want to get, make sure the kid is safe. You don't know exactly what happened. Did the father see it. I didn't get all the facts of this., so I can't, but, I mean I, I, I understand the father's emotion. Uhm and, he may well be acquitted, and the facts may come out and he may not have been guilty, uhm, all I'm saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help.
Severin, along with an apparent majority of his phone-in listeners, was outraged not only that A.G. Coakley appeared to have little, if any knowledge of the basic facts of the case, but also that she seemed to admonish the father for having allegedly taken physical action against the child's alleged molester. With his characteristically passionate, erudite, and articulate delivery, Severin, in no uncertain terms, sided with the father.
"Here's a sound bite for you," Severin offered, "Were I the daddy, probably, I'd have shot him right on the spot."
The impact of Severin's call for A.G. Coakley's resignation or impeachment is yet to be seen. Severin commands a significant segment of Boston's afternoon drive audience.
Is Severin right? Do A.G. Coakley's comments indicate that she is not qualified to hold her post as the state's top law enforcement official? Feel free to comment and vote.
Severin's criticisms and call for action stemmed from A.G. Coakley's comments concerning an incident that allegedly occurred at a Raynham Market Basket, about which the Metrowest Daily News reported that, according to police reports, an elderly janitor allegedly reached under a bathroom stall petition and touched a four-year old's leg while the child was standing on a bucket in order to use a urinal. The boy’s father allegedly flung open the janitor's stall door and punched the janitor, giving him a cut on his lip and a welt on his forehead.
According to the Metrowest Daily News, the police report indicates that the janitor, 71, of Providence, told police through a translator that he was wrong for touching the boy, but that he was "only fooling around.” The janitor was charged with indecent assault and battery of a child under 14, but the police also charged the father with assaulting the suspect.
Discussing the incident with Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on their midday WTKK talk show, Attorney General Coakley engaged in the following exchange:
Jim Braude: Excuse me but the guy assaulted your child, you're supposed to call 911 and wait 'til the cops get there while this guy is there. Is that what you're supposed to do, Martha Coakley?
A.G. Coakley: Well, I, you know, uh, look, every situation is, is different. But, I don't know, how old was the boy?
Jim Braude: Four.
A.G. Coakley: Ok, so, where is the boy while you are doing this I mean, the kid is not at risk now, because the assault has ended. So you want to get, make sure the kid is safe. You don't know exactly what happened. Did the father see it. I didn't get all the facts of this., so I can't, but, I mean I, I, I understand the father's emotion. Uhm and, he may well be acquitted, and the facts may come out and he may not have been guilty, uhm, all I'm saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help.
Severin, along with an apparent majority of his phone-in listeners, was outraged not only that A.G. Coakley appeared to have little, if any knowledge of the basic facts of the case, but also that she seemed to admonish the father for having allegedly taken physical action against the child's alleged molester. With his characteristically passionate, erudite, and articulate delivery, Severin, in no uncertain terms, sided with the father.
"Here's a sound bite for you," Severin offered, "Were I the daddy, probably, I'd have shot him right on the spot."
The impact of Severin's call for A.G. Coakley's resignation or impeachment is yet to be seen. Severin commands a significant segment of Boston's afternoon drive audience.
Is Severin right? Do A.G. Coakley's comments indicate that she is not qualified to hold her post as the state's top law enforcement official? Feel free to comment and vote.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Sue a Politician for Lying?
Could a cause of action for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation be sustained against a flip-flopping politician? For years, the citizenry has endured the disappointment, frustration, and even rage caused by voting someone into public office based upon campaign-trail promises only to watch helplessly as the promises are ignored, rescinded, or reversed once the promisor assumes public office. As a first-year law school exam would ask: what torts? Does a lying politician face any liability for gaining office by deceit?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Congratulations to the Honorable Sandra Lynch
Sandra L. Lynch has become the first female chief of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the first woman to sit on the 1st Circuit. Ms. Lynch is accustomed to being a ground breaker: she was also the first woman to clerk for the Rhode Island U.S. District Court and the first woman to chair the litigation department at Boston's Foley, Hoag & Eliot.
Congratulations on a brilliant career still in the making.
Congratulations on a brilliant career still in the making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)