Way to go, J. T.
J. T. Henderson is the man who was favorably quoted by President Obama in a press conference on Wednesday evening April 6. The story, which broke on Wednesday on a local ABC affiliate, WHAS-TV, made it to Obama's ears -- and speech -- and has been carried on the website of LEO, an independent newspaper in Louisville, my home town. The story is complete with a link to the Obama press conference. Please read the whole story (and watch the video links) in J. T. 's own words, before we go on.
To my mind, his best lines are right here:
If I had the opportunity to address President Obama, Speaker Boehner, Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Reid or Sen. McConnell, I would urge them to take action and remember that grandstanding by both parties has real consequences for those of us downhill. This potential shutdown is not just played out on the news by the talking heads- it is played out in living rooms all across America by real people. I read that our soldiers would not be paid until this was all settled! How can this be? Unfortunately, I cannot run my household and family budget like our federal government! I am required to pay my debts as they are due.
Draw your own conclusions, but I'd say J. T. hit the nail right on the head.
May the politicians and bureaucrats who dominate both major parties, on the orders of their special-interest handlers, take note. It is time for their acts of fraud and deception against the good people of this country to cease.
I am pleased to say that I have known J. T. and his family my entire life, and he is the real deal. Thanks for telling it like it is, man.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Profusion of Thought, Economy of Belief
The Earth is a marvelous Work, filled with a thousand holy grandeurs and a million fascinations and I shall never get to the end of it all. Nor do I want to: never in all of Reality will there be a Final Word. The longer I live, the more interesting and informing life becomes, and the boundaries of possibility recede beyond knowledge like a far horizon backdropped with stars.
Nature, they say, abhors a vacuum, but I am not so sure: why then was she created with so much of that emptiness which she is said to abhor?
But Life, I might say, loves to fill empty spaces. He is always penetrating the bare slopes of mountains with hardy trees and grasses, and covering the nakedness of bare soil and plowed ground with weeds and creeping vines and high canopies he has at hand. He ventures into the depths of the sea to seed volcanic vents with His strange creations, and thereby plants oases in the very heart of the Abyss. And if the mathematical philosopher Leibniz is to be believed, Life may actually infuse Light itself with intention and purpose, bringing direction, significance, and meaning to everywhere that is.
As a living thing, then, my mind (and yours too, I am sure) tends to be filled with profusions of thought. May it ever be, world without end, amen.
But faith, being both more and less than thought, may not seek profusions: it may seek simplicity, even silence, in hope of finding its deeper joys.
I wonder sometimes if certain Christians, in their attempts to elaborate "The Faith" and codify those elaborations, did more harm than good in transmitting that elaborate faith to their successors, ourselves, and the intervening generations that have joined us to them. Truth and tradition joined with speculations and assertions: some were no doubt very good; some perhaps were less so. And here we are, and here I am.
I like to be a free thinker; that is, I like to think freely, and to be free to think freely. And I feel free to believe, and to search out the roots of that belief, and to seek some simplicity.
I find myself deeply attracted to that very ancient thing, the Apostle's Creed, and the even more ancient Mystery of Godliness, found in St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy. The Apostle's Creed has traditionally been divided into twelve articles: the Mystery of Godliness contains, by one count, seven.
I believe, it is enough. I am refreshed to muse upon what is meant, and what is signified.
Nature, they say, abhors a vacuum, but I am not so sure: why then was she created with so much of that emptiness which she is said to abhor?
But Life, I might say, loves to fill empty spaces. He is always penetrating the bare slopes of mountains with hardy trees and grasses, and covering the nakedness of bare soil and plowed ground with weeds and creeping vines and high canopies he has at hand. He ventures into the depths of the sea to seed volcanic vents with His strange creations, and thereby plants oases in the very heart of the Abyss. And if the mathematical philosopher Leibniz is to be believed, Life may actually infuse Light itself with intention and purpose, bringing direction, significance, and meaning to everywhere that is.
As a living thing, then, my mind (and yours too, I am sure) tends to be filled with profusions of thought. May it ever be, world without end, amen.
But faith, being both more and less than thought, may not seek profusions: it may seek simplicity, even silence, in hope of finding its deeper joys.
