Hey, bitches!

I am not a music snob. I listen to top 40, I listen to indie, I’ll listen to anything that appeals to me. Right now I’m listening to a song by a singer who spells her name with a dollar sign. Like I said, don’t care what I listen to as long as I’m enjoying it.

However, I could NOT believe my ears when I heard “Sexy Bitch.” It was quite possibly the dumbest piece of trash I’ve ever had the misfortune to hear (and I’ve been to a Toby Keith concert). While not the first time I was offended by Akon, it was the first time I was offended by something other than his horrid music.
And the other “artist” (I use that term extremely liberally), David Guetta, is, according to Wikipedia, responsible for the botched aural abortion that is the latest Black Eyed Peas CD. The production of this song is truly the coming together of a dream team…if my dream was to have my eardrums implode in protest.

As for how this relates to justice: I’m not exactly sure what I would do if someone came up to me and referred to me as a “bitch” in any form, but I’m thinking it may end with my incarceration. And I know for damn sure that, even in compliment form, calling someone a “bitch” in any situation that doesn’t involve these two buffoons doesn’t generally go over well:

Professor: ‘That was a great paper! You’re one smart bitch!”
Anyone who is not Guetta or Akon: “What the hell?”
___________________
EDITOR: “Damn, bitches, this is some great investigative journalism!”
Woodward and Bernstein: “What? Oh my God, we quit.”

And Nixon takes over the world. Exaggeration? Maybe, but the point remains that if the word “bitch” is included in a sentence, be it meant as a compliment or insult, it’s an insult. And, in all seriousness, it is an offensive, extremely sexist word. Any insult that is targeted specifically for a group of people is generally to be avoided, as being sexist/racist/etc.
Note to the “musicians:” if you refer to a woman as a bitch, not only is it is disrespectful, but you are probably not going to get any of “dat booty.”

What can really be expected from the man who humped a 14-year-old girl onstage during his concert, then defended himself in the most sarcastic apology song ever, saying: “Her daddy shouldn’t never let her out that young.” Not respect for women, I can tell you that much.

And who the hell is Guetta? Never mind, he’s annoyed me too much already.

The point of this: people need to stop using gender-oriented insults! It’s not going to happen anytime soon, though, if using them keeps getting you on the damn Top 40.

R.I.P. Jack Nelson (and journalism in general)

Celebrated investigative reporter Jack Nelson passed away this week at the age of 80. During his time as a journalist, he won a Pulitzer Prize for his work exposing abuse at Georgia state-run mental hospitals, in addition to covering the Watergate scandal and the civil rights movement.

Although his passing is indeed a sad event, while researching Nelson, I came across this quote from the great man himself: ““When it’s off the screen of the media, it’s off the screen of the federal government,” which inspired a lot of thought about the state of journalism “then and now.” I think it imperative that all those involved in media – journalists, editors, CEO’s, anyone – remember this. Apparently, there was a time that journalists could not only still be considered serious even though they may write a story contradictory to the word of the authorities, but even have (God forbid) political influence! Hell, these days, if it’s anything besides a celebrity flashing whatever body part is currently chic to flash, it’s not gonna get published.

I don’t advocate editorial journalism masked as unbiased news, but I strongly oppose censorship. And this journalistic culture of advertiser control and fear of controversy most certainly is a form of censorship.

Finally, can we PLEASE get some people who actually knows the definition of the job in this field? For the love of God, people like Nelson and Walter Cronkite and being replaced with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo

So, to my dear (three or so) readers, goodnight and good luck. With the craft of journalism evolving (devolving?) like this, we’ll need it more than ever.

Keith Bardwell wants no milk in his cocoa puffs!

Yesterday, I went to check my e-mail. Because I am all about shitty service, I use Yahoo! and they broadcast the news on my front page. Although it is often mindless drivel, I can’t help scanning it, and every now and then I even spot something interesting. Like yesterday, when I read that a judge had refused to grant a marriage license to an interracial couple. After thinking that whoever wrote that was going to get fired, because there was no way in hell that actually happened in the 21st Century, I read it.

Unfortunately, that title was entirely correct. In Louisiana (first of all, is it even surprising to anyone that this occurred in the south??), Judge Keith Bardwell refused to grant a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, who is white, and Terence McKay, who is black.

He defends his actions, saying that it was his personal belief that, were the couple to have children, the children would suffer from not being accepted into white or black culture.

