Don Imus and the Cesspool of PC and Double Standards

Don Imus is out of a job for making an unwise joke about the Rutgers lady basketball team. MSNBC and CBS have completely cancelled his program. Leaving aside the fact that these two corporations canned his program despite the fact that Imus was joking and apologized ad nauseam, far bigger issues remain. One primary issue concerns whether this kind of censorship (particularly after profuse apologies) is wise and justifiable. Another issue is the level of hypocrisy surrounding this censorship issue.

Here we have a man who has told questionable jokes for decades. He has either fired staff members when they crossed the line or apologized as in this latest case. In other cases, he has not done so because he apparently felt there was no need to apologize for an obvious joke. Now, after all these years, they bring down the entire hammer all at once after giving Imus virtually full reign to showcase his brand of humor for years. At any rate, he is gone now, so there's no point in belaboring this particular firing. On the other hand, what happens next may shape the future of free speech in this country that supposedly values open dialogue and expression and second chances.

I am personally a PC hater. It is a kind of censorship that will creep up out of the dark and bite you the moment you have a slip of the tongue or be so human as to occasionally speak without thinking. But it is not so much PC that is the problem. It is the actions of PC thugs like Al Sharpton that create the problem. Sharpton has made mistakes and is still alive and well on the radio. Jesse Jackson is still alive and well despite making some of these same mistakes. Yet they are front and center calling for people like Imus to be fired for an unfortunate joke without so much as a line of dialogue with Imus to try and fix the problem.

Even after Imus offered to go on Sharpton's show (which he did) and apologized for hours, Sharpton and his PC thug wannabees never let up the pressure until Imus got the boot. And this is the behavior of a reverend? Shocking but true.

Now, let's get to the good part. We all know of the foul language in rap music these days. Sharpton and his two faces have been asked time and again about rap music. He conveniently concedes it's an issue to discuss while refusing to call out a single rapper by name.

Let's look at this more closely. Imus makes a three-second joke that was clearly unwise and, taken out of the context of his brand of humor, can certainly be seen as racist and sexist. Although that was most likely not his intent (he apparently spoke without even thinking about it), the response is understandable. Like I said, though, it is not so much the outrage after the comment. It is the herd mentality that takes over to shut people down and the hypocrisy. Calls for Imus' firing came immediately without serious discussion. Here we have a white guy who tells a three-second joke and should be fired immediately according to the PC thugs. Yet the same PC thugs give feeble lip service to rap lyrics with a highly generic statement and a refusal to call out a single rapper.

If someone doesn't see the double standard here, it's really scary. Why does Sharpton merely have a conference on rap lyrics to see if there is a problem but immediately call for the firing of someone like Imus? Well, let's speculate a little since I can't read his mind. Let's posit that Sharpton and goons like him are afraid that the black community will not agree with him. This in turn threatens to destroy his little empire. With no black community to follow him, Sharpton is pretty much out of business. As always, it appears that Sharpton will give a little lip service to things like rap music so as not to seem too biased and hypocritical but won't cross the line to where he thinks he might alienate his target audience. In other words, he simply can't be trusted to push the issue against black offenders. Only the whites are called out by name and led to slaughter. Again, I can only speculate here because I can't read his mind, but the hypocrisy is clear. The fact that he won't call out a single rapper or label speaks volumes.

This brings us to the other dirty political players in this game - the corporations. Why they would bow this far to legal blackmail artists like Sharpton and Jackson is beyond me. They didn't let the market decide. Instead, they pulled the plug on Imus before he even had a chance to change his format. The ultimate aim of PC thugs like this is to control the media. If they don't like it, they will go after you. It is oddly much like the Religious Right. While the Religious Right seeks to force non-believers into faith-driven situations like school prayer or forced births, these lefties seek to control speech. It is quite ironic if you think about it. Both sides are attacking different parts of the First Amendment, but both are destructive in their own right.

Personally, my opinion is that the shock jocks and the rappers and everyone else should say what they want to say. If the market supports it, let them say it. My vision of America is a country where both intelligent and stupid people say what they want to say while others respond to either support or oppose those comments. But what we see here is not mere opposition. We see a kind of legal blackmail. Get rid of the people we don't like or we will boycott and harm your company. But the problem is the corporations are not on the same page. Imus goes, and the rappers thrive. And Rosie stays for jokes about Asians. For that, she saw fit to apologize for the insensitivity, and that dealt with the problem. Don't get me started on Rosie's other comments. That would take volumes.

