I had to share this

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture, courtesy of Theo Spark, is worth as least that many.

Law and Order UK

The other evening I was relaxing in Vulture Manor with Deadeye watching an episode of Law and Order UK. The BBC version of this venerable franchise is, IMO, every bit as good as if not better than the original was back in the 90's.

Okay, I watched TV. What does that have to do with anything?

The episode in question unfolded with what police at first thought was a copycat murderer mimicking a convicted white supremacist serial killer (hereinafter referred to as "Whitey"). When they found the killer, they received quite a surprise: the murderer was a black Jamaican, the murders weren't racially motivated at all (the killer was channeling "commands from God"), and, the biggest bombshell of all, he wasn't a copycat. He was the killer behind all of the murders for which Whitey was convicted!

This is where the course of justice, UK version, diverged sharply from the course of justice, USA version.

Whitey was freed right away. That makes perfect sense, right? Except that in the US, once it's been established that you're innocent, you're lucky if you don't wait months for someone to get around to issuing orders for you to be freed. If at all.

Then the solicitor (attorney) for Whitey dropped an accusation that the Crown Prosecutor (DA) had spiked exculpatory evidence in Whitey's original trial that would have cast doubt about his guilt in the murders. The CP was actually brought up on criminal charges of perverting the course of justice as a result of this single accusation. Stop for a moment and ponder that. A prosecutor was charged with the crime of perversion of justice as a result of an accusation of withholding exculpatory evidence. Whoa!

It got me thinking. Why in the name of all that is holy is there no such statute on the books in any jurisdiction in the US for the crime of perversion of justice? Why is it that DA's in the US can run roughshod over the rights of the accused, prosecute individuals they know to be innocent, and hide or manufacture evidence without fear of any sort of consequences? Lest you think I'm exaggerating or simply spewing hyperbole, I suggest you take a nice long look at actual evidence of prosecutorial mischief. Spend a half hour at Will Grigg's place. Or at William Anderson's place.You'll swear that I've understated the problem by half.

Until US prosecutors are held to the same high standard as Crown Prosecutors, we can expect innocents to continue to be sacrificed on the altar of some scumbag prosecutor's career aspirations. One day it might be you.

Feeling like a jackass

The following is re-posted from April 15, 2010. It is every bit as relevant now as it was then.

---

Once upon a time a community of wild mules, donkeys, burros, and jackasses roamed free.  They lived in complete freedom.  But there were problems.  They were susceptible to predator attack.  There were no rules preventing mules from abusing donkeys (or vice-versa).  There were no protections against feeding ground encroachment.

So they formed a Pact.  This Pact established common defense against predators and rules to protect against abuses and feeding grounds violations.  Most importantly, the Pact gave assurances to each and every one of the assembled that their freedoms would never be violated.

The Pact established leaders who would represent the animals.  These leaders would have a special wagon to be pulled by the other animals from place to place so that the leaders could perform their duties.

At first, because the wagon was small and the leaders and wagon workers few, it took but a few of the beasts to pull the wagon.  This responsibility was shared by all.  The burden was light, and the demands few.

But over time the leaders started to feel that the Pact restricted them too much.  They became convinced that they could do "amazing things" if those limits were, well, limited.  They were engulfed in an awful hubris.  The "amazing things" they wanted to do were more important to them than the freedoms promised by the Pact.

The leaders were shrewd.  They knew that any overt attempt to break the Pact would result in rebellion.  So over time, bit by bit, the leaders chipped away at the Pact.  By making rules that bordered on violating the Pact without actually doing so, the leaders set precedents that made other rules that DID violate the Pact seem okay.  It was an incrementalist approach.  It was brilliant.

The leaders engaged in a "divide and conquer" strategy.  A number of the new rules were designed to create "favored" classes.  Mules had been greatly wronged in the early days of the Pact.  The leaders used this fact to make rules that allowed many of the mules to ride in the wagon with them.

Then animals without sufficient grazing lands were deemed a "favored" class and were beneficiaries of rules that allowed them to ride on the wagon as well.