I wonder sometimes if certain Christians, in their attempts to elaborate "The Faith" and codify those elaborations, did more harm than good in transmitting that elaborate faith to their successors, ourselves, and the intervening generations that have joined us to them. Truth and tradition joined with speculations and assertions: some were no doubt very good; some perhaps were less so. And here we are, and here I am.
I like to be a free thinker; that is, I like to think freely, and to be free to think freely. And I feel free to believe, and to search out the roots of that belief, and to seek some simplicity.
I find myself deeply attracted to that very ancient thing, the Apostle's Creed, and the even more ancient Mystery of Godliness, found in St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy. The Apostle's Creed has traditionally been divided into twelve articles: the Mystery of Godliness contains, by one count, seven.
I believe, it is enough. I am refreshed to muse upon what is meant, and what is signified.
The Apostles Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholick Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.
The Mystery of Godliness
Great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh;
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
* * *
The Apostles Creed is as given in the Book of Common Prayer.
The Mystery of Godliness is as given in the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures.
Comments always welcome.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Economics in One Lesson
Yes, I have borrowed the title of a classic book on economics as a title for this article. Henry Hazlitt wrote the book Economics in One Lesson in 1946, and I believe it has never been allowed to be out-of-print since that time. I bought my own copy only a couple of years ago.
Can a writer really deliver on the promise of the title and cover basic economics in one lesson? Apparently so: the cover of my book prints a quote from John W. Haines, a former Undersecretary of the Treasury, who said, "If there were a Nobel Prize for clear economic thinking, Mr. Hazlitt's book would be a worthy recipient." And a Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, F. A. Hayek, said, "I know of no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics in so short a time." High praise from men who knew what they were talking about.
Actually, Hazlitt doesn't just deliver economics in one lesson in one chapter in one book. He reduces it to a single, two-part sentence. Interested? Sure you are. You can find his entire book immediately available on-line at the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. It will probably take you less than a minute to find the precise sentence, located in the middle of Chapter 1. Or you can download the whole book as a pdf file for future perusal. Or buy your own paperback copy, as I did, for ready reference and as a loaner (or gift) to an interested friend.
I am not going to quote him precisely here, but you will have noticed that Mr. Hazlitt's "one lesson" contains only two points:
1. When considering any public act or policy, don't look merely at the immediate or short term effects of that policy; carefully consider the long-term consequences as well.
2. When considering the long-term consequences, think not only of the special-interest or group immediately involved; carefully consider the consequences upon all groups.
His point is that public policy makers are usually moved primarily by one, or a very few, special interest groups; that they typically take a short-term view and overlook or ignore the long-term view. (Read: tunnel vision; read: myopia; read: win the next election; read: we'll try to balance the budget sometime well after next year.) I know he was writing for the 1940s; but since then, have things improved that much in the manifest wisdom of government policy?
I have converted his lesson into a kind of quadrant diagram, like this:
=============================================
Economic Short term Long term
Viewpoint thinking thinking
----------|---------------|---------------
Benefit of| |
one-group | typical |
or special| thinking of |
interests | policy makers |
----------|---------------|---------------
Interests | | best long-term
of all | | thinking,
groups | | according to
| | Henry Hazlitt
=============================================
The fun begins, of course, when you test this little paradigm against modern government policy. Take a historical look at things from several decades ago. Consider the long-term benefits to all of:
* the Korean War
* the Vietnam War
* the anti-war movement
* the Great Society
* the Race to the Moon
* the Civil Rights Movement
* the Watergate investigation
* the investigation of assassinations
* the Iran-contra connection
* the investigation of Iran-contra
* Gulf War I
* the Bosnia/Kosovo war
* the handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair
Some good, some not-so-good, right?
Do our current policies represent short-term, narrow-group benefit, or best long-term thinking in the interests of all groups, in the following matters?
