Jorge Ramos, the most visible of Univision's anchors, was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News last week. Mr. Ramos, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, said that There are certain instances in which you have to take a stand, adding that journalists cannot be objective when confronted with racism, discrimination, corruption, public life, dictatorship or violations of human rights. Mr. Ramos went on to say that journalists have a social responsibility to confront those in power.
For years, journalists have avoided injecting themselves into stories. Objectivity was a by-word of the profession, not something that was applied on a case-by-case basis. The overwhelming duty of journalists was to report the news. Commentators and editorialists had the role of commenting on the news with their personal perspectives. Journalists, on the other hand, were supposed to be the fourth estate, the phrase originated by Edmund Burke and translated to American politics in which the Fourth Estate was to be a watchdog over the three branches of government.
What Mr. Ramos and, as it turns out, other so-called journalists, are advocating is that it's all right to abdicate their journalistic responsibilities and instead become advocates against someone because they disagree with their views. It should be noted that Mr. Ramos and Mr. Trump have a history going back to a press conference in August, 2015, when an unruly Mr. Ramos was ousted from the press conference. Mr. Ramos principally objects to Mr. Trump's rhetoric on Latinos, his insistence on building a wall on the southern border and his stance on immigration. That's his right. But he has to put aside his personal feelings while he's acting as a journalist. To do otherwise causes him to forfeit his title as journalist and makes him no better than an educated activist.
There are those who applaud Mr. Ramos's stance, just as there are those, like me, who disagree with him. In fact, I don't disagree with Mr. Ramos on a couple of matters: Mr. Trump's rhethoric is deplorable, in the first place, and Mr. Ramos has every right to believe as he wishes. I disagree that he's supposed to take a stand at this time for one simple reason: Mr. Trump is nothing more than a candidate for office. He's not an elected official. Were he an elected official I might feel differently.
What's more, his position that journalists can't be objective when confronted with public life, as Mr. Ramos put it, is too expansive. Just what is public life? Does that mean someone who's in the public eye? What about celebrities? Does that mean that journalists can be subjective about which public news they can choose to report?
Mr. Ramos is also being a little bit disingenuous. His daughter works for the Cankles' campaign, which Mr. Ramos has admitted he supports (her working for Cankles, not necessarily Cankles herself). Any pretense that Mr. Ramos went into this campaign with objectivity is sorely tested.
But as Ms. Kelly herself pointed out, Mr. Ramos is on the horns of a dilemma. Ms. Kelly noted that 70% of the American public believes that Cankles is a liar. Is it something that should be mentioned in every story about Cankles? Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Ramos.
And this is precisely the problem with the MSM. Although calling Mr. Trump on the carpet for his rhetoric and positions is absolutely legitimate, and questioning his policies or lack thereof is fine, where is the same scrutiny for Cankles? How is the American public supposed to be fully informed when the Fourth Estate is constantly ignoring the misdeeds of one candidate to focus on the mideeds of another candidate because they prefer the former candidate over the latter? How is there any integrity in that stance? Doesn't this stand, to use Mr. Ramos's word, detract from the journalistic ethic? Or is it now part of journalism to pick and choose what news to report, measuring it against a jouralist's personal views?
Again, I don't begrudged Mr. Ramos his personal beliefs. He's entitled to them. But by ignoring the real dangers of a Cankles presidency, he does as much if not more harm to this country than by taking on Mr. Trump's buffoonery. If he were attacking for simultaneously, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But he's allowing his personal views to influence his reporting, and that's dangerous.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 29, 2016
Friday, August 26, 2016
Adventures in Teaching
I have great respect for the teaching profession, generally. I'm not wild about certain aspects of teaching -- unionization, Common Core -- but I believe that teachers are underpaid, woefully. I've taught, but only at the collegiate level, first as a graduate assistant and then as an adjunct professor at four universities. I could never teach young children and the thought of teaching at the high school level repulses me. Teachers at that level are as much disciplinarians as they are teachers, and sometimes more of the former than of the latter.
Be that as it may, there have been some memorable moments in my teaching history. I've determined that my method of teaching is outdated and outmoded, so I'm probably never going to teach again, which is bittersweet. I loved teaching Spanish and I was pretty good at it. I'm not a trained teacher by any means, having been thrown into it as a graduate assistant and learning from my mistakes ever after. But technology has taken over in large measure, and when it comes to technology, I'm a Luddite.
