“Progressives” and Religious Liberty Written By Laurie Higgins

http://illinoisfamily.org/religious/progressives-and-religious-liberty/

And here's what the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said in "Letter from Birmingham Jail":

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

…

More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God…. 

…

I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

…

I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?" 

…

In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. 

Charles Slavik

~;::::::;( )">  ¯\_( )_/¯   

Bay Area BBWAA for/against Bonds - Bonds wins in court of law, will lose in court of public opinion

A. R. Cassidy, "Justice Hurling a Bomb"
Engraving, Graphic News
June 5, 1886
http://www.chicagohistory.org/dramas/act3/courtOfPublicOpinion/justiceStrikesBack_f.htm
Here a determined female figure representing the state and standing on what appears to be an anarchist flag or banner seems to behave like a stereotypical anarchist. She hurls a fizzing bomb labeled "law" at the fleeing crowd. While at least two men carry guns, this "mob" looks more like middle-class Chicagoans than working people. In the upper right is an uncannily prophetic vision of the actual police monument that would be unveiled three years later.

Recently there have been some murmurs that perhaps Bonds and Clemens should be "allowed" in the Hall of Fame if for no other reason than, especially in Bonds' case, they were fairly certain to be HOF'ers before they started failing the "eyeball" test. 

Many are worried that if Piazza and his "back-ne" are allowed in, then it would be silly to exclude Bonds, Clemens and certainly Jeff Bagwell. Palmeiro may be the only one in trouble for having wagged his finger at Congress and then failing a drug test. Maybe he should be in the Stupid Hall of Fame. 

from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion

1. Trying cases in the court of public opinion refers to using the news media to influence public support for one side or the other in a courtcase. This can result in persons outside the justice system (i.e. people other than the judge or jury) taking action for or against a party.

Sosa and McGwire get in IMO as well. If Judge Kenesaw "Mountain" Landis is in for "saving" baseball after the Black Sox scandal,  then Sosa and McGwire deserve to be in as well. They brought the game back when it was tetering on the brink of irrelevancy after the owners canceled the World Series. They should consider themselves lucky that after the "fell good" effect of the Cal Ripken milestone passed, something started the turnstiles humming again. And it was "the Long Ball". 

Anyone care to put a number on how much each owner or franchise has pocketed in revenue to say nothing of the cumulative franchise value increases due largely in part to the HR chase? Billions, approaching trillions, I would guess. 

BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: En Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction

		BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: En Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction SAN FRANCISCO — An en banc appellate panel reviewing the criminal case of Barry Bonds on Thursday afternoon seemed poised to reverse the former baseball slugger's 2011 obstruction of justice conviction.
		View on www.baseballthinkfactory.org	Preview by Yahoo

I watched a lot of this last night. Who knows what they'll decide but I would be surprised if the conviction is not overturned; that certainly seemed to be the way the judges were heading with their questions (and they sort of scoffed and laughed their way through the questioning of the government's attorney). They gave the government's attorney a very hard time. The judges were incredulous that Bonds could be convicted of obstruction after ultimately answering the question. (The government tried to argue that he rambled with an ill purpose, i.e., to evade the question, but this argument flies out the window once you realize that he then answered the bleeping question after he was asked it again. Plus it's the lawyer's job to get a rambling witness back on point. Along with several other reasons why the government is in bad shape here.)

The judges were also displeased that the initial indictment did not even set forth that Bonds was going to be tried for obstruction on this particular sequence. The judges brought up the delicious irony that he was convicted of being evasive but the government was evasive in indicting him in that they didn't even tell him in the initial indictment that he would be tried for this. Also one judge made the statement that if this were obstruction then "most or all of the bar who practices civil litigation and responds to interrogatories with evasive answers would be in prison for obstruction."

So, to recap: A $100 million witch hunt of Bonds and Clemens, and Clemens was acquitted and now it appears for all the world that the tiny sliver of "victory" the government had for getting a conviction on just one of the many perjury and obstruction counts against Bonds -- and a bogus conviction at that -- will be thrown out.

The only thing the judges have yet to comment on is the yawn-inducing question of whether Bonds will now get Andy's imaginary Hall of Fame vote.

People have forgotten how dominant Bonds was in this game prior to 1999 and how many MVP awards he should have won. Terry Pendleton my ass. He should have won it over Barry Larkin in 1995 as well and Caminiti in 1996. Nothing going on over there, right? And you can make a case that in 1998 he should have bested Sammy Sosa. That would have been 7 MVP's from 1990-1998 and you can check his "physique" out and see if the passes the drug test du jour any more than Sosa. 