Therefore, there is no need to have these silly arguments that you hear about rap. Rappers claim they are different because they portray real life. But Imus told a joke. In actuality, neither appears to be malicious. There is no real distinction here. We can argue over semantics or forget it and let the market make these decisions. Further, we can leave the hypocrisy and scattershot firings behind. Bring the era of open discussion back if the corporations can't police uniformly and fairly. This uneven and unpredictable treatment most likely breeds more resentment than could ever be caused by crude rap lyrics and badly worded jokes.

So here is the bottom line - most of these media corporations are only interested in money. They will not respond to any pressure unless they fear financial harm. And since people like Sharpton have shown a complete inability to treat all "offenders" the same, the best solution would seem to be to let the market decide.

If rap music like this sells, let people buy it. If Imus continues to have good ratings, let people watch or listen. If the sales or ratings go down, then the corporations can replace them. Besides, I thought that was what America was about, anyway. Please give us our freedom back, Big Business. As it stands now, two groups are being created. The ones who say what they want with virtual impunity and the ones who get accused of racism and sexism and get fired. This is certainly not the America that our forefathers envisioned.

Jimmy Boyd

Lumping: An Ugly, Tired Pundit Trick

The Wacky Analyst

April 7, 2007

If you watch Fox News for a week, you are likely to see Sean Hannity or one of his buddies single out Rosie O'Donnell or some similar talking head as a way of indirectly attacking the Democratic Party. Folks like Hannity have a clear agenda - take the worst possible statements by people who hold themselves out as liberals and attempt to characterize such people as some kind of uncrowned spokesperson for the whole party. For example, Hannity recently played some nutty clip of Sean Penn and then asked Dick Morris how he or a person making a negative attack ad would link the Hillary Clintons of the world to extremists like Penn. His intent is clear right from his own words. This is an old and tired technique, and people should not fall for it any longer. Note, also, that my criticism applies to all. I am not singling out conservatives or the Republican Party as the evildoers who utilize this "lumping" technique.

Let me expound on this. You see, it's ridiculous to even imply that all members of the same party hold all of the same viewpoints. Viewpoints in all parties range from the radical on one end to the conservative and traditional on the other. These constant attacks on individuals say nothing at all about the stance of any party. Yet, people like Rosie, who has clearly lost a few marbles somewhere along the way, are constantly exploited by scheming pundits like Sean Hannity in a transparent effort to attack all liberals. And we all know that an attack on all liberals is an attack on the Democratic Party.

It just gets depressing seeing this same old and illogical technique, which I would estimate qualifies to someone to "maybe" pass the fourth grade, used daily by political pundits, some of whom earn millions with this kind of juvenile logic.

Let's change the facts slightly. Imagine that you were robbed by a black man. Incensed at this senseless violation of your right to peace, you proclaim that "black men are bad" because "some black guy robbed me." Now imagine the kind of response you would get from such an asinine claim. Stereotyping is stereotyping regardless of the victim. It's amazing that pundits like Hannity make a handsome living based on such juvenile tactics.

With that said, if you want to attack Rosie or anyone else for the kind of absurd statements that she has made lately, then have a go at her on a personal level. But she represents only herself. She is not a spokesperson for liberals, the Democratic Party, or anyone else. Similarly, if you oppose a position generally held by a party of group (such as liberals' overriding position on abortion), then by all means attack them for that general position. But trying to stain a whole party by essentially attributing absurd statements made by Rosie and others to a whole party simply does not pass any logical person's smell test.

Despite the foregoing, I fear that the level of discourse will not be rising. Sadly, it seems that the most shocking, controversial pundits and talking heads will continue to see the most face time. Honest and logical advocacy does not seem to be in demand these days. This is why you see so many on TV described as a "Republican strategist" or "Democratic strategist." The networks know or at least believe that the viewers want a no-holds-barred, hit-below-the-belt battle, and that is probably what they will continue to give them. Frankly, I don't even mind a little partisan rivalry. I just wish that the level of intelligence employed by many of these pundits would rise above fourth-grade logic. Is that too much to ask? One can hope, but I won't be holding my breath.

Anna Nicole Smith: Was She Murdered?

The Wacky Analyst

April 1, 2007

Speculation continues to swirl around the strange death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel. The most recent significant news on her death comes from the medical examiner, who announced his opinion that the death was an accidental overdose of a number of prescription medications. Some may think that this ends any criminal invesigation into the matter. From a legal perspective, this is not accurate. Crimes ranging from murder to negligent homicide still remain as a possibility.

First, one should note that police and prosecuting attorneys are not bound by opinions of the local medical examiner. Medical examiners often disagree, and prosecutors commonly call outside medical examiners and other experts to support their legal theories.