The new rules required making the wagon bigger - a whole lot bigger.  Now there were large numbers of animals on the wagon - leaders, wagon workers, and "favored" classes - and many animals were required to pull the wagon.  No, required is too nice of a word.  They were compelled to do so.

Some of the animals - particularly the donkeys and jackasses - began to resent the leaders and the demands placed upon them.  They were branded as uncaring, bigoted, and evil by the leaders.  Those on the wagon certainly agreed.  And, unfortunately, there were enough donkeys, burros, and jackasses who believed the leaders were simply trying to help the "less fortunate" to prevent the donkeys and jackasses from pressuring the leaders to rescind the new rules.

More rules were created.  Some rules limited the amount of feeding ground a beast could have.  Others forced animals to cede some of their feeding ground to animals on the wagon.  The amount of time animals spent pulling the wagon was then linked to the amount of feeding ground they controlled.  More and more animals began to climb aboard the wagon, some as wagon workers, but most as "favored" classes.

Large numbers of burros began to enter the area.  Some pulled the wagon, as had the burros who had been there at the start of the Pact.  But some cried for "favored" status, and were granted seats on the wagon.  Many - WAY too many - simply took over feeding grounds and avoided pulling the wagon.

Over time the situation worsened to the point that there were nearly as many animals on the wagon as there were pulling the wagon.

Most of those pulling the wagon were jackasses.

What prompted this little parable?  This.

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Wait, it gets better.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Feel like a jackass yet? If you don't, you're probably part of the problem.

Vulture Droppings: Budget negotiated, or theater of the absurd

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

At one point in the budget negotiations, Il Duce said, "It's time for adults to take over the budget talks."

As if!

Sadly for We the People, there are no adults in Washington. It makes for a lousy government. But it also makes for great theater, if "theater of the absurd" is your preference.

This edition of Vulture Droppings looks at the absurdities of the past week's negotiations.

---

First, a little history.

Normally a budget is proposed shortly after the State of the Union speech and approved well before the end of the current fiscal year in September. Last year was different. Even with a Donkey as president, a Donkey-controlled House (by a big margin), and a Donkey-controlled Senate (with a 60-40 supermajority), Congress was unable (or, more accurately, unwilling) to complete a budget prior to the end of FY10. They elected to punt. The government has run on "continuing resolutions" for this entire fiscal year.

Fast forward to March. NOW all of the sudden it's the end of the world if the budget doesn't get passed! Mark this down on your score card as Childish Act #1.

---

But that was minor league compared with what would follow. Over the past two weeks we've been treated to juvenile behavior the likes of which is seldom seen in any government at any time.

First it was the Elephants, trying to slip in targeted cuts based on pure ideology. Oh, don't get me wrong: the government has no business giving tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), or the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Each and every one of those things need to have their funding cut. But, by playing the ideology card during a period in which the stated goal was to avert a shutdown (and the resultant boost to a wounded and vulnerable president: see Clinton, Bill), the Elephants proved yet again that they are the Stupid Party.

---

Not ones to let an opening go to waste, the Donkeys used the de-funding of Planned Parenthood as the focus of their retrenchment strategy. Or as an excuse to come unhinged, depending on your viewpoint.

Sen. Charles Schumer roared, "The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.” Never mind that your dangerous, ideological spending on Planned Parenthood is part of our debt problem. Schumer also got in a cheap shot against the Tea Party, saying, “What we have here is a flea, wagging a tail, wagging a dog,”

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter said that Republicans are "here to kill women". Get hysterical much?

Nevada's curse on the country, Sen. Harry Reid, said, "Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there's nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged." Srsly, Harry? That was stupider and more hysterical than Congresswoman Slaughter. He also took a shot at the Tea Party, saying, "[T]he Tea Party...is trying to push its extreme social agenda, issues that have nothing to do with funding the bill." Extreme? Really, Harry? This from the guy selling "Republicans support cancer in women"?

And, as carefully choreographed as it always is, professional protesters appeared on the scene, complete with hysterical signs like, "Republicans! Stay away from my vagina!