Voters  Avg  HR  RBI  WAR   WAR Winner  Avg  HR  RBI  WAR

1988 Gibson .290 25 76 6.47 B.Butler .287 6 43 6.811989 Mitchell .291 45 125 6.91 L. Smith .315 21 79 8.791990 Bonds .301 33 114 9.73 Bonds1991 Pendleton .319 22 86 6.11 Bonds .292 43 116 7.931992 Bonds .311 34 103 9.04 Bonds1993 Bonds .336 46 123 9.89 Bonds1994 Bagwell .368 39 116 8.16 Bagwell1995 Larkin .319 15 66 5.9 Bonds .294 33 104 7.471996 Caminiti .326 40 130 7.54 Bonds .308 42 129 9.681997 Walker .366 49 130 9.81 Walker1998 Sosa .308 66 158 6.43 Bonds .303 37 122 8.061999 C. Jones .319 45 110 6.87 Bagwell .304 42 126 7.382000 Kent .334 33 125 7.17 Helton .372 42 147 8.862001 Bonds .328 73 137 11.88 Bonds2002 Bonds .370 46 110 11.78 Bonds2003 Bonds .341 45 90 9.16 Bonds2004 Bonds .362 45 101 10.65 Bonds2005 Pujols .330 41 117 8.39 Pujols2006 Howard .313 58 149 5.19 Pujols .331 49 137 8.452007 Rollins .296 30 94 6.07 Pujols .327 32 103 8.742008 Pujols .357 37 116 9.19 Pujols2009 Pujols .327 47 135 9.71 Pujols2010 Votto .324 37 113 7.16 Pujols .312 42 118 7.512011 Braun .332 33 111 7.83 Kemp .324 39 126 8.132012 Posey .336 24 103 7.38 Posey

Distorted Incentives for Prosecutors and the Justice Department Ferguson Report

Here I think outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder saved his best work for last and he should be applauded for that. The Ferguson Police Department investigation threw water on the fire rather than gasoline and is very well done.  

One wonders how many other communities, whether they be predominantly white or black, are chafing under the yoke of a police department that operates as a "revenue generator" rather than protector of the community.  The same dynamic plays itself out in the obscene levels of incarceration seen in some areas of this country that have turned entire neighborhoods into American Gulags.

Distorted Incentives for Prosecutors, by David Henderson Posted: 09 Mar 2015 03:18 PM PDT You get (more of) what you (don't) pay for. When a local prosecutor sends a convicted felon to prison, the cost of keeping him locked up--an average of $31,286 per year--is paid for entirely by the state, not the county where the prosecutor holds office. The problem with this setup, some argue, is that prosecutors end up enjoying a "correctional free lunch," meaning they can be extremely aggressive in their charging decisions without having to worry about how much it will cost the local taxpayers who elected them. If prosecutors were forced to take the cost of incarceration into account, the theory goes, there might not be 1.36 million people in America's state prisons. This is the first paragraph of an excellent piece in Slate on the distorted incentives that prosecutors face. The piece, by Leon Neyfakh, is titled "How to Stop Overzealous Prosecutors." Of course, if the locals pay all the costs of an incarceration, you might get "under zealous" prosecutors. Why? Because the benefits of prosecution don't all flow to the locals. Some of the benefits arguably go to people in other parts of the state and, maybe, other parts of the country. I don't worry about this incentive in the other direction, though, when I look at police behavior and D.A. behavior. I think the downside from too few prosecutions is much less than the downside from too many. It seems unlikely that prosecutors would substitute by prosecuting more marijuana crimes and fewer murders. As almost anyone who looks at the criminal justice system in America (and I use the word "justice" loosely) can see, it's what my military officer students call a Charley Foxtrot. The Justice Department report on Ferguson's system as a revenue generator rather than a justice seeker was highly informative. (See pp. 9-15 of the report.) I do have one problem, though, with the proposal from W. David Ball that the Slate author mentions. Neyfakh writes: "Ball argues that states should take the money they're currently spending on their prison systems, distribute it among counties based on their violent crime rate, and allow local decision-makers to spend it as they see fit." Professor Bell is proposing that the more violent crime a county has, the more money it would get. Do you see a problem? (9 COMMENTS) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf III. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON GENERATING REVENUE  IV. FERGUSON LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES VIOLATE THE LAW AND UNDERMINE COMMUNITY TRUST, ESPECIALLY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS  V. CHANGES NECESSARY TO REMEDY FERGUSON'S UNLAWFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES AND REPAIR COMMUNITY TRUST  A. Ferguson Police Practices  1. Implement a Robust System of True Community Policing 2. Focus Stop, Search, Ticketing and Arrest Practices on Community Protection  3. Increase Tracking, Review, and Analysis of FPD Stop, Search, Ticketing and Arrest Practices 4. Change Force Use, Reporting, Review, and Response to Encourage De-Escalation and the Use of the Minimal Force Necessary in a Situation  5. Implement Policies and Training to Improve Interactions with Vulnerable People 6. Change Response to Students to Avoid Criminalizing Youth While Maintaining a Learning Environment  7. Implement Measures to Reduce Bias and Its Impact on Police Behavior 8. Improve and Increase Training Generally  9. Increase Civilian Involvement in Police Decision Making 10. Improve Officer Supervision