Second, several types of homicides actually involve accidental deaths. Even some murders are not precisely intentional acts. For example, three main types of second-degree murder exist in many states. The first type occurs where the defendant intended to kill, the second involves an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and the third type is often regarded as a "depraved heart" murder. A depraved-heart murder generally occurs where the defendant exhibited behavior that shows an extremely reckless indifference to human life.

The other most common types of accidental death that amount to homicide are manslaughter and negligent homicide. Although states vary, the basic concept behind these two crimes is an act or failure to act where the defendant failed to recognize a high risk of death or serious bodily injury. Additionally, the prosecutor must prove gross negligence on the part of the defendant. In simple terms, gross negligence occurs where the defendant greatly deviates from what a reasonable person would have done (or not done) under the same or similar circumstances.

Thus, the fact that Smith died an accidental death does not foreclose the possibility that a homicide, and possibly even nurder, occurred in this death.

The fact that Smith and her son died in a similar fashion over a short period of time certainly raises a suspicious eyebrow. Interestingly, Howard K. Stern was also in the same room as both Anna Nicole and Daniel on the respective dates of their deaths (although not necessarily at the exact time of death). However, such circumstantial evidence, by itself, generally amounts to only enough suspicion to start an investigation and make further inquiries. Without more, the authorities will have an uphill battle trying to prove a murder or other homicide.

Nonetheless, certain types of evidence would lend credence to a homicide theory. For example, if Howard K. Stern or another individual participated in procuring this cocktail of drugs with the actual intent of causing Smith to take the drugs and eventually die of an overdose, then a strong case of murder would emerge. But the authorities would most likely have to prove both participation in the procuring or taking of the drugs and simultaneous intent to kill Smith. A mere hope that Smith would die is probably insufficient to prove a homicide. The reason for this is that no one usually has legal duty to care for another adult. While a parent clearly has a legal duty to look after the well-being of his or her own child, the same kind of duty of protection does not exist regarding the welfare of an adult unless another person somehow assumes that duty.

An example of this would be a private nurse. The nurse hired by Smith conceivably owed a legal duty of reasonable care to Smith, but an individual like Stern would generally have no such duty. However, if Stern

The Case Against Attorney General Gonzales

The Wacky Analyst

Volume 4

March 30, 2007

While calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys continue, both Gonzales and President Bush continue to hold their ground. While members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have criticized Gonzales over misleading statements concerning the firings, others have denounced the whole situation as yet another Washington political witch hunt.

However, it is not entirely clear to me exactly what Gonzales did wrong to make himself a target of these resignation demands. As in most cases, though, reasons exist both to support and oppose these demands.

First, it is rather clear that the AG should not resign merely because the firings were (at least in part) political in nature. Because Bush, like any president, can generally fire executive officials for any reason or no reason at all, Gonzales should not be an indirect scapegoat to be sacrificed by those opposing this well-established executive authority.

However, the manner in which Gonzales has handled this congressional inquiry is perhaps a more appropriate basis for calling for his resignation. For example, Gonzales has led members of Congress and the public to believe that he had either no role or a very minor role in the firings. Despite that representation, the media has reported that Gonzales was present at a meeting where his aides formulated a plan for the firings. Moreover, Gonzales reportedly approved this plan. On its face, this revelation appears inconsistent with his previous representations.

Although Gonzales probably did not knowingly lie or misrepresent the extent of his involvement, a serious question arises as to his credibility as the chief officer in the Department of Justice, a department where credibility is paramount to maintain the trust of the public. If the public cannot trust the attorney general on matters as inconsequential as perfectly legal firings or attorneys, one wonders if he can be trusted on any matter. At the very least, Gonzales has either a very bad memory or is simply too careless with his words to be trusted by Congress and the public.

The other possibility is that he simply has no respect for Congress and refused to take the time to accurately check his schedule and other records before making these misleading statements. While Gonzales could plausibly argue that he merely meant that he was not aware of the actual reason for the firings, that excuse does not vitiate the sobering reality that he comes across as uncooperative and unreliable in the search for the whole truth.

One would be bold to insist that the attorney general is cooperative and reliable as it pertains to congressional oversight. As they say in the professional-wrestling world, this man is a serious "heat magnet." He could have and likely should have accurately and fully disclosed the extent of his involvement before making any statement. Gonzales is good at one thing - making a bad situation even worse.

On a side note, it is also puzzling that one component of the plan approved by the AG consisted of ways for dealing with any political fallout caused by the firings. Considering how badly DOJ has handled this controversy, it is manifestly clear that that part of the plan was seriously neglected. Mark that as one more signal that Gonzales has a difficult time carrying out the plans of his department. At the very least, one has to wonder why there is no clear documentation that details the reasons for the firings. Does a U.S. attorney not deserve just a little more respect than this?