Moreover, the acquisition of foreign languages in this country is abysmal. We rely on foreigners or technology far too much, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage on several levels. The students' interest level is pathetic, thinking that studying a foreign language is a means to an end and not a goal itself. If I could have a class full of interested, motivated students, I'd consider teaching, but I fear that won't be possible.
Still, I look back fondly on my teaching career, such as it was. In grad school, a fellow TA -- teaching assistant, as we were known at that school -- decided to challenge one of my classes to a softball game, so we decided, in collegiate fashion, to make it a kegger. That is, we had kegs of beer at each base. I don't remember who won, I don't remember even playing much. I remember getting home at one in the morning and that attendance was nearly complete. That we did it in a city park where alcohol was prohibited made it even better.
One of my fellow TA's approached me about teaching a class on profanity. Not how to use it, but things to avoid saying. When I lived in Spain I'd inadvertently stuck my foot in my mouth several times, thinking I was saying something innocent but offending people nevertheless. I announced to my class that attendance at the next day's class was optional, that there would be no penalty for missing it, and that it would deal with profanity -- not how to use it but things to avoid. I had perfect attendance the next day. One middle-aged woman who was auditing the class -- and who was nearly old enough to be my mother -- shocked everyone by asking me how to say a specific string of epithets in Spanish. I reiterated that that wasn't the purpose of the class but got a good chuckle out of it.
While I lived in Spain I worked for a language academy that sent us out to students' homes or businesses for lessons. At one lesson, one of the students began nursing her newborn right in front of me. That was a first for me. At another stop, two Spanish bankers instructed me in the nuances of Spanish profanity. At a third class, a bunch of Spanish accountants informed me about the nuances of American politics and how naïve I was about our own system...despite the fact that not one of them had ever been to the United States.
Back in the States, I became an adjunct professor after law school. One of the first classes I taught was at night, on Mondays and Wednesdays. No night course in college should be taught on Monday nights because Monday Night Football is too much of a distraction. And a language class on Monday nights? Forget it.
Then I taught at two schools in my new state. At one of them, a student was having trouble identifying the subject of a sentence. I gave him the sentence I love you and asked him to pick out the subject. Love, he said. No, try again. You, he said eagerly. No, I said encouragingly. He sat there staring at me, dumbfounded, unable to make another choice.
Another student gave as an answer to an extra credit question, to which the answer was Your Highness, Your Hinest. This is higher education, folks. And the sad fact was that she was one of the better students in the class.
Perhaps the most challenging class I taught was one of the last. It was a Beginner's Spanish class with only eight students in it. The class was comprised of a foreign student from China for whom English was a second language, two foreign exchange students from Brazil, a vet for whom foreign languages were a struggle, two athletes with different work ethics, a high school student who was very good at Spanish but couldn't speak it and the last student who was simply taking the class as an elective. Trying to mesh the varying levels of language abilities was a struggle. The students were mostly very hardworking -- but for one of the athletes -- and the best in the class was the high school student. But getting the lessons across to that group was a struggle, especially with the foreign students. Still, it was probably easier to handle that group than a class of high school students.
I love teaching Spanish. I have a passion for it that comes across readily. And because I had to learn it from scratch, I understand what students go through. But I can't do it anymore. I'm glad I had the experiences I did, and I'm going to miss it, but it's not something I'll ever do again.
Probably.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Be that as it may, there have been some memorable moments in my teaching history. I've determined that my method of teaching is outdated and outmoded, so I'm probably never going to teach again, which is bittersweet. I loved teaching Spanish and I was pretty good at it. I'm not a trained teacher by any means, having been thrown into it as a graduate assistant and learning from my mistakes ever after. But technology has taken over in large measure, and when it comes to technology, I'm a Luddite.
Moreover, the acquisition of foreign languages in this country is abysmal. We rely on foreigners or technology far too much, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage on several levels. The students' interest level is pathetic, thinking that studying a foreign language is a means to an end and not a goal itself. If I could have a class full of interested, motivated students, I'd consider teaching, but I fear that won't be possible.