Barry Bonds Case: Conviction Reversal Seems Likely

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.

“Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.” - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow



from San Jose Mercury News:
Barry Bonds Case: Conviction Reversal Seems Likely:

That doubt was evident Thursday, as the judges peppered the government with questions about how a rambling, truthful answer to a question about obtaining and using steroids could be transformed into obstruction of justice. The judges were particularly troubled by the fact that the statement used to convict Bonds was not even specifically cited in the indictment against him, just wrapped up in jury instructions in the obstruction count.

Bonds was indicted on charges related to lying to the grand jury about whether he used steroids while chasing baseball's all-time home run records. A jury more than three years ago deadlocked on perjury charges against Bonds but convicted him on an obstruction charge for his rambling answer to a question about whether his former personal trainer, Greg Anderson, had ever supplied or injected him with steroids.

The answer included musings about being "a celebrity child with a famous father" and other remarks jurors later said were meant to evade questions about his steroid use.

The 9th Circuit judges wondered how that answer could result in obstructing justice when Bonds answered directly to follow-up questions. The jury declined to convict him for those answers.

"That's your problem, in my view," Judge Susan Graber told the government.

Chan told the judges that Bonds' testimony involved a "linchpin statement" that was designed to obstruct the BALCO investigation. In last year's ruling, a unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel rejected Bonds' legal arguments that he was convicted of simply providing a rambling answer that did not amount to a crime. The judges found the testimony "evasive" and "misleading."

Some judges pressed Bonds' lawyer, Dennis Riordan, about whether even a rambling statement could be used to obstruct justice.

"Truthful but misleading statements can logically lead ... to suppression of evidence," said Judge Jacqueline Nguyen.

'via Blog this'

Whitlock: My real take on gun control after Jovan Belcher tragedy - NFL News | FOX Sports

Nothing like closing the barn door after the horses have gone, Mr. Whitlock, the damage has been done. Maybe next time act more like a professional journalist. So now we know. Nine shots and blood-alcohol twice the legal limit. But before we knew those facts folks like Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas had already pretended to know just the right reason why this happened. And pontificated on same and ran the ball even further from the football field into the political arena. Like fish out of water.


from ESPN.com
Kasandra Perkins, slain girlfriend of Kansas City Chiefs LB Jovan Belcher, shot nine times -- autopsy - ESPN:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher had a blood-alcohol level more than twice the legal limit when he shot his girlfriend nine times and then killed himself in front of his coach and general manager, an autopsy released Monday showed.

The Jackson County Medical Examiner report on Belcher, 25, raised new questions about whether police should have done more before the Dec. 1 murder-suicide. Officers found Belcher sleeping in his idling car about five hours earlier, but let him go inside a nearby apartment to sleep it off.

Jovan Belcher had a blood-alcohol level more than twice the legal limit when he fatally shot his girlfriend nine times and then killed himself, an autopsy showed.

At the time of the autopsy, Belcher's BAC was 0.17, more than twice the limit of 0.08 percent for Missouri drivers, and it was likely higher when he shot girlfriend Kasandra Perkins, 22, at the couple's Kansas City home.

'via Blog this'

Jason Whitlock's semi-mea culpa from Fox Sports:

Whitlock: My real take on gun control after Jovan Belcher tragedy - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN:

The NRA traffics in fear, division and the seductive power of guns — the same tools used by the KKK. Other than money, I don’t think the NRA has a dog in the race. It just wants all sides armed to the hilt and convinced the other side is ready to shoot. That’s the recipe that left a 17-year-old Jacksonville kid dead over loud music blaring from a car.

'via Blog this'

Costas weighs in from Legal Insurrection:

» If Jevon Belcher didn’t possess a gun, would he and Kasandra Perkins really both be alive today? - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

Bob Costas’ commentary on the murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs player Jevon Belcher is receiving a lot of attention.

I understand the points, via Ed Morrissey,  that people don’t tune in to a football game for gun control proselytizing, and that Costas focused on the gun control issue rather than the core issue of domestic violence.

If Jevon Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

'via Blog this'



Good job fools. But this is how media circuses are formed and used by politicos to push agendas and get laws passed that wouldn't pass under normal, more rational circumstances. Whitlock is nothing more than a bomb-thrower here and Bob Costas is once again a patsy and a fool .

Using Pelosian logic, he had to pass judgement on the article before he could read it.

You didn't think that this is "how laws are made" garbage you heard in grade school is how things work in the real world?

Sorry students, welcome to the real world!!

Oh playa, Puh-lease!!! It's more the Delphi Technique and the Hegelian Dialectic now.

Remember the infamous "beer summit" when Barack Obama was first elected? That came from his penchant for speaking first and then asking questions later. Before all the facts are in.

from thepoliticalguide.com:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Scandals/The_Beer_Summit/

Involvement of the President

The controversy involved President Obama when he was asked during a health care press conference what he thought the arrest said about race relations in America.  The President then recounted the event noting that at the time it was believed that Professor Gates lost his keys.  Despite acknowledging that he did not have all the facts at hand, the President stated that it could not be denied that the police in the incident "acted stupidly".  He then went on to cite that statistics show that blacks and hispanics are targeted by cops more often than other races, tying one issue to the other.

How about Trayvon Martin and that fiasco? Haven't heard much about him lately. Probably because someone did a cursory background check on him and told the president "Bad choice for the son you never had there chief"

from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/2012/03/23/gIQApKPpVS_story.html

The nation’s difficult history with race relations has been central to the narrative of Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency and has often complicated the ways in which he deals with the issue both as a candidate and as president.

The problem you run into is not unlike the lesson learned from the parable of The Boy who Cried Wolf.

from wikipedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear, the villagers do not believe the boy's cries for help, and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end of the story shows that this is how liars are not rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them."^[2] This echoes a statement attributed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laërtius in his The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, where the sage was asked what those who tell lies gain by it and he answered "that when they speak truth they are not believed".^[3] William Caxton similarly closes his version with the remark that "men bileve not lyghtly hym whiche is knowen for a lyer".^[4]

So then comes a story that might perhaps merit a racial bias or discrimination angle -- like the Jordan Davis shooting in Jacskonville, FL -- and where is the coverage of this story? Nowhere!! Whitlock may have alluded to it briefly, but nothing from the nations capital that I'm aware of.

Apparently, no political agenda could be advanced by this case, at this time. No political mileage could be gained for this story to be advanced.

from Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/27/florida-man-charged-with-killing-teen-over-loud-music/

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. –  A Florida man has been charged with fatally shooting a teenager outside a Jacksonville convenience store following an argument that was triggered because the music coming from the teen's car was too loud.

Michael Dunn is facing murder and attempted murder charges in the shooting of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Davis was waiting inside the car with two other teenagers while the car's 19-year-old driver made a purchase inside the gas station. Dunn was outside the store waiting for his girlfriend.

"They were listening to music. It was loud, they admitted that," said Lt. Rob Schoonover, a homicide detective with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. "But that's not a reason to open fire ... and take action."

Buzz Bissinger: I Was Deluded to Believe Lance Armstrong When He Denied Doping - The Daily Beast

So Buzz Bissinger was deluded about Lance Armstrong.....


from The Daily Beast:
Buzz Bissinger: I Was Deluded to Believe Lance Armstrong When He Denied Doping - The Daily Beast:

I gave him the total benefit of the doubt. I used the logic that his blood doping was irrelevant because the sport of competitive cycling was rife with it. I referred to his heroic battle to overcome testicular cancer. I cited his foundation, Livestrong, and the legitimately good work it had on done on behalf of millions of cancer patients. I repeated his mantra that the witnesses cooperating with the USADA were a rogues’ gallery of disgraced cyclists with proven credibility problems. I wondered aloud how, if he had consistently cheated, he had passed more than 500 drug tests.

I called him a hero, using typically defiant and outspoken language. There were millions who felt the same way. But none of these millions had the power of the printed word like I did.