* medicaid/medicare policy in US
* public-sector-union benefits
* bailout of Wall Street stockbrokers
* bailout of state governments
* the "stimulus"
* immigration policy
* border-control policy
* regulation of prescription drugs
* health-care
* environmental policy
* oil-drilling policy
* nuclear power policy
* trade policy with China
* (no) trade policy with Cuba
* the global war on terrorism
* war policy in Iraq
* war policy in Afghanistan
* war policy in Pakistan
* war policy in Libya
* war policy in Yemen
* drug wars in US
* drug wars in Colombia
* drug wars in Mexico
* no-fly lists at airports
* federal influence on local police forces
* torturing -- oops, enhanced interrogation -- of Guantanamo detainees
* freedom of "the CIA" -- whoever they might be -- to do whatever they want to do
* zero-tolerance policy on kids in schools
* zero-tolerance policy on speed-traps on highways
* zero-tolerance policy for convicts paroled from prison
Whatever we each and all might say about any of the public issues above, we would all like to think that we, personally, are good, long-term, best-thinking individuals. But, hey. Apply this thinking to the spoken and unspoken ways and means . . . at your workplace . . . in your social or fraternal organization . . . your church, mosque, synagogue, or free-thinkers society . . . your own household . . . your own life.
The prevailing "wisdom" of modern thinking in government is well expressed by their economic guru, John Maynard Keynes, who actually said, "But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."
"Tomorrow never comes," we like to laugh. In reality, of course, tomorrow always comes. Always has. Always will. Today is the tomorrow that we talked about yesterday.
Even more relevant, today is the day after tomorrow that we hardly thought about just the day before yesterday.
On this planet, we are partly in the shape we are in today because our predecessors thought -- or did not think -- about the consequences of their actions and choices.
Best wishes for our grandchildren. And the grandchildren of our friends. And the grandchildren of our enemies. They will all be there, in the long run.
* * *
Comments are always most welcome.
Can a writer really deliver on the promise of the title and cover basic economics in one lesson? Apparently so: the cover of my book prints a quote from John W. Haines, a former Undersecretary of the Treasury, who said, "If there were a Nobel Prize for clear economic thinking, Mr. Hazlitt's book would be a worthy recipient." And a Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, F. A. Hayek, said, "I know of no other modern book from which the intelligent layman can learn so much about the basic truths of economics in so short a time." High praise from men who knew what they were talking about.
Actually, Hazlitt doesn't just deliver economics in one lesson in one chapter in one book. He reduces it to a single, two-part sentence. Interested? Sure you are. You can find his entire book immediately available on-line at the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. It will probably take you less than a minute to find the precise sentence, located in the middle of Chapter 1. Or you can download the whole book as a pdf file for future perusal. Or buy your own paperback copy, as I did, for ready reference and as a loaner (or gift) to an interested friend.
I am not going to quote him precisely here, but you will have noticed that Mr. Hazlitt's "one lesson" contains only two points:
1. When considering any public act or policy, don't look merely at the immediate or short term effects of that policy; carefully consider the long-term consequences as well.
2. When considering the long-term consequences, think not only of the special-interest or group immediately involved; carefully consider the consequences upon all groups.
His point is that public policy makers are usually moved primarily by one, or a very few, special interest groups; that they typically take a short-term view and overlook or ignore the long-term view. (Read: tunnel vision; read: myopia; read: win the next election; read: we'll try to balance the budget sometime well after next year.) I know he was writing for the 1940s; but since then, have things improved that much in the manifest wisdom of government policy?
I have converted his lesson into a kind of quadrant diagram, like this:
=============================================
Economic Short term Long term
Viewpoint thinking thinking
----------|---------------|---------------
Benefit of| |
one-group | typical |
or special| thinking of |
interests | policy makers |
----------|---------------|---------------
Interests | | best long-term
of all | | thinking,
groups | | according to
| | Henry Hazlitt
=============================================
The fun begins, of course, when you test this little paradigm against modern government policy. Take a historical look at things from several decades ago. Consider the long-term benefits to all of:
* the Korean War
* the Vietnam War
* the anti-war movement
* the Great Society
* the Race to the Moon
* the Civil Rights Movement
* the Watergate investigation
* the investigation of assassinations
* the Iran-contra connection
* the investigation of Iran-contra
* Gulf War I
* the Bosnia/Kosovo war
* the handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair
Some good, some not-so-good, right?
Do our current policies represent short-term, narrow-group benefit, or best long-term thinking in the interests of all groups, in the following matters?
