Dec. 12th, 2011 03:53 pm
leticia: (Default)
Never shop at Lowes again: www.cnn.com/2011/12/11/showbiz/all-american-muslim-lowes/index.html

leticia: (Default)
1) The murder of a popular, beloved, easy to get along with cute blond with lots of photogenic grieving family is no worse a crime than the murder of that sullen lonely laundromat attendant that no one actually remembers the name of.

2) Being related to the victim of a murder gives no one magic insight into who actually dun it, especially if they were in another state or country at the time of their murder. Their knowledge of previous interactions with the deceased might be helpful to investigators, but even clear records of previous antagonism doesn't prove murder. In the case of near random encounters, family has -nothing- to offer in terms of proving guilt, unless they actually witnessed it.

3) "Victim Impact Statements" regarding murders have no place in the courtroom, no place in determining guilt (especially in determining guilt, since "my poor babies have no mommy now!" doesn't prove any statement about who did it one way or the other, SEE POINT 2) and no place in sentencing, since SEE POINT 1.

4) No matter how many people are convicted of the crime, and how brutal their sentences are, the dead will still be dead. Convicting the innocent is not going to bring the dead back. Putting a possibly innocent man on death row and even executing him - or even an extremely guilty one! - will not bring the dead back. Jailing everyone who was connected with the murdered person even peripherally will not bring the dead back. And if your grieving process requires blood, innocent or not, to soothe your soul, you need to see a counselor. Vengeance is not justice. Justice is not vengeance.

5) Innocent until proven guilty should not mean "Innocent until someone more white (wealthy, well-connected, privileged, fill in the blank) wants someone to blame to soothe their grief."

In other words, I am so -sick- of hearing 'statements of the family of the victim'. Shut up. Go to the funeral. Help the police if you can. But justice is not and should not be about you*. And if the deceased is dead, quite frankly, justice isn't about the dead, either. Justice is about the living and protecting society - including innocents who may be accused in a mad frenzy for closure. (Hint, you'll get better closure from not having to stick your fingers in your ears and go "I DON'T BELIEVE YOU" and then forever ever after wondering if the REAL killer is out there laughing at you somewhere.)

*Addendum - I do believe the -government- should provide some reasonable financial recompense to the victims of violent crime, or the survivors thereof, especially in the situation where the victim of a murder had dependents who have lost an income. I would consider that a part of -true- justice. But that has nothing to do with prosecution.
leticia: (Default)
Why did they let a child-rapist back out on the street?

Because he posted bond. And why did they let him post bond?

Because he was only an accused child-rapist. The charge had not gone to court. The bond was very high. He met it, which is ridiculous, but if we look too much askance at the bailsbondsman thing, it makes justice even more inequal between rich and poor.

Why did Washington courts let him out? Because if it was YOU accused of a crime, innocent or not, you would be screaming to high heaven to get out of prison until your court date, at least.

That's why. Because 'accusations' can be leveled at anyone. Even if they're not black. (Oh yeah, don't think I don't see that look in your eyes.)

Actually, Washington courts were desperate to keep him in jail, but they couldn't give him no bond at all without a reason. And the reason could have been from Arkansas, but they withdrew their original warrant. There's some fascinating email exchanges there.

And so four Washington police officers are dead, and so's he.

Of course, to be cold and blunt: I'd rather four police officers than four kids at daycare or four civilians at the supermarket or whatever. At least the deceased, tragic as it is, had chosen to live in danger so that in theory, most of us could live safer. My utmost sympathies to their families and friends, and my gratitude for their willingness to risk, my sorrow that they were called upon to answer that risk. But. I'd rather them.

Annnnnd while we're on that point, let me repeat the point I made when we had Psycho With Gun Cop Killer running around the Sequim area*: His four victims had guns and wore bullet proof vests.

They're dead.

So's he now, but he got out of that coffee shop alive.

More people carrying guns just means more people carrying weapons for criminals to take off your body. A citizen's arms race doesn't actually make anyone safer. The bad guys shoot first. That's what makes them bad guys.

