CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal perspective

1 June 2010

The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. Will Rogers

 Theory of Economics (Reprint-12 Sept.)

  It was a week ago when Representative Eric  Cantor of Virginia(R) declared that the stimulus bill has failed and the President should use the remaining 400 million dollars to reduce the deficit. About the same time the Wall Street journal has proclaimed that the stimulus has worked making Eric Cantor look foolish. The truth of the matter Republicans have been saying that the stimulus has failed since late spring. Even a very obscure congressman such as Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas (R) has said as much. Such talk is analogous to a doctor telling a patient that the chemotherapy has not worked for the three months it has been tried and therefore it should be discontinued. One might think that Republicans are rooting for failure. After all this is to their political advantage if President Obama fails.

Republicans tend to favor tax cuts which favor the rich. This is, in the words of Archie Bunker, the Tinkle Down Theory of Economics. Give the money to the wealthy and they will tinkle down upon the less fortunate. The reality is that tax cuts for the rich is simply a way for Republicans to pay back a part of their base. If you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to those who would spend it. The wealthy already have plenty to spend. Letting them have more would not make any difference.

What would make a difference is giving money to the classes below those who are extremely well off. These people will spend money out of the necessity of survival. Providing jobs for the less fortunate and unemployed in times of economic distress will indeed stimulate the economy. How can it not be so. The workers of these jobs will spend their income at such places as retail outlets, theaters and amusement parks, thus causing a ripple effect in the economy. Eventually this money will rise to the top, hence creating a percolating effect. This is the Percolator Theory of Economics. This is what Republicans insist will not work.

Much of the stimulus funds went towards fixing the infrastructure in which is in plenty of places badly need of fixing. This brings an added benefit of doing what needs to be done anyway. The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis should have been a wake up call. Other than bridges, other projects involve highways, tunnels, railroads, the electrical grid, sewer systems, et cetera. Another part of the stimulus bill was the cash for clunkers program in which was panned by Republicans. By providing funds to car dealers as an incentive for the public to trade their less fuel efficient cars for those which more fuel efficient is certainly beneficial for the environment. The Percolator Theory of Economics rocks.

 The Percolator Theory of Economics Revisited

They, those of the GOP, insist that the stimulus did not work. Some even go as far as insist that not one job had been created. Yet in Wichita, Kansas hundreds of construction jobs have been created repairing and widening streets, highways and bridges. The need for these projects are too often ignored until something happens such as the collapse of I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River a few years ago. Eleven people died in that fiasco. Perhaps those conservatives who are enamored with cost- benefit analysis can apply it to that event in order to determine would it be worth the cost of providing better maintenance for it before a potential disaster could strike. What was the value of those who died in comparison to the costs of better maintenance?

The infrastructure refers to more than roads and bridges.  There are sewers and other aspects of solid waste management. Is not our environment also important? And the matter of maintaining the electrical grid and communication networks are not to be dismissed. There also railroad tracks being maintained in order to prevent trains from being derailed. This also means improving our transportation system such as providing high speed passenger trains used in both Europe and Japan. The latter proposal might also improve the nations industrial base thereby providing more jobs. These are things that matter. It is investing in the future while creating much needed jobs as well at the same time.The infrastructure of this nation is crumbling and is compared to the other industrial nations, a disgrace. The collapse of that bridge in Minneapolis is a harbinger of the future. Republicans are extremely myopic in seeing into our future and cannot see past giving tax cuts for their supporters- the rich and big corporate entities.

Republican Congressman Tod Tiahrt, representing the fourth district of Kansas, which includes Wichita, naturally marches in lockstep with his GOP House comrades against the interests of his district. As a member of the not so grand old party, he voted against the creation of those jobs within his own district. It has been argued by many a conservative that the jobs created are not real, since they are temporary in nature. What they ignore are the stimulative effects the jobs have on the economy. Like a defibrillator used to stimulate the heart, the economic stimulus acts in a similar manner. The jobs created will result in workers with money in their pockets buying the essentials needed for living in terms of goods and services. This is demand. The market will supply the goods and services to meet this demand.This in turn will encourage the hiring of new workers to help meet this demand in both existing and new businesses. This is the ripple effect which produces an economic chain reaction. Even though the unemployment rate seems to be stuck at 10%, what is ignored from the right is that the economy would be worse off without the stimulative effect the stimulus provided. If anything, the amount of the stimulus should have been greater.

Jobs have also been saved as well. The stimulus had provided funding for those jobs which are critical in meeting social needs such teachers, law enforcement officers and maybe even fire fighters. But one thing is certain- the income of those employed will percolate throughout the economy as the before mentioned would spend their income at retail outlets, at entertainment venues, on matters pertaining to transportation and personal needs involving the health and well being of themselves and their families. How can one argue that the jobs created by the stimulus made no difference.

There are those on the right that put forth the exaggerated argument of Republican lawmakers have made that "not one has been created" by the stimulus plan. Yet many of the same lawmakers brag about the jobs that was brought to their district via the stimulus in which had been done as a result of their hard work for the constituents. Even more hypocritical are the arguments from the GOP  that spending on constructing ships, planes, tanks, other military land vehicles, et cetera will provide jobs while they deny the same is also true with what the Democratic stimulus plan would do.

Much has been said from the right that Keynesian Economics does not work and as proof they have cited the New Deal experience. FDR when he campaigned for the Presidency in 1932, promised at a campaign stop in Pittsburgh that he would balance the federal budget. A few years later when such a promise seemed impossible to fulfill, he asked an aide what he should do. His aide replied that he should deny he was ever in Pittsburgh.

What those on the right either fails or refuses to understand is that President Roosevelt was not a true adherent to Keynesian Economics but rather was a pragmatist in search of a solution for the ongoing depression. Basically it was whatever works to bring about economic recovery. Even as he was running up deficits in trying to stimulate the economy, he also had a long term goal of balancing the budget in which was a restraint on spending. The result was as if one while driving had one foot on the brake and the other foot on the accelerator. But ultimately the economics of Keynes was proven by WWII, in which much greater deficits were ran up. Those of the right deny that this had anything to do with the recovery and yet cannot say why this is so.

What the right pushes is the stimulative effects of tax cuts which mostly benefit the wealthy, (while talking about such cuts in a way in which they imply will benefit all taxpayers equally.) This was the same argument put forth in the Reagan years which resulted in higher deficits and would do so until the Clinton administration. Cutting the taxes for the rich does not stimulate the economy, because those with millions have more than enough money to do some stimulating on their own already. They do not need more money to spend.  They have plenty already. What would give a boast to the economy is getting money to those who will spend it out of necessity and Republicans repeating their mantra about not raising taxes in anyone in the middle of a recession would not change this simple fact.

The conservative adoration for tax cuts for the ones they depend upon for financial support for the purpose of retaining a seat in Congress is getting rather tiresome. For every $1.00 in taxes cut, only $1.02 is returned to the economy. As far as unemployment benefits, whose extension Republican Senators had successfully filibustered recently, the benefit to the economy is $1.63 for every $1.00 invested. Some of those GOP Senators, such as Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, have argued that those benefits in which workers had already paid for, should be offset by spending cuts elsewhere. However, the prevalent opinion among Republican legislators is that the same is not true for tax cuts for the rich.

Those who are living off of unemployment benefits are said to too lazy and those unemployment benefits they receive are an incentive for those unemployed not to look for work. Senate  candidate Sharron Angle* is one of those Republicans who said so, even though one of the requirements for receiving such financial support is to report back where they have looked for employment. Furthermore, the problem for finding employment is that for every job available, five people are seeking to be employed in that job. But facts like that do not matter to people like Sharron Angle who are seeking their own employment by displacing her Democratic opponent, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Perhaps one may ask, given the facts presented, on what planet do those wingnuts reside? Perhaps wingnuts such as Sharron Angle should seek employment elsewhere.

* Susan Angle would not say this until after she defeated Sue Lowden and others in the primary. This article was finished on 1 August.