* medicaid/medicare policy in US
* public-sector-union benefits
* bailout of Wall Street stockbrokers
* bailout of state governments
* the "stimulus"
* immigration policy
* border-control policy
* regulation of prescription drugs
* health-care
* environmental policy
* oil-drilling policy
* nuclear power policy
* trade policy with China
* (no) trade policy with Cuba
* the global war on terrorism
* war policy in Iraq
* war policy in Afghanistan
* war policy in Pakistan
* war policy in Libya
* war policy in Yemen
* drug wars in US
* drug wars in Colombia
* drug wars in Mexico
* no-fly lists at airports
* federal influence on local police forces
* torturing -- oops, enhanced interrogation -- of Guantanamo detainees
* freedom of "the CIA" -- whoever they might be -- to do whatever they want to do
* zero-tolerance policy on kids in schools
* zero-tolerance policy on speed-traps on highways
* zero-tolerance policy for convicts paroled from prison
Whatever we each and all might say about any of the public issues above, we would all like to think that we, personally, are good, long-term, best-thinking individuals. But, hey. Apply this thinking to the spoken and unspoken ways and means . . . at your workplace . . . in your social or fraternal organization . . . your church, mosque, synagogue, or free-thinkers society . . . your own household . . . your own life.
The prevailing "wisdom" of modern thinking in government is well expressed by their economic guru, John Maynard Keynes, who actually said, "But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."
"Tomorrow never comes," we like to laugh. In reality, of course, tomorrow always comes. Always has. Always will. Today is the tomorrow that we talked about yesterday.
Even more relevant, today is the day after tomorrow that we hardly thought about just the day before yesterday.
On this planet, we are partly in the shape we are in today because our predecessors thought -- or did not think -- about the consequences of their actions and choices.
Best wishes for our grandchildren. And the grandchildren of our friends. And the grandchildren of our enemies. They will all be there, in the long run.
* * *
Comments are always most welcome.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Ronald Reagan and the Dream Cabinet
On the occasion of his 100th birthday, we have had a little burst of interest in the career of President Reagan. Seems like lots of folks are using his continuing popularity in the public mind -- not so much to claim his mantle, it seems to me, as to piggyback their own agendae upon his memory. But be that as it may.
Our late 40th president was well-known for his sense of humor. He seemed corny to some ("I hope you're all Republicans"), and he outraged others ("We begin bombing in five minutes"), but I have long felt that any one of his well placed jokes poking fun at the Soviet government was easily worth an armored division, or even a squadron of Stealth bombers in the effort to end the Cold War. To a great extent, he was able to laugh the Soviet Union off the stage of world history, rather than provoking some damned World War 3. (I know that really irritated our military-industrial complex, but I rather liked the mostly peaceful way it came to an end.)
Which brings me to his idle joke about his "dream cabinet." Reminiscing about his Hollywood days, he thought how nice it would be to have some fellow actors in his cabinet -- John Wayne as Secretary of State, Clint Eastwood at Defense, Jack Benny at Treasury, and Groucho Marx at Education. "Even presidents can't have everything," he laughed. All things considered, I think that any and all of them would have been not only fun, but clearly superior to the ghastly parade of slimy hacks that have filled practically all of the offices of Washington DC since the invention of national political parties.
In honor of the Great Communicator, I thought it would be fun to populate this post with nominations for a good government in DC. (I'm not being as tongue-in-cheek as you might suppose: consider the "real-world" alternatives.) Your suggestions of course are most welcome!
We could have Alex Jones to head up the CIA. Would that be great, or what!
Judge Andrew Napolitano for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. Preferably Chief.
John Whitehead at Department of Justice. He has headed up the Rutherford Institute for about 30 years.
John Taylor Gatto at Department of Education. Former New York Teacher of the Year: see what he is saying now.
Catharine Austin Fitts at HUD. She tried to clean it up during Bush 41 and had a good start; give her another time at bat.
Franklin Sanders at IRS.
Mike Shedlock (Mish) at SEC.