In short, the real measuring stick for deciding whether Gonzales should resign is his inability to effectively cooperate with congressional oversight. Mr. Attorney General, I will let others decide whether you should resign, but please do us all a favor and take some basic classes on public relations. As it stands now, all you can do is turn a simple case of heartburn into a quadruple bypass. Even the Bush administration deserves more than this level of incompetence.

Legal Tips for Rat Poison in Pet Food

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

March 23, 2007


As most pet lovers have already heard, a major company recently distributed pet food contaminated with rat poison all throughout the United States. A rash of kidney failures and even death has scattered across the country.

This incident has even prompted one pet owner to proclaim that the company murdered her pet. While this sentiment is totally understandable under the circumstances, it is important to keep in mind the actual legal rights involved in this situation.

First, there is no such thing as wrongful death for pets. While pets are living and breathing and certainly loving beings, the law does not go quite that far. Although it seems very unemotional, the law generally treats pets merely as personal property. Damages related to the injury or death of a pet are generally the same as damage to any other personal property, such as damage to a house or car.

For example, most pet lovers would consider their pets to be priceless and unreplaceable, but the law generally limits recovery to the value of a similar pet. For instance, if the plaintiff had a dog that generally goes for $500, that would be the amount of damages available to that plaintiff.

However, plaintiffs can receive other damages. In pet cases, these other damages would most likely include vet bills, medication, and any other services related to the injury or death of the pet.

Unfortunately, most courts probably will not award damages for emotional distress. Such damages are usually awarded in cases of personal injury, but pets are regarded as personal property. Because courts do not generally award damages for emotional distress in property-damage cases, most plaintiffs cannot recover for emotional distress.

The good part about this situation for plaintiffs is that it is an easier case to prove than many other types of cases. In most cases, an injured party must prove that the defendant is liable for negligence. Negligence refers to the breach of some legal duty, which is generally a duty to take reasonable care not to harm the person or property of another.

However, the vast majority of states provide for strict liability in product-defect cases. Pet food definitely qualifies as a product in terms of products liability. The advantage of strict liability is that the plaintiff does NOT have to prove that the defendant was negligent. In other words, the mere fact that the pet food contained rat poison in this case is generally enough to show that the defendant is liable and responsible for damages.

Both manufacturers and sellers may be liable in products-liability cases so long as they are in the business of manufacturing or selling those goods. For example, if a pet owner bought pet food at his or her local retail store, that store may also be liable even though it had no idea that the food was contaminated by rat poison. Of course, the actual manufacturer is also responsible even if it had no actual knowledge of the rat poison.

In short, the courts will generally limit damages in pet cases as compared to cases of personal physical injury. Of course, the courts will award the value of the pet, vet bills, and similar expenses. On the other hand, a case like this is easier to prove than most cases because injured pet owners need not prove that the manufacturers and sellers were negligent. The courts generally impose strict liability for product defects even if the defendants had no knowledge whatsoever of the contamination.

Caution: This article is merely a simple introduction to legal issues related to pet-food contamination. It is not legal advice. In addition, laws vary from state to state. Consult a local attorney if your pet has suffered injury or you have any other legal problem.

Jimmy Boyd

The Wacky Pundit

The U.S. Attorney Firings and Executive Privilege

The Wacky Pundit

Volume 2

March 22, 2007

The latest Washington controversy making the rounds is the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the White House. At issue is not so much the actual firings. The controversy surrounds the fact that Department of Justice officials led Congress to believe that the firings occurred as a result of performance deficiencies. As more information comes out, it appears clear that the firings were carried out for political reasons instead of the previously claimed performance deficiencies.

As a part of this ongoing controversy, at least some leaders in Congress are insisiting on placing current and former White House officials under oath to unearth the details of these firings. Not surprisingly, the White House refuses to cooperate in this plan and simply states that they will make officials available for informal meetings.

Putting to one side the fact that informal meetings are a silly way to get at the truth of any matter and seem to be an atttempt to avoid tough questions, several legal questions arise as a part of this controversy.

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the president may fire purely executive officials for any reason or no reason at all. As the saying goes, executive officials serve "at the pleasure" of the president. Therefore, the actual firings raise no particular legal issue. The reasons for firing an executive raise political issues, but I will leave that for another day.

However, the president has stated that he will claim executive privilege (or have officials like Karl Rove or Harriett Myers claim executive privilege on his behalf) if Congress seeks to put the officials under oath. This raises serious constitutional questions about the scope of executive privilege.