On Political Jokes - The Wonky Wacko Wingnut Women of the GOP
This [health care reform] cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass. Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom. And we may never be able to restore it if we don’t man up and take this one on.”  Michelle Bachman

Will Rogers had once said about the problem with political jokes is they get elected to political office. In the case of many prominent members of the GOP, this is all so true. An excellent example of this is Sue Lowden, a politician wannabe, advocates bartering as a means of paying doctor's fees. Although this had been done in the years of the Great Depression, which is what she might be thinking of, this country is far beyond that. (For more on this, see postscripts.)

Just suppose there were an award for the biggest political jokes elected to Congress and to the office of a state governor as well. As it is done in the Oscars, so shall it be done here as well. Four females will be nominated for this award
representing both Congress and state governors. For the male nominees, four will be nominated representing Congress and four representing the state Governors. The disparity of gender is  done because politics is still a male dominated profession. Those eligible need not be currently serving just as long as they are still prominent in the news coverage. The name of this award shall be the Wonky* Wacko Wingnut award or Wonky for short.




1. Representative Michele Bachman
n (R-Minnesota), is a Glenn Beck in drag and the reincarnation of Joe McCarthy. She gained infamy on Hardball with Chris Mathews, a MSNBC news program. On this program she declared that the news media should investigate our legislators in the US Congress and ascertain whether they held either anti-American or pro-American views. Later on Fox, she would call this proposed witch hunt an urban myth, even though millions of people witnessed her saying so and a tape of this interview still exists.

She has habit of invoking extremely violent images in her speeches which should earn her at least a PG 13 for those children attending.
Her talk of making covenants, slitting wrists and becoming "blood brothers" with her fellow teabaggers in order to prevent supposedly the Obama Administration reaching down the throat and ripping out of it the "guts of freedom" is not only violent but also somewhat nonsensical.*

But what is really pathetic is her verbal abuse of Americorps, an organization in which her son had joined. Its stated goal for its volunteers is to  "apply your skills and ideas toward helping others and meeting critical needs in the community." Nothing about it is mandatory nor does any communist style re-education take place as Bachmann had charged. Its merely an avenue for the nation's youth to help out the community in return for help attending college- a rather fair trade. Bachmann's smears for possible political gain are irresponsible and could possibly do harm to this program, which presently enjoys bipartisan support and has since its inception in 1993.
 
One only has to remember the "end of life council" between the doctor, the patient and the patient's family in which were reconstituted as death panels in the rhetorical excesses of Bachman, Palin and their kind. They do not understand the harm that lies can do. Now, since the provision providing reimbursement to the doctor for such conversations has been omitted from the health reform bill, the patient and his family will have to pay for the service.
Also noteworthy is her paranoia over the 2010 census being a part of some imagined liberal conspiracy to take over the nation.

2. Representative Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) does not get in the news often, but the few times she has were memorable. For example in September of 2005, only eleven members of Congress voted against $51 billion aid package for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Needless to say, Representative Foxx was one of the eleven members of Congress to vote nay. In view of the fact that her state is a potential target for hurricanes, that is an odd position to take because there might be a time in which her state might be ravaged by one of those hurricanes. Perhaps the fact that her district is roughly 200 miles from the coast makes any concern for those hurricanes rather moot. If so, what more can one say to her except, How parochial of you.

On the end-of-life issues
of health care reform, she partisanly and proudly proclaimed that her party offered "a better solution that won't put the government in charge of people's health care." The plan, says she, "is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government." Not being satisfied with making such a outlandish statement, she latter made a accusation that outdid what she had previously said."We have more to fear from the potential of Affordable Health Care for America Act passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."
     
The most infamous remarks she had ever made, was on the House floor. It was in regards to the murder of Matthew Shepard. In April of 2009, Foxx opposed the Matthew Shepard Act. In the debate, she argued that the claim his murder was a hate crime is "really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing hate crimes bills." While debating the merits of the act on the House floor, she called the murder a "very unfortunate incident."  She went on to declare that "we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay."  Perhaps she was misinformed by right-wing blogosphere. However this does no excuse for the failure to get her facts straight. To make her remarks worse, in attendance  of the House debate was Matthew Shepard's mother. If she, Foxx, really wanted to hear the truth, she could have asked the person who probably knew more of the case than anyone else on Capital Hill on that day. (For the truth, see Postscripts.)