Wes Jackson and Joel Salatin at Agriculture. (I know I'm skipping Wendell Berry. In honor of his preference for staying at the farm, let's make him Librarian of Congress, with the mandate of reading and writing whatever he likes. But if he wants Agriculture, it's his.)
Cynthia McKinney at the UN. Yes; she's right for all the right reasons.
Lew Rockwell running the Council of Economic Advisors.
Dr. Ron Paul at Treasury. (Or, Chairman of the Fed . . . or both.)
Jesse Ventura at State. Or if we bump him up a notch, then I'd like Web Tarpley or Eric Margolis.
Jeff Gitomer at Commerce.
Fred Reed at Veterans Affairs.
Chuck Baldwin at Homeland Security.
Seriously, I believe that every one of those named above is a fundamentally truthful and principled person who has already shown great leadership, and any one of them would be clearly superior to their counterparts -- either in this current Democratic administration, or the previous Republican one.
Suggestions and revisions always welcome. This is an open convention!
Our late 40th president was well-known for his sense of humor. He seemed corny to some ("I hope you're all Republicans"), and he outraged others ("We begin bombing in five minutes"), but I have long felt that any one of his well placed jokes poking fun at the Soviet government was easily worth an armored division, or even a squadron of Stealth bombers in the effort to end the Cold War. To a great extent, he was able to laugh the Soviet Union off the stage of world history, rather than provoking some damned World War 3. (I know that really irritated our military-industrial complex, but I rather liked the mostly peaceful way it came to an end.)
Which brings me to his idle joke about his "dream cabinet." Reminiscing about his Hollywood days, he thought how nice it would be to have some fellow actors in his cabinet -- John Wayne as Secretary of State, Clint Eastwood at Defense, Jack Benny at Treasury, and Groucho Marx at Education. "Even presidents can't have everything," he laughed. All things considered, I think that any and all of them would have been not only fun, but clearly superior to the ghastly parade of slimy hacks that have filled practically all of the offices of Washington DC since the invention of national political parties.
In honor of the Great Communicator, I thought it would be fun to populate this post with nominations for a good government in DC. (I'm not being as tongue-in-cheek as you might suppose: consider the "real-world" alternatives.) Your suggestions of course are most welcome!
We could have Alex Jones to head up the CIA. Would that be great, or what!
Judge Andrew Napolitano for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. Preferably Chief.
John Whitehead at Department of Justice. He has headed up the Rutherford Institute for about 30 years.
John Taylor Gatto at Department of Education. Former New York Teacher of the Year: see what he is saying now.
Catharine Austin Fitts at HUD. She tried to clean it up during Bush 41 and had a good start; give her another time at bat.
Franklin Sanders at IRS.
Mike Shedlock (Mish) at SEC.
Wes Jackson and Joel Salatin at Agriculture. (I know I'm skipping Wendell Berry. In honor of his preference for staying at the farm, let's make him Librarian of Congress, with the mandate of reading and writing whatever he likes. But if he wants Agriculture, it's his.)
Cynthia McKinney at the UN. Yes; she's right for all the right reasons.
Lew Rockwell running the Council of Economic Advisors.
Dr. Ron Paul at Treasury. (Or, Chairman of the Fed . . . or both.)
Jesse Ventura at State. Or if we bump him up a notch, then I'd like Web Tarpley or Eric Margolis.
Jeff Gitomer at Commerce.
Fred Reed at Veterans Affairs.
Chuck Baldwin at Homeland Security.
Seriously, I believe that every one of those named above is a fundamentally truthful and principled person who has already shown great leadership, and any one of them would be clearly superior to their counterparts -- either in this current Democratic administration, or the previous Republican one.
We still have openings at Defense, Transportation, HHS, Energy, National Endowment for the Arts (and for the Humanities), FBI, and what else am I forgetting?
Oh yes, President and Vice. Well, help me out here; but my serious choice right now would be Stephen Covey, and let him pick his running mate.
* * *
Suggestions and revisions always welcome. This is an open convention!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Former President Bush Threatened With Torture Prosecution in Switzerland?
Some media outlets (including Reuters) are reporting that former President George W. Bush had a planned speech in Switzerland cancelled because of fear that he would be served legal papers. Read the story here.