*He killed a forest service officer, took her gun, killed a Sequim resident (who happened to be a former California corrections officer), took his truck and rifle, and then wound up trying to pull on two police officers who were alerted to his presence at a gas station and got shot 'cause, well, when faced with a 'suspected' cop killer, cops get a little jumpy. It's not ideal, but they're human. Anyhow, he started with two guns and wound up with four, and two good people trained to use and carry guns wound up dead without shooting.
leticia: (in a dark alley)

Given that SE Asia (in certain regions) is like the sex tourism capital of the world and flat out infamous for the prostitution and slavery of girls, why are all the international manhunts we keep hearing about involving the abuse of /boys/?

Oh, right.

Because boys are people.

Screw you, Interpol.

leticia: (Default)
e·mas·cu·late [v. i-mas-kyuh-leyt; adj. i-mas-kyuh-lit, -leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object) 1. to castrate.
2. to deprive of strength or vigor; weaken.

–adjective 3. deprived of or lacking strength or vigor; effeminate.

[Origin: 1600–10; < L émasculātus (ptp. of émasculāre), equiv. to é- e- + māscul(us) male + -ātus -ate1]

Today's sexist code word of the day, kids, is 'emasculate'. The very construction of this word indicates its nature. This is a word about how men are superior and stronger than women, about how weakness is feminizing.

The usual defenses are 'well, it's just about weakness' or 'it's not about being feminized, it's about having your gender identity assaulted'. Yes, a gender identity that's based on being the superior gender.

And no one ever seems to refer to women as 'emasculated'. Victimhood /is/, in the world-view that uses words like 'emasculated' to refer to a man's ability to support his wife or defend 'his' women, a feminine attribute. Weakness is.

If there was a corresponding word to indicate the 'male-ing' of a woman, it'd be a /compliment/ culturally. Of course, there's not, because the cultural over-bearing impression is that we should be scared of women who 'emasculate' our men by daring to not fit their appointed roles of weakness.

Therefore, whenever someone refers to something as 'emasculating' for men, my hackles go up. It can be poor word choice - but it usually links back to subconscious acceptance of traditional male privilege.

Please discuss.
leticia: (bland)
The best thing (and pretty much only good thing) about this story? They didn't charge him with murder. Okay, and they convicted the scumbag. Two good things.

(BTW, I've decided to try to get mouthier. If you don't like uppity wimmin, now would be a really good time to stop reading.)
leticia: (Default)
Apparently just 7.2% of America's broadcast media outlets - TV and radio - are owned by the 33% of Americans who happen to be less melanin deficient than your standard European-descended neo-colonialist.

Shameful, huh?

Of course, a disgraceful and disproportionate number of those 33% live in poverty, having been kept down by institutionalized racism, so it shouldn't be that surprising they own less businesses.

But that's not the point. The same people that are ranting and raving about these studies quietly point out that ...women, who make up 51% of the US population, own less than 6% of broadcast outlets. Yes. There's more of us than there are minorities (though of course, approximately 33% of us are minorities as well, and how many of THEM do you think own broadcast outlets?) and we have even less voice in the media. We're still the pretty chick whose purpose is to breathlessly read from the teleprompter with a tight shirt and some nice cleavage, when it comes to broadcast media.

I'm getting pretty tired of being dependent on the charity of men to tell my story - and the story of other women, and the story of our ongoing conflict with so-called traditional gender-based oppression.

But you know something? The FCC wants to let the big (white, male) corporations get their hands on even more. To let the same people tell you the same story even more often. To let even /accidental/ errors propogate with ease - let alone deliberate or malicious ones.

Go do something.

Both democracy and capitalism depend on actors in the market - be it shopping for cars or shopping for congress representatives - having full and accurate information - and being represented in full, having the power and voice to act on the information.

Right now, we - as working Americans who actually understand what it means to have a credit limit, as women, as minorities (which I am not, I should qualify) have neither of those.

Do something. Because if we don't, we will be sentenced to more and more coverage of Britney Spears and her custody battle for the rest of our lives.


leticia: (Default)

April 2017

161718192021 22


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 12:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios