Wednesday, March 02, 2005
The scariest part about this story from Tuscaloosa is not the part about the armed robber--it's that the police were ORDERING people to leave their homes, because they were going to "release search dogs." Why would you have to leave your house? Are the dogs going to come inside? Where's the search warrant? I suppose they were just going to let the dogs roam through people's houses?
This article about a school in Massachusetts is amazing. And they wonder why the children keep focusing on each other's differences? How can people ever get along if all you do is stir up animosity between them? I'd love to hear the "explanation" the Yankee schoolmaster gave the poor student who wore a Confederate flag hat to school. I guess there's no "tolerance" for Confederates--we're not "diverse" enough.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
That's it! I've had it. I have posted stuff from the New York Times here before, and it is always a hassle for readers because they have to log in to read it. No more log-in posts. I'll link only to direct access sites from now on. And no more NYT. I'm sick of that rag. Here is the latest ignorant smear of Alabama from the Times, quoted in a story from the Mobile Register:
"Consider how The New York Times last week described an upcoming story on elections in the impoverished Indian state of Bihar: 'At a time when other parts of India are experiencing remarkable economic growth and optimism, Bihar has come to signify a grim metaphor, a sort of Alabama with mango trees, a stark reminder of an India left behind.'"
This story from the Dothan Eagle is a prime example of how ridiculous it is that the jury, the most important component of our justice system, is kept in the dark regarding crucial matters such as the sentence that will be imposed for a crime, and their right to judge the law. The jurors in this case turned out in the end to be glad that one of their number was stubborn enough to hang the jury, given the harsh sentence the defendant would have faced--a sentence they were not allowed to know. How can the punishment fit the crime when the jury isn't even told what the punishment will be?