3. Much has been already been written about the half-term, ex-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin here, in the CPC Report and more will be undoubtedly will written about her here in the future also. Thus there is no need to go into much depth on the subject of Palintology. In short, she is an egocentric, opportunistic, pathological liar. In regards of her Christian faith, she is a phony. She is one of those couch potato Christians would never work up a sweat in the practice of her faith, especially concerning the parts of the bible about one treating others as one would like to be treated. And she seems to be ignorant about the commandment concerning the bearing of false witness. At the very least she is not the slightest bit concerned about getting her facts straight. Furthermore she is unwilling to take responsibility for her own actions. Whenever something goes wrong in her life, it is  always the fault of someone else.

Numerous times during the 2008 campaign, VP candidate and then Governor Sarah Palin talked of the Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama was paling around with terrorists, although usually one name was spoken of- William Ayers of the Weather Underground. In putting forth this case she either lied or was just ignorant. His association with the ex-member of the weather underground was very limited. They served on the same commission together
which was dedicated to the improving public education in Chicago, with dozens of others. That is not paling around. The second thing brought up is that the Obama campaign was kicked off in Ayers living room. Actually it was in a Ramada Inn. (For more on this topic, see "Much ado about nothing in the 12 September 2009 edition.)

Just suppose she was plain ignorant of the before mentioned matter. That would not explain the constant make-overs she undergoes. When she was running for Governor, she was in favor of that bridge to nowhere. When she ran for Vice President she claimed to have been against it. The reporters, knowing that this was a part of public record, constantly challenged her until perhaps Palin grown tired of the subject, dropped it. Another case in point is her favorite topic- Drill, baby, drill. This cute slogan was about more drilling, such as in the Alaskan tundra national parks and off our coastal shores. On the later, she quite explicit. After the BP fiasco in the gulf, she blamed the disaster on Democrats by not allow more drilling on the mainland making drilling off shore a necessity, as if she had never favored drilling off our shores. Now that is a total makeover.

She blamed Katie Couric and Charlie Gibbs for those interviews in which she clearly had not prepared for. It was especially ludicrous that Palin could not even name one magazine or newspapers that she reads when she was asked by Couric. "All of them" is not a credible response. She also complains about media coverage for reporting what she says that ends up making her look like foolish.
The reporters were just doing their jobs. Her poor performance in interviews was not the fault of the reporters. It was her fault. (For more, see Sarah Palin's brain in the 8 August edition.)



3. A belated nominee has been discovered. She is the Republican Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. She is the Governor who is campaigning on the platform in favor of the recently passed "papers please law". She blames illegal immigration for much crime within the state and is presently using this as an issue in getting elected to another term as Governor.

Governor Brewer imagines headless corpses in the desert no one else can see. In a news conference, she announced that "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded." These corpses was the supposedly the result of the doings of illegal immigrants, also imagined by the Governor. (If the corpses are imagined, so too are their killers.) In any case, this claim has been disputed by six Arizonan medical examiners who confirmed that they had no records of decapitated bodies.

After being pestered with questions about those decapitated corpses, she denied saying any such thing and then she denies ever have denied saying anything about those corpses. What should come next? The denial of ever having denied denying saying anything of the kind. But rather continuing tying herself into verbal knots, she finally admitted (sort of) that the corpses do not exist. "That was an error, if I said that, I misspoke, but you know..." She the proceeded to say that she was concerned about violence in Mexico spreading into Arizona. So she expresses uncertainty that she had said what had been recorded for posterity and then states if true, she had misspoken. Imagine that.

(Update) Death panels in Arizona under Governor Brewer's watch. Read about in the 15 December 2010 edition.

4. Another nominee has been added insofar as it would seem wrong to exclude her. After all, how many teabagger, ex-witches have ever ran for public office in this country. The polls had shown that after she had won the GOP nomination for the Senator from Delaware, she had a snowman's chance of surviving in hell. S
he was so unacceptable that Karl Rove, the very epitome of the virtue of honesty, got upset and declared on Fixed News that she should be telling the truth about herself. In spite of Rove's remarks, to overlook her would just be so wrong. The nominee in question is of course Christine O'Donnell, who is not related to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC News either by blood or marriage. What lies Rove had in mind follows.
 