Still, I look back fondly on my teaching career, such as it was. In grad school, a fellow TA -- teaching assistant, as we were known at that school -- decided to challenge one of my classes to a softball game, so we decided, in collegiate fashion, to make it a kegger. That is, we had kegs of beer at each base. I don't remember who won, I don't remember even playing much. I remember getting home at one in the morning and that attendance was nearly complete. That we did it in a city park where alcohol was prohibited made it even better.
One of my fellow TA's approached me about teaching a class on profanity. Not how to use it, but things to avoid saying. When I lived in Spain I'd inadvertently stuck my foot in my mouth several times, thinking I was saying something innocent but offending people nevertheless. I announced to my class that attendance at the next day's class was optional, that there would be no penalty for missing it, and that it would deal with profanity -- not how to use it but things to avoid. I had perfect attendance the next day. One middle-aged woman who was auditing the class -- and who was nearly old enough to be my mother -- shocked everyone by asking me how to say a specific string of epithets in Spanish. I reiterated that that wasn't the purpose of the class but got a good chuckle out of it.
While I lived in Spain I worked for a language academy that sent us out to students' homes or businesses for lessons. At one lesson, one of the students began nursing her newborn right in front of me. That was a first for me. At another stop, two Spanish bankers instructed me in the nuances of Spanish profanity. At a third class, a bunch of Spanish accountants informed me about the nuances of American politics and how naïve I was about our own system...despite the fact that not one of them had ever been to the United States.
Back in the States, I became an adjunct professor after law school. One of the first classes I taught was at night, on Mondays and Wednesdays. No night course in college should be taught on Monday nights because Monday Night Football is too much of a distraction. And a language class on Monday nights? Forget it.
Then I taught at two schools in my new state. At one of them, a student was having trouble identifying the subject of a sentence. I gave him the sentence I love you and asked him to pick out the subject. Love, he said. No, try again. You, he said eagerly. No, I said encouragingly. He sat there staring at me, dumbfounded, unable to make another choice.
Another student gave as an answer to an extra credit question, to which the answer was Your Highness, Your Hinest. This is higher education, folks. And the sad fact was that she was one of the better students in the class.
Perhaps the most challenging class I taught was one of the last. It was a Beginner's Spanish class with only eight students in it. The class was comprised of a foreign student from China for whom English was a second language, two foreign exchange students from Brazil, a vet for whom foreign languages were a struggle, two athletes with different work ethics, a high school student who was very good at Spanish but couldn't speak it and the last student who was simply taking the class as an elective. Trying to mesh the varying levels of language abilities was a struggle. The students were mostly very hardworking -- but for one of the athletes -- and the best in the class was the high school student. But getting the lessons across to that group was a struggle, especially with the foreign students. Still, it was probably easier to handle that group than a class of high school students.
I love teaching Spanish. I have a passion for it that comes across readily. And because I had to learn it from scratch, I understand what students go through. But I can't do it anymore. I'm glad I had the experiences I did, and I'm going to miss it, but it's not something I'll ever do again.
Probably.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Excuses For Rioting
Once again a black man has been shot and killed by a police officer. But that's where the similarities with the raft of police shootings of black men end. In this instance, the black man was carrying a weapon and pointed it at police, and a black police officer shot and killed the armed black men.
So of course, there are riots in Milwaukee.
Nevermind the facts of the situation, the fact that a black man was gunned down by a cop gives those with an entitlement mentality to riot, burn buildings, assault police and target white people for beatings. That the man shot by police trained a firearm on them is of no consequence. That the officer that shot the man was black doesn't matter a bit. No, this was a call to action. Racism at the core of the shooting and the public weal be damned.
That there is a grievance within the black community about its situation is a fact. And the reasons for the situation are myriad. Yet the simple truth is that white America is the cause of all of black America's problems: Unemployment, lack of opportunity, murders, drug problems, lack of education -- you name it.
The truth is much more gray than that. Although white America bears responsibility for setting up the conditions that led to a lot of black America's problems, much has been done over the last fifty years to ameliorate them. We finally have a black president (albeit, technically, a biracial president) and a black first lady, we've had blacks in several high-ranking positions in the government, black Supreme Court justices, black athletes who have worldwide renown, more blacks above the poverty line and in the middle class than ever. That there are ghettos that are largely black is irrefutable. But there have been plenty of attempts to correct those situations, yet they continue to exist.