I see several problems with this:
• Since when does a marriage license cause pregnancy? Marriage does not automatically equal baby!
• Similarly: someone really should explain the birds and the bees to Bardwell, because he needs to know that you can also be (gasp!) single and have children!
• Good idea putting the kibosh on those kids, Judge. Because society obviously doesn’t like or accept people of mixed races. It’s not like we voted on it, or anything! Oh wait…
• Because it doesn’t mean you’re racist, it just means you want the races separate. They’re still equal! We all know that separate but equal totally works.

No, Bardwell. Any suffering the future children of Humphry and McKay (who still got married by the way, so nyah nyah nyah to you and congrats to the happy couple!) because of their skin color will be from ignorance and stupidity, not because of a lack of acceptance.

Bardwell has already been pressured to quit by the governor, a U.S. senator, and (according to Valerie Willard, a spokeswoman for the Louisiana Supreme Court) about “eight million” pissed-off citizens. Good!

But my beef with this is, why is this happening just now? Bardwell said he’s done this at least four times previously, yet there was no investigation until the public actually started to cry foul. Wow, that’s a lovely thought. It’s like that really crappy salesperson, who perks up as soon as his manager gets back from lunch break.
Newsflash: the Supreme Court banned any race-based legal restrictions on marriages in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Violation? Bardwell is saying not, because he didn’t say they couldn’t get married, just that he wouldn’t do it.

This subject has been beaten to death by countless other bloggers, so we shall end before I gather ’round the dead horse with the rest of the internet. I leave you with this gem, from the mouth of the Honorable Justice Keith Bardwell himself: “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”
Did you hear that? PILES of black friends. He LETS THEM USE HIS BATHROOM. The man is practically a saint.

Defending the guilty – it’s not just for overpriced lawyers!

I’m sure the majority of Americans have heard about the Roman Polanksi arrest in Switzerland involving the alleged 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl.

Here, esteemed legal scholar Whoopi Goldberg and the harpies hosts of “The View” discuss the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NX_D0Bv9M0

Of course it wasn’t rape, Whoopi. He merely had sex…with a 13-year-old girl…whom he had drugged…who told him no repeatedly (that is, according to her testimony. Polanski has previously countered this, saying that she was experienced and it was consensual. And what young girl hasn’t dreamed of having butt sex with a middle-aged dude?)

But back to those batting for him: I think all of the sub-par cinematic sludge they’ve been shoveling out of Hollywood for the past few years has affected whatever thinking capacity the defenders of Polanski ever had. (And, oh yes, he has defenders.) Apparently, you cannot be a cinematic genius with a tragic background and also a rapist. The collective consensus among Polanski defenders pretty much seems to be: “He’s one of us – hands OFF.”

What the hell, Hollywood?

P.S. One exception to this deluge of stupidity: Chris Rock, who, while on Leno on Oct. 1, summed up the whole debate in two words: “She’s THIRTEEN!” End of discussion, folks.

P.P.S. Whoopi Goldberg later defended her comments, stating that she was merely trying to say that Polanski had not been charged with rape. Of course, we all know that the impeccable court system in the U.S. is the be-all, end-all measurement of guilt. (*cough* O.J. Simpson *cough*)

Rethinking laws.

I was planning for this blog post to be entirely different, but, in light of something rather close to me that recently occurred, I am going to write about domestic abuse and the lack of protection for women (and, yes, some men) who decide to leave their spouse and suffer from sometimes fatal backlash at their choice.

I received an e-mail from my mother recently. She told me that my uncle’s brother had just killed his wife and himself, a crime with a disturbingly high rate of occurrence. According to the Violence Policy Center, of the 1,865 women murdered by men in 2007, 990 were involved in an intimate relationship with their killer, and 315 of those victims were involved in an argument at the time of the attack.

After reading numerous news reports on the incident, I noticed some upsetting things: Pam Taschuk repeatedly told police that she feared her husband would kill her. Not only did she simply report this, but there was evidence to back her up: since 1995, police had been called to their Lino Lakes, MN home 48 times (22 on domestic-related incidents). As recently as August of this year, he was arrested, held for two days before posting bail, on charges that he beat Pam and then refused to let her leave their home.

She had an order of protection against her husband, filed for divorce, was actively building a case against Allen with a lawyer, and sought help at a battered woman’s shelter. Yet, on October 3rd, Allen drove their 16-year-old son to a gas station, drove to their home, and shot his wife before calling the police and then, finally, turning the gun on himself.

“She was doing everything she could do to help us have a successful case,” Paul Young, Anoka County Attorney’s Office, is quoted as saying. But when a victim does everything they can, yet it is still not enough, is it not time to reevaluate the law? This was not an isolated incident. It seems we are inundated with stories of a woman leaving her abusive husband or boyfriend, only to be the victim in a murder or murder-suicide.