Because I was played by Armstrong. I was played when he told me with such heartfelt conviction that he was “at peace” with the decision he had made not to fight the USADA any longer. I believed the assertions coming time and time again from his camp that USADA head Travis Tygart was conducting a vendetta and witch hunt, offering immunity to known liars just so they would testify against Armstrong.

'via Blog this'

......but The Slav was not. Better late than never, Buzz.

Conte again refuses to roll over on Bonds!! What's wrong with this guy?

SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 2006

http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2006/03/conte-again-refuses-to-roll-over-on.html

We still want to glorify the guys we like like Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens and demonize those we don't like. Even when there is as much evidence or questions about one or the other. I still submit that if you truly believe Bonds is a user, you almost have to honestly admit that Lance Armstrong is a user. But few people do say Yes to both. A failed drug test, even though he and his supporters always submit the defense that he never failed a drug test, former teammates who have "testified" in the court of public opinion that he used. Why is the "evidence" of their testimony discounted so readily and others so readily accepted?

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy...and Bonds at 740.

SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2007

http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2007/04/hypocrisy-hypocrisy-hypocrisy.html

I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.

Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue. 

That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
 "Oh no, no way".

How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances. 

There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? 

Hate to say, "I told you so" but when Armstrong spills his guts to Oprah -- and I fully believe he will or his people would have been out in force with denials of recent reports that he will do just that  -- then everything I was saying six or seven years ago and more about the climate, the culture, the media and the chosen few who were exempted from being publicly vilified and pilloried by the machine that creates false "folk devils" and "moral panics" will be proven to be true!!  This is the media's modus operandi and I've been railing about it for some time.

Good luck explaining why you hid behind the skirts of cancer patients and our inherent distrust of the French to keep the press off your trail, Lance. Hopefully, Oprah presses you on this aspect of your prior denials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

A moral panic is an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order.^[1] According to Stanley Cohen, author of Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) and credited as creator of the term, a moral panic occurs when "[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests".^[2] Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as moral entrepreneurs, while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as "folk devils".

Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension and in which disagreement is difficult because the matter at its center is taboo.^[3] The media have long operated as agents of moral indignation, even when they are not consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic.^[4]

Characteristics

Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:

• Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.

• Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".

• Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.

• Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.

• Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.^[1]

Bonds was just such a "folk devil", the poster boy for all that was wrong with the steroid issue and baseball.

And guys like Lance -- and for a time Clemens and McGwire -- were getting a pass from the "moral panic" that was ginned up to target Bonds specifically. Now these guys are being splattered as well.

And if people don't believe that this type of process is not symptomatic of the type institutional racism that bleeds through almost every aspect of how we institute justice in this country, than they are hopelessly delusional.

And shame on us, all of us, for that -- I have to give credit where credit is due.

Beaning Roger Clemens - July 14, 2011 - The New York Sun

These guys may have just decided to take a knee on this one. Prosecutors track record on the issue is not very good. Maybe they just took a dive. We've heard of jury nullification courtesy of the O.J. trial, this may be a form of late-stage "prosecutorial nullification" or indifference. They just don't feel like they have a winnable case. This is not the court of public opinion where any idiot with a column can chime in with an opinion that passes as evidence. There are actually rules of procedure that both sides must adhere to. Much easier to convict in the court of public opinion.

The reason I think the prosecutors "took a dive" comes from the judges own words when he declared the mistrial -- the judge said the prosecutors committed missteps that "a first-year law student" would have avoided.

Beaning Roger Clemens - July 14, 2011 - The New York Sun:

"By our lights, this whole question has been so tainted in our eyes by the behavior of Congress that the right thing is to just drop it altogether now. Our sentiments are with the celebrated baseball columnist of the Sun, Tim Marchman, who told us this afternoon in respect of Mr. Clemens: “He probably juiced, he probably lied, and he’s probably the greatest pitcher who ever lived. It would be nice if it there were an easy way to separate those things from one another, but there isn’t, and anyway it’s a job for baseball historians, not prosecutors.”"

Book review of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine.
By Clay S. Conrad.
Reviewed by Glenn Reynolds

http://instapundit.com/lawrev/conradrv.htm

Every day, in courtrooms around the nation, cases like this end with the defendants being placed on probation, sent into diversion programs, or - perhaps most commonly - not prosecuted at all. At every stage up to the trial, state actors have discretion to drop prosecution, reduce the charges, or approve probation or diversion. That discretion is almost entirely unreviewable. It is also almost entirely without remark or inquiry.