An Israeli general or two have found themselves in similar trouble several years ago. And that was before the war on Gaza and the boarding of the Turkish ship Mavi Mara.
It turns out that US policy of turning a blind eye to torture and crimes against humanity does not work reliably in the rest of the world.
This may be for the best, as it may rivet President Obama's attention to the consequences of pursuing his own ugly policies, even if he enjoys "bipartisan support" in Washington DC.
Severe, you say? Perhaps. But remember that President Reagan was threatened with impeachment over the relatively small potatoes of Iran-Contra. And Richard Nixon was forced to resign for covering up a burglary that he did not commit. And several of their underlings were prosecuted and imprisoned.
And according to our Espionage Act of 1917, as amended, speaking out against a war can get you anything from 30 years to death.
Maybe it's time that starting a reckless war is as legally risky as calling for peace.
* * *
Comments pro and con most welcome. Surely there are some good arguments in the former President's defense.
An Israeli general or two have found themselves in similar trouble several years ago. And that was before the war on Gaza and the boarding of the Turkish ship Mavi Mara.
It turns out that US policy of turning a blind eye to torture and crimes against humanity does not work reliably in the rest of the world.
This may be for the best, as it may rivet President Obama's attention to the consequences of pursuing his own ugly policies, even if he enjoys "bipartisan support" in Washington DC.
Severe, you say? Perhaps. But remember that President Reagan was threatened with impeachment over the relatively small potatoes of Iran-Contra. And Richard Nixon was forced to resign for covering up a burglary that he did not commit. And several of their underlings were prosecuted and imprisoned.
And according to our Espionage Act of 1917, as amended, speaking out against a war can get you anything from 30 years to death.
Maybe it's time that starting a reckless war is as legally risky as calling for peace.
* * *
Comments pro and con most welcome. Surely there are some good arguments in the former President's defense.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Field Dispatch: Ron Keine Speaks in Louisville on the Death Penalty
Guest Post by Ben Carmack
A reading from the Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew:
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...I was in prison, and ye came unto me...Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee...in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
This is the Gospel of the Lord. Thanks be to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
LOUISVILLE, Ky -- Mr. Ron Keine, of the group Witness to Innocence, an advocacy group dedicated to telling the stories of exonerated death row inmates in the United States, related his experience as an innocent death row inmate in New Mexico at the University of Louisville on Monday, January 31, making common cause with Kentuckians Against the Death Penalty, Students for Peace and Justice, and the Kentucky American Civil Liberties Union.
Mr. Keine grew up in Michigan, and attended university in Cleveland, where he studied psychology. In his early twenties, he and "Doc," a buddy from back home, left their lives behind and went on a motorcycle trip around the U.S., Canada and Mexico. For support, they worked odd jobs in odd towns and stayed in hippie communes. They had long hair, beards, a zest for adventure and didn't care too much for the government or established authorities of any sort.
Later on, they moved to California and joined a motorcycle gang. They planned a road trip from California to Michigan and set out sometime in 1974 in a borrowed van with bread, bologna and five cases of beer on board. The "essentials," as he said, of a good road trip.
As the rowdy crew crossed Oklahoma, cops pulled them over and charged them with armed robbery of a nearby gas station. At their arraignment, the judge, when he heard the name of the gas station alleged to have been robbed, said, "Didn't that place burn down years ago?" The judge, after "consulting" with the prosecutor, released Keine and his friends. After that, the cops continued to hold the gang, changing their tune, now charging them with the murder of a college student in Albuquerque, NM.
Keine and his friends were extradited to New Mexico. The judge was unfriendly and dismissive to the men, as was the prosecutor, the jury and their own court appointed public defender (they didn't have the money to hire a private lawyer). Surrounded by people who presumed their guilt based upon their appearance, their involvement in motorcycle gangs and rowdy behavior, the men were convicted on the basis of testimony from a hooker and two jail snitches, none of whom had ever seen the men or been seen by them and could have had no possible knowledge of their whereabouts.
When Keine asked the judge if he could testify as to his guilt or innocence, the judge flatly refused. Keine was threatened with gagging if he continued to speak "out of order." As Mr. Keine said during his speech, "A lot of the Constitutional rights you are afforded don't really work in the real world." In a courtroom, your ability to defend yourself is dependent on the quality of the representation you can afford.