St. Paul, MN is implementing a program called Blueprint in 2010 that will hopefully make tragic cases, like that of the Taschuk’s, much less common. But that is not the only thing they can do: according to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are “several common impediments to thorough checks of domestic violence records [in attempt to purchase a firearm]: incomplete automation; incomplete records; and, the inability to distinguish domestic violence misdemeanors from other misdemeanors.”

If crimes like this continue to occur, despite the measures that are taken to protect victims, it is time to reevaluate and strengthen the law, so that battered women needn’t feel as though their only choice is a life of abuse or murder.

Down on the Pharm

I abhor lobbyists for profit-driven organizations, and I’ve been thinking more about this effect on legislation in light of the current health care debates. According to a report by The Center for Public Integrity, health care lobbyists have managed over the last several years to “[block] the importation of inexpensive drugs from other countries; [protect] pharmaceutical patents both within the United States and abroad; and [ensure] greater market access for pharmaceutical companies in international free trade agreements,” among a host of other things that can be seen on the report.

As I said before, I am fundamentally opposed to any type of business-driven lobbying, but I find industries connected to public health to be the most despicable for the following reasons:
1) They provide an extraordinarily powerful influence, one that could be harmful: This study found that “100% of industry-sponsored studies recently presented at the annual scientific meeting of a medical professional society reported findings that support product use.” Surprise, surprise.

2) They practice something that this article refers to as “disease-mongering,” or “widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.”

3) Pharmaceutical companies also establish relationships with doctors that will be profitable to both the company and the doctor (as for the patient, that’s a different story).

In short, it says something about the morals (or lack thereof) of the lobbyists and the pharmaceutical industry when they abandon patient wellbeing for the wellbeing of their profit margin. It also says something about our elected officials when the money of lobbyists speaks louder than the voice of those whom they are meant to be representing.

I think that Representative Dan Burton (R.-Indiana), summed it up rather well: “I mean, they — they have unlimited resources. Unlimited…And when they push real hard to get something accomplished in the Congress of the United States, they can get it done.”

Sources:

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=985
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11950740
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/538596
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/17/1742

Who Polices the Police?

I find what happened to Hope Steffey on the night of October 20th, 2006 to be the most extraordinarily disturbing incident I’ve ever heard of, but I am writing this post anyway, because it needs to be written. People need to hear about the injustices that are being continuously perpetrated in Stark County, Ohio, so that they can be stopped.

The following is a story that was broken by the local news station in Canton, Ohio, aired a video of Steffey in a jail cell, being forcibly undressed by Stark County Jail employees:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82447

Although there is plenty of video and audio that the sheriff’s department is “missing” from the night of Steffey’s arrest, there is a video of the strip search that can be seen here: (Please be advised that the video is extraordinarily disturbing and may be triggering for victims of sexual assault.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5hf-aDEAr8&feature=related

During Steffey’s subsequent lawsuit against the Stark County Sherriff’s Department, the following acts by the department have been exposed:

– Five other women (who have also filed suits against the department) who said they received similar treatment in Stark County Jail

– Steffey’s lawyers found that 128 women from 1999 to 2007 were strip-searched or forced to remove their clothing, and placed on suicide watch, homicide watch or naked detention.

– Three girls on a tour of a juvenile detention center were strip searched

Oddly enough, the official “investigation” by Chief of Special Prosecutions Paul Scarsella found no wrongdoing on the part of the officers involved in the Steffey incident. (Point of interest: Mr. Scarsella was hired by and worked under now-disgraced Attorney General Marc Dann, who resigned following a several scandals, one relating to – what else? – sexual harassment. In addition, Scarsella himself was sued by a former employee for ageism and harassment.)

Although there were no punishments for the officers, Steffey’s civil lawsuit was recently settled for an undisclosed amount. (When asked in a telephone interview if the settlement was an admission of guilt, Sherriff Timothy Swanson told WKYC reporter Tom Meyer “No reaction, Tom,” and hung up.)

Sheriff Swanson is currently suing the T.V. station that originally aired Steffey’s video, claiming that it was defamation and an invasion of privacy.

Although this happened several years ago, that is precisely why I raise the following questions: Why are those who were in the horrific video of Steffey still in the employ of Stark County? Why was Sherriff Swanson reelected after this story broke? And, most importantly, why has this story gone relatively unnoticed by the larger media outlets?

To serve and protect, indeed.