You can't make this stuff up.

---

The Elephants were more restrained, but still managed to underwhelm. House Majority Leader Boehner haughtily sniffed that the Donkeys weren't serious about cutting spending. Various members of Congress sniped at the idea of our troops not getting paid. Uh, whose fault would THAT be, exactly?

To the Elephants' credit, Sen. Paul Ryan presented a serious budget plan that would result in eliminating the debt. This plan, of course, was met with hysteria by none other than the former Air Force 3, Nancy Pelosi, who called the plan "a path to poverty for America's seniors [and] children and a road to riches for big oil". Damn, Nancy! You hit two hot button moonbat issues in one fell swoop.

For the record, Sen. Ryan's plan has a snowball's chance on the plains of Hell of passing.

---

Bottom line, nothing real was accomplished. The Elephants and their sycophants at Fox News are trumpeting a GOP victory. Victory? Srsly? You reduced spending by $31 billion in a budget whose deficit alone is $1,500 billion! That's a victory?

No, that's sad.

Coming soon: the rematch, as the Elephants and the Donkeys renew their kabuki dance with the looming debt ceiling brawl. Hilarity will ensue. Sadly, hilarity will ensue.

---

The looming government shutdown - what to fear

I'm sure that most people who read my blog are rooting for the government to shut down, preferably for a long, long time. But there is a very real risk to a government shutdown, one that scares the living crap out of me.

From The Smoking Gun.

With a possible shutdown of the U.S. government looming, it is helpful to remember what happened the last time federal workers received a forced furlough.

According to an FBI interview report:

• Unable to begin a new paying job, a 22-year-old female intern continued to work at the White House.

• Said intern’s “personal relationship” with President Bill Clinton began on November 15, 1995, the day after the government shutdown began.

• On that Wednesday evening, the intern, seizing the moment, told Clinton she “had a crush on him.” The 42nd President responded by accompanying the intern to a back study behind the Oval Office, where he kissed her.

• “Unclothed genital contact” would later occur, along with “kissing, hugging, touching, and oral sex on the person of the President, but not intercourse.”

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm baaaaaaack

Just like a case of herpes, I have returned. My vacation was refreshing and invigorating. But now I'm back and it's time to address the "big issues of the day".

As if!

Nah, I'm going to dedicate my first post-vacation post to saying, "I told you so!"

Did I not tell you? DID I NOT TELL YOU?!?!?!?

When Il Duce named Jeffrey Immelt as his "jobs czar" back in January, I said that Immelt was a repugnant slug who represented the very worst in crony capitalism. I said that the company he chairs, General Electric, is "the #1 looter corporation".

Seems there are those who agree with me.

The New York Times reported last month that General Electric earned $14.2 billion in international profits, including, $5.1 billion in the United States. Yet GE did not pay a dime in federal income taxes last year. Oddly, President Obama chose GE Chairman and chief executive Jeffrey Immelt to head his President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

According to the Associated Press, Immelt's compensation package doubled to $15.2 million last year, while this year, GE is seeking major concessions from the unions that represent its shrinking American workforce. That makes Immelt the wrong guy for the job of jobs czar.

Or as former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold wrote, "Someone like Immelt, who has helped his company evade taxes on its huge profits -- and is now looking to workers to take major pay cuts after his compensation was doubled -- should not lead the administration's effort to create jobs."

I almost wish I could just paste the whole essay, written masterfully by Debra Saunders, into this post. But in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, you should go to RealClearPolitics and read the whole thing yourself. You'll be glad you did.

One last quote from the opinion piece.

When Obama appointed Immelt to his jobs and competitiveness council, the president said that Immelt "understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy."

Unfortunately, Immelt seems to have learned that the best way to increase GE's profits was to eliminate a fifth of its American workforce, ship jobs overseas and hire a small army of tax attorneys.

A generous person might argue that GE's experience makes Immelt the smart choice to reform the tax code.

But Immelt can't be in charge of GE and reform a tax system it helped pervert. Obama must know that. Obama must not care.