...The prosecutor and judge, however, apparently felt that justice would not be served by sending the son of a local business leader - even one with prior offenses on his record - off to jail. Yet strangely enough, the notion that a jury might have discretion to make the same kind of judgment appears shocking, even un-American, to many. Jurors are unaccountable, after all (though prosecutors and judges are not especially accountable either, and are also shielded by absolute immunity).

Historically, this trust of prosecutors and judges over jurors is a relatively recent innovation, and it may not be entirely merited. Despite all the famous cases of alleged juror nullification, it is "prosecutorial nullification" - more commonly known as "prosecutorial discretion" - that plays the greatest part in keeping malefactors out of jail. Given that both kinds of nullification exist, which is more likely to constitute an abuse of discretion, or to take place in opposition to the values of the community? As Clay S. Conrad's book makes clear, the answer is not as easy as most modern discussion would have it. ....

Sammy Sosa claimed he couldn't speak English in front of Congress. There is plenty of evidence to show this to be an outright lie or perjury.

Mark McGwire blatantly refused to answer direct questions posed to him. Obstruction of justice.

Rafael Palmeiro wagged his finger indignantly to the Congress and stated he never used steroids. Then he failed a drug test a short time later. Yet the Congress felt they didn't have enough evidence that he lied.

So "prosecutorial indifference" or discretion or nullification is used all the time.

Miguel Tejeda might be go down as the only one to plead guilty and that was for lying about talking about steroid use with other players.

from the Washington Post:
Tejada to Plead Guilty to Lying to Steroids Investigators
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021001356_2.html?sid=ST2009021003699

The one count on which Barry Bonds was convicted of was for being evasive in an answer to the grand jury.

So while I don't take great pleasure in saying I told you so, well, I told you so all along.

Congress engaged in this witch-hunt, if you will recall, while our economy and our financial system were apparently in the simmering stage of a total meltdown.

We were told not to worry, that Congress could multi-task, they could walk and chew gum at the same time.

Apparently, just from observing how they have handled the recent debt limit talks, these clown-asses can't even handle ONE task at a time without totally screwing things up.

Once again, a sad example of our tax dollars at work.

Phil Angelides Discusses America's Dual Justice System: One For Wall Street And One For Everyone Else | zero hedge

Not much different than the Dodd - Frank debacle. Angelides was part of the problem, therfore it's silly to put him in position to be part of the solution.

You don't call the arsonist to put out the fire, you call a fireman.

Funny, Barney Frank and Beans was on the air yesterday defending Dodd - Frank (duh) and saying the regulators didn't have the resources to fight the last crisis, but now they do.

You can sleep easier America, Barney Fife, er Barney Frank is on the case.

My problem with that argument is:

The evidence is clear they had sufficient resources, they spent too much time being distracted by surfing porn and cozying up with the folks they were supposed to be regulating in order to position themselves for their next (more lucrative) job after government (non)-service.

As the Madoff debacle illustrated, the regulators couldn't smell out criminality when it was right under their noses. More resources does not cure ineptitude, it just provides a veneer of competence. The results will be the same.

Angelides quotes may be rather pithy, but did it really take this debacle and ad nauseum public hearing for him to come to this basic conclusion regarding human nature and behavior.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? This seems like basic garden variety "NO DUH" stuff to me. But what do I know?



Phil Angelides Discusses America's Dual Justice System: One For Wall Street And One For Everyone Else | zero hedge:

"Lisa Murphy of Bloomberg interviewed the chairman of the now defunct FCIC, Phil Angelides to discuss the findings presented yesterday by Carl Levin. The topic was the 'greased pig' that is Wall Street. The conclusion is that America now has a dual justice system: 'One for ordinary people and then one for people with money and enormous wealth and power.' As for crime deterrents, considering that to this day not one person has gone to prison, even an idiot can foresee what Angelides has to say on this issue: 'To the extent laws were broken, we need deterrents. If someone robs a 7-11, they took $500 and they were able to settle the next day for $50 and no admission of wrongdoing, they'd knock over that 7-11 again. And we've seen time after time where people and firms have made tens, one hundreds, billions of dollars. They've settled charges for pennies on the dollar. At Citigroup for example they represented that they had $13 billion of subprime mortgage exposure when they really had $55 billion. The penalty to the chief financial officer who made $19 million that year, 2007, was $100,000. Goldman was fined $500 million but the date they settled their stock moved up $2 billion. There's been no real consequence.'"