Keine and his friends spent the best years of their lives on death row in New Mexico for a crime they did not commit. Mr. Keine recalled being beaten by sadistic guards. The men were denied regular physical exercise.
Keine's friend "Doc," had a girlfriend in California who wrote to a newspaperman in Detroit to come and investigate the case. The reporter was intimidated by two detectives who threatened to put him on death row if he continued to look into the case. The case file was missing important papers and details. Important documents had been blacked out.
The case was finally blown open when a cop "found Jesus" and confessed to a pastor in South Carolina that he had really murdered the college student "in a drug deal gone bad." The sheriff, who was with him, was angry with him when he shot the college student, because the sheriff was up for re-election. The sheriff instructed his deputies to pin the murder on somebody else to save his own face.
The prostitute who testified against them had been taught how to show extreme emotion, including putting onions in her pockets, touching the onions with her fingers and then putting her fingers around her eyes to induce false tears. The police had offered to release her pimp, then in prison, if she agreed to testify against Ron Keine and his motorcycle gang. The jail snitches too, had been offered release or shortened jail time if they agreed to testify against men they had never seen. Incidentally, the detectives involved in the case kept none of their promises in these regards.
When Mr. Keine was finally released from prison, he had no money, possessions or anywhere else to go. This is the period, he said, in the life of an ex-prisoner that is most dangerous. The temptation is then strong to engage in selling drugs, steal or participate in other illegal behavior to get by. He was unable to get a job in his hometown and started his own business, selling rock salt door to door. He lived in an abandoned Chevy for a while, he said. Many ex-cons commit suicide, get addicted to drugs and/or booze and otherwise destroy their lives.
Mr. Keine and the group Witness to Innocence serve to tell the stories of innocent men on death row and to provide help for such men as they adjust to life after prison.
Now for some opinion: it is very possible that Mr. Keine's story, in some respects, is exaggerated or otherwise untrue. However, the fact that he and his friends were released from death row proves that he was in fact innocent of the crime he was charged with. If only half of the things he said were true, our criminal justice system in the U.S. has some deep problems.
What are the answers? There are no easy answers. I think any attempted fix must begin with the Gospel: if Jesus Christ is Lord of the world, and if all civil authority must ultimately answer to Him, civil authority is bound to act with charity and mercy toward fellow citizens, irrespective of their appearance, for the Lord "is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, him that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable unto Him." (Acts 10:34-35) I think Mr. Keine would agree with me. He is a Catholic convert, which is probably a good thing, since the Vatican has had some very good and balanced things to say about the death penalty in recent decades.
While civil authority is bound to act according to law, in light of the Gospel, great mercy can and should be shown when desirable. A jury, if they so choose, should be able to exonerate a man for any reason.
Prisons, by nature, assume that any crime committed is a crime against "society," which really means "the State." Yet the crimes affect individual people and families, very rarely does the State suffer great crimes. More often, the State engages in crimes of its own. It is time to overhaul our entire system of punishment and consider a system based upon restitution, repayment and restoration as justice. Such a sytem would follow common law precedents, rather than political decrees.
Further, the power of the police should be significantly reduced. A number of laws creating novel "crimes" should be repealed. Acts like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act should also be repealed. All prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses should be released. All "terrorist" suspects who don't stand trial within a reasonable period of time following their capture on the battlefield should be released.
These actions are all collective and political, requiring activism, which can be expensive, unproductive and time-consuming. What can be done on a smaller scale?
We can cultivate, in our own lives, a deep understanding of God's mercy toward all men, displayed through His Son on the Cross. Contemplate the enormity of the Gospel that declares those who are guilty "not guilty." Consider what you and your friends can do to comfort those in prison, even those who are guilty, as our Lord commanded in His Gospel. Be merciful and long-suffering, take needy people into your home, help out your neighbors who need help and don't be afraid of enduring suffering for well doing.
This is the will of God. By doing these things we justify our faith, and we show that the Word of God, His own Son, is in us.
* * *
Comments always welcome, pro and con.
* * *
Comments always welcome, pro and con.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)