Sources:
Stark County Sherriff’s Office Incident Report 06-12470

Stark County Sherriff’s Office Civilian Complaint Report concerning Deputy Richard Gurlea’s arrest of Hope J. Steffey

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=88666&provider=gnews

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/08/29/juvee.html

http://www.the-review.com/news/article/4515802

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9049

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

I chose to write a blog on justice in America (or the lack thereof) in response to an event that occurred this summer. It happened not to me, but to a very good friend of mine.

She was out one night with three friends. The others had been drinking, but she had not. As it were, they were walking down the street, having just left a party, when a cop drove by and pulled them over.

After asking to see their IDs, (note: he only asked one member of the party if she had “been drinking,” failing to ask my friend or the others anything at all), the officer proceeded to look up my friend’s social security number (which she gave him, as she didn’t have her I.D. on her), and he told her that he had to take her to the station. (Later, during her court-mandated diversion class, my friend learned that, were she even guilty of underage drinking, she should have received information about diversion at the scene, and should have never even been taken to jail in the first place.)

Her 21-year old friend was taken to the station as well, for public intoxication and carrying an open alcoholic beverage. His arrest was one of the few legitimate actions during the course of the night. I can understand why he was arrested. However, these are things I don’t understand:

– Why, when arresting the 21-year-old, the officer told him that he could “slam his face” into the ground if he wished to do so

– Why my friend was booked, held in a cell for six hours, and appeared at a court hearing the next morning on a charge of minor in consumption when she hadn’t been drinking and hadn’t been given a breathalyzer

– Why the pair had bruises on their ankles from the restraints

– Why the of-age arrestee was denied his medication while incarcerated

– Why the police report of my friend’s arrest stated that she had admitted to consuming one 40 oz. Micky’s Beer when she had neither done such a thing nor admitted to it. (Side note: this girl has the tolerance of a five-year-old. Two beers put her down for the count – suffice it to say, a 40 oz. would have probably killed her.)

You may be reading this and thinking, “Well, this is all speculation. Your friend could be a filthy liar for all I know.”

But here’s what raises a solid question, whether you believe my friend’s story or not: When she called the sergeant of the department to ask for an investigation into her arrest, it concluded that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the officer.

Why did it end like this? It boiled down to his word vs. the word of the four accused. There was no evidence supporting his claims: Where is the breathalyzer that proves her intoxication? Was there a microphone in the patrol car on to record her admission of consuming a 40 oz.? Did anyone else even hear this admission? There was nothing that could have supported his report, and therefore, nothing that could have defended him in the subsequent investigation – nothing, of course, but his word.

In short, there is no evidence supporting my friend’s case, but there is no evidence supporting the allegations of the officer. What it boils down to, like I said previously, is the word of one versus another, and the word of the police seems to reign supreme. Why do we see them as more trustworthy? Police are human, and as capable of lying and corruption as a CEO or a politician.

The scariest thing about this is that is not an isolated incident. I’m not just writing about this because it happened to my friend and now I’m pissed off at the world; rather, I am writing about this because it is a situation that could – and does – happen to anyone, anywhere.

The Importance of Knowledge

When a good friend of mine was arrested on false charges, I started doing research on cases of police abuse, which lead to an interest in researching other injustices in America. Through this, I realized that injustice has come to be a disturbingly common trend, from courtrooms to boardrooms. The falsehoods of equality and fair trials have been perpetuated by, I believe, citizens ignorant of the weak mainstream media, too timid to report on anything that may anger someone powerful.

In short, justice is not blind – we are blind. We are blind to the case of Hope Steffey, a Stark County, OH woman stripped against department procedures by female and male police officers, and then left in a cell, completely nude and with untreated injuries, for six hours.

We are blind to the labor in sugar cane fields that children as young as six endure in El Salvador – sugar cane that is sold to distributors, who sell the sugar to many companies, including the Coca-Cola Company.

We are blind to the case of Private LaVena Lynn Johnson, a young servicewoman who, while stationed in Iraq in 2005, died under extremely suspicious circumstances. The Army maintains that it was a suicide, while her father continues to fight for the truth.

Ignorance will only allow this behavior to continue. The pursuit of justice is an important cause, one that is vital to the very core of American values – that all are equal, that everyone can seek out what they deserve, that justice is actually just. The people of America need to stand up together and demand what we have been promised – the right to a fair trial, the right to be protected by officials rather than fear them, and that, above all, our voices be heard.

Sources:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=100466

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/06/09/turning-blind-eye

http://www.kmov.com/news/asseenonnews4/stories/kmov_localnews_070221_lavenajohnson.229c4b1a.html