She has been accused of padding her academic credentials. She has also been accused of misusing campaign funds for personal needs; of making false statements in documents filed with the Federal Elections Commission and of owing back taxes to the IRS. And a controversy also arose whether or not she is a witch.

It was 17 September 2010 in which Bill Maher showed a film clip on his current TV show Real Time with Bill Maher which was from his previous show Politically Incorrect filmed back in 1999. In that clip she made the following statements- "I dabbled into witchcraft" and admitted to have participated "in a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar".  However she denied ever joining a coven. She supposedly put this issue to rest when she said in a political ad- "I'm not a witch. I'm (just like) you." Thus social conservatives everywhere can relax. She denied being a witch. After all, why would she lie?

Her academic credential in dispute pertain to her two previous campaigns for the Senate in 2006 and 2008. It was noticed by some reporters
that her educational record on her previous campaign websites were somewhat bogus. The 2006 and 2008 campaign websites stated she was a college graduate. The truth is she did not receive her undergraduate degree until September 2010. Why the delay? On this the witch of Delaware is of two minds. It was either because it was due to unpaid fees, or due to uncompleted coursework. It was also revealed that that cute little ex-witch from Delaware, O'Donnell, had claimed she had been accepted into a masters' degree program at Princeton University, even though she had only taken non-degree courses there.

Profiles of her on LinkedIn and Zoom Info stated she had studied at Oxford University in England when she had in reality merely taken a course run by an institution that was unaffiliated with Oxford and was just just renting room there. She supposedly she had attended Claremont Graduate University, according to a LinkedIn account posted under O'Donnell's name. The truth is she had received a fellowship from a think tank that was not affiliated with Claremont Graduate University but that had a rather similar name. Naturally this turned out to be another embarrassing embellishment. Naturally O'Donnell was totally unaware of these embarrassing embellishments. "I never established a LinkedIn profile or authorized anyone to do so on my behalf.” Her profile was thereafter removed. She just did not know about any of this- just a misunderstanding, it was.

O'Donnell's finances always seem to be in shambles. Her solution was to become a professional candidate- the Harold Stassen of these wacky times. Apparently running for public office is in part time employment for her, after all it is a great way to raise money. This attempt to get elected to the U.S. Senate is her 3rd attempt in 5 years. It is also the 2nd time she had been the GOP nominee for that office. In that 2004 election she lost to Senator Joe Biden 65% to 35%. In 2006, she lost in the GOP primary and as a write-in could manage to get only 4% of the vote.

O'Donnell, that cute little ex-witch, halted payments on the mortgage of her Wilmington house in October 2007. This was a great way to save money. Being quite resourceful, she had her campaign manager/boyfriend purchase the house in July 2008 which was a month before it was due to be auctioned off. This took care of the judgment for $90,000 made on behalf of the mortgage company against her. Free from this entanglement, she proceeded to run, run and run. And run she did, for now she is the GOP nominee for the Senate.

Since then, that good little ex-witch O'Donnell has been accused of lying in documents filed with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Her accuser was the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. She has also been accused of illegally using in excess of $20,000 of her campaign funds as "her very own personal piggy bank". This allegedly took place when officially nothing was going on.

Financial troubles eventually drove her to a Delaware townhouse. One half of the rent there was paid for with campaign funds. She cleverly used separate quarters in her home as her campaign headquarters. What a smart little witch.

But O'Donnell has put all of this to rest. She proclaimed "No truth to it. I personally have not misused the campaign funds" Next the IRS takes a shot at O'Donnell. This agency insisted that former witch owed $11,000 in back taxes. It was a mistake; It was a computer error. O'Donnell went on to declare that even the IRS agent handling the matter said that he was perplexed by his agency's actions. He was perplex on a matter that he as the IRS agent was in charge of. What a perplexing individual is he.