Executive privilege embraces the concept that the president should be able to engage in confidential communications with his official advisors. The purpose of the privilege is to allow the president to "let his hair down" and engage in wide-ranging discussions and make important decisions without the fear of outside influences or interference from third parties. By maintaining this privacy, the idea is that the president can make better and more informed decisions without the risk of embarrassment or unnecessary controversy that would surely arise if all such meetings were made public.

But executive privilege is not absolute. The first question to ask is whether executive privilege extends so far as to encompass such issues as the firing of other executive officials (such as the U.S. Attorneys in this case). Generally speaking, executive privilege encompasses such matters as diplomacy, war planning, and certainly issues of national security. None of those possible justifications seems to exist in this case. During the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court held that a generalized claim of the right to confidentiality was not sufficient to overcome a specific need to investigate and uncover documents in a criminal case. But the full scope of executive privilege is still not entirely clear.

The president would likely argue that the need to receive candid advice about political decisions (hence policy issues) is sufficient to claim executive privilege. This would seem to be an expansion of executive privilege because it has nothing to do with diplomacy or national security. A claim of executive privilege for an issue like the firing of executive officials certainly seems much closer to the generalized claim of privilege rejected in the Nixon case than, for example, a claim of privilege for communications about how to execute the war in Iraq.

Eventually, the courts would have to decide if the issue of executive firings even qualifies for executive privilege. But there is no way to say with certainty how the courts would decide this. My best guess is that the courts would say there is some interest in maintaning confidentiality on such issues, but that does not end the inquiry.

Regardless of the judicial decision on the first question, another question must be answered. Even if communications related to the executive firings fall under the protections of executive privilege, the courts would then have to balance that interest with the interest of Cogress to oversee activities of the executive branch. The Nixon case is not totally instructive here because the overriding interest in the Nixon case was the constitutional power of thejudiciary to conduct criminal proceedings. As of this time, no criminal invesigation exists regarding the attorney firings. Nonetheless, Congress does have some oversight powers over the executive branch.

Looking through my crystal ball, I would guess that the interest in overseeing the performance and activities of the executive branch trumps a claim of executive privilege for purely political firings. In such a case, the White House would have to produce all relevant documents, and the former and current officials would have to testify under oath.

It is not possible to say with any degree of certainty how the courts would come down on these issues. Ultimately, Congress and the White House will hopefully avoid a constitutional crisis by coming to a fair compromise.

Jimmy Boyd
The Wacky Pundit

Bush Requests Another Blank War Check

The Wacky Analyst
Volume One
March 19, 2007

President Bush requested in a speech today for Congress to give him a blank check for the war in Iraq. He seeks unlimited funds to carry out his plan to send over 20,000 more troops to Iraq and continue whatever goal he claims to have in Iraq.

Of course, the real problem is whether a troop surge and more money will achieve anything of prominence. Democrats in Congress are definitely moving for a timeline to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, and the president insists he will veto any such measure.

The first thing that puzzles me about this whole situation is that Bush can't clearly articulate any goals or plans. In addition, we always hear yet another claim of progress (just like today) that likewise is never effectively articulated. How many years now have we heard the same claims? Where is the proof of this progress? These claims come across as hollow to any objective observer. Perhaps I and others like me would buy into all these plans if the White House could actually articulate something and put it in clear and concise English instead of the same old one-liner or two-liner justifications.

It seems that Bush still legitimately thinks that there is work to be done in Iraq. On that note, he may be correct, but the end game remains as fuzzy as ever. As soon as out troops pull out, what is the likelihood that all detractors will peacufully lay down arms and bow to Iraqi leaders? In our country, we disagree but always have peaceful elections to determine our leaders. This is simply not the way of life in Iraq. Detractors here complain about policy but go about their lives. Detractors there build bombs, take up arms, and kill people.

Defenders of White House policy label opponents as quitters. In my opinion, this could not be further from the truth. Opponents of the administration simply realize that the main goal has already been achieved. We went in to remove a brutal dictator, and we have done that. It is now up to the Iraqi people to determine the path of their future. Hopefully, Bush will soon realize that our main task is done. After the death of over 3000 of our troops, the other goals have diminished.

Regardless of any timeline or lack thereof, there comes a time when a country has to take back control. If the current government can't get things in order, then perhaps they are not the right ones for the job. Even good guests can overstay their welcome. We have been reasonably good guests, but if the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops can't get with the program in what is now going on five years, then they are the failures, not us. The main goal was to remove Saddam, and we achieved that, put in place an interim government, and that government held elections. It's time for the Iraqi people to determine their future. Sometimes, good guests just need to go home.