In the aftermath of her primary victory, O'Donnell asked of voters to be an open minded and remember that media reports are not always accurate. She gave a speech to the Values Voter Summit on September 16 saying that anti-American elites (liberals) were trying to marginalize mainstream conservatives, such as herself. Damn those American hating liberals.

5. 
Sue Lowden & Sharron Angle. She is at the time this was written, the GOP candidate in Nevada running against Senator Harry Reid. She runs away from reporters and even did it once from a press conference she had scheduled herself. That and her yet to be explained "2nd Amendment remedy" interpretation of that constitutional amendment qualify her for this dubious distinction. In regards the latter, Angle has yet to explain what she meant. It is a kind of question she tends to run away from. All that is left over is speculation.

Beginning with what is already known about the Conservative position on gun rights regarding the right to arm bears the right to bear arms. (Actually arming bears would be safer than the wingnut insistence of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be absolute.) Hence, everyone is entitled to buy guns- criminals, terrorists, the mentally ill who have shown violent tendencies, et cetra. Their advocacy of national instant background checks is a total farce for after years of Republican control of Congress, nothing had been done to establish this. Perhaps Republicans thought we cannot afford doing so.

In terms of national politics, it has been argued by wingnuts that the 2nd Amendment Remedy is an individual check on the power of the federal government, which leads to some interesting questions. Does this means that an election can be overturned by an armed insurrection of a minority? Since the right takes upon itself to define what qualifies as Americanism and since the left are considered Unamerican by their definition of what makes one a true American, is the right to nullify an election the sole right of the right? Is Sharon Angle talking about overthrowing a duly elected government just because she and her wingnut friends do not appreciate the outcome of that election? Is it any wonder she refuses to answer to questions to an issue of her own making. Her threat to resort to 2nd Amendment Remedies if she and her kind fails to get an outcome one of their own liking is truly scary. This leaves us with just one question- will Sharon Angle costumes be a big hit this coming Halloween?

(Update) But is especially noteworthy was the racist campaign she ran against the incumbent- Senator Harry Reid. For more on this, see the 15 August 2010 edition.

* Wonky is British slang for being wrong.


Richard Cory by Edwin Arlington Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich – yes, richer than a king –
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.




Postscripts

To whom it may concern,
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get away from Sue Lowden*, who pays her doctor with chickens. Sorry, just another chicken joke.

*Sue Lowden is a Republican candidate for the  Republican nomination for the US Senate seat for Nevada who has advocated bartering as a means to pay off bills. If she had defeated Sharron Angle in the GOP primary, she probably would have been the wonky nominee instead of Angle.

To Sue Lowden,

How many chickens would it take a doctor to pay off his  expenses, such as his malpractice insurance? And what in the hell would his or her insurance company do with all of those chickens?


To Representative Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina),

The murder of Michael Shepard was indeed a hate crime, so before you go shooting off your mouth again, here are some facts that you, Ms Foxx, should be aware of.

1. The prosecution argued that Aaron McKinney and Russel Henderson had pretended to be homosexuals with the motive of using trust as a means of getting him to lower his guard and therefore to be able to lure him to a secluded place to be robbed.

2. Witnesses had testified that he, Michael Shepard, was targeted because he was gay. Among the witnesses were Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price, the girlfriends of McKinney and Henderson respectively. They testified that crime was premeditated and it was the intent of the two now convicted murders to rob a gay man.

3. Originally the gay panic defense was planned by the defense. Allegations of unwanted sexually advances by Shepard supposedly caused temporary insanity not just in one of them, but rather in both of them and not only lead to his murder but also to him being robbed. This defense was not pursued. Perhaps the absurdity of the defense was the cause of its not being used.

Michael Shepard was not just robbed, he was also tied to a fence post and violently and sadistically pistol-whipped. He was left tied up without medical attention for 18 hours. Initially mistaken for a scarecrow, he was found and rushed to a hospital where he would later die. At the time he was discovered, he was in a coma. The fact is McKinney and Henderson sought out not someone who was heterosexual, but rather someone who was homosexual. Yes Virginia, it was a hate crime.

Wikipedia was the source for this letter.

To Sue Lowden again,

Do you accept chickens as campaign contributions?


 Glynn Braman

Make a Free Website with Yola.