Is it the fault of white America that they still exist? Perhaps. But what of black responsibility? Is there no burden that the black community bears for its own advancement? And what of the rioting that takes place after an event such as the one in Milwaukee? Sure, there's frustration and outrage, but where are black leaders trying to quell the anger and prevent legitimate businesses and innocent people from bearing the brunt of that frustration and outrage?
Part of the problem, as always, is the media. Quick to sensationalize a story for the benefit of ratings, the MSM fuels the rush to judgment before all the facts are in. Much like the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, that led to the destruction of so much in that town, salient facts weren't reported initially that might well have headed off at the pass the destructive riots that followed. Would the rioters have committed these acts had they heard the ultimate resolution, or even the facts?
What's more, why use this an excuse to riot? Whatever happened to peaceful protest? Wasn't the election of President Obama the answer to racial inequality? Wasn't everything going to be righted upon his taking office? Either way, the rioting is wrong. There's no other way to say it.
I can't feel the same anger and frustration that blacks feel. I wasn't a member of an oppressed class. But the reason for rioting has to be something greater than a criminal being shot dead by police after he pointed his weapon at them.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So of course, there are riots in Milwaukee.
Nevermind the facts of the situation, the fact that a black man was gunned down by a cop gives those with an entitlement mentality to riot, burn buildings, assault police and target white people for beatings. That the man shot by police trained a firearm on them is of no consequence. That the officer that shot the man was black doesn't matter a bit. No, this was a call to action. Racism at the core of the shooting and the public weal be damned.
That there is a grievance within the black community about its situation is a fact. And the reasons for the situation are myriad. Yet the simple truth is that white America is the cause of all of black America's problems: Unemployment, lack of opportunity, murders, drug problems, lack of education -- you name it.
The truth is much more gray than that. Although white America bears responsibility for setting up the conditions that led to a lot of black America's problems, much has been done over the last fifty years to ameliorate them. We finally have a black president (albeit, technically, a biracial president) and a black first lady, we've had blacks in several high-ranking positions in the government, black Supreme Court justices, black athletes who have worldwide renown, more blacks above the poverty line and in the middle class than ever. That there are ghettos that are largely black is irrefutable. But there have been plenty of attempts to correct those situations, yet they continue to exist.
Is it the fault of white America that they still exist? Perhaps. But what of black responsibility? Is there no burden that the black community bears for its own advancement? And what of the rioting that takes place after an event such as the one in Milwaukee? Sure, there's frustration and outrage, but where are black leaders trying to quell the anger and prevent legitimate businesses and innocent people from bearing the brunt of that frustration and outrage?
Part of the problem, as always, is the media. Quick to sensationalize a story for the benefit of ratings, the MSM fuels the rush to judgment before all the facts are in. Much like the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, that led to the destruction of so much in that town, salient facts weren't reported initially that might well have headed off at the pass the destructive riots that followed. Would the rioters have committed these acts had they heard the ultimate resolution, or even the facts?
What's more, why use this an excuse to riot? Whatever happened to peaceful protest? Wasn't the election of President Obama the answer to racial inequality? Wasn't everything going to be righted upon his taking office? Either way, the rioting is wrong. There's no other way to say it.
I can't feel the same anger and frustration that blacks feel. I wasn't a member of an oppressed class. But the reason for rioting has to be something greater than a criminal being shot dead by police after he pointed his weapon at them.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, August 12, 2016
Why Would Anyone Want to be a Republican?
In the interest of fairness, I now turn to the Republicans to examine why anyone would want to be a member of that party. To reiterate, I'm a Marxist in the Groucho vein, so I have no dog in this race. I tend to loathe virtually everything there is about the modern-day Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean I'm enamored of the Republicans.
In my estimation, there aren't as many tawdry reasons to avoid affiliating with the Republican Party, but Wikileaks is busy right now with the Democrats. It may turn out that a cache with damning emails is produced that proves the Republicans are the devil incarnate, although right now, that title is clearly with the Democrats. But there's enough reason to question to sanity of anyone silly enough to join the Republicans.
My chief complaint against Republicans has always been their arrogance. Never before has it been on display as it has this election year, what with members of the base trying to oust the nominee who won their primary fair and square because he's not conservative enough. If he wasn't conservative enough, why was he allowed to run as a Republican? Wasn't he properly vetted? And if a vast majority of voters elected him, how can it be that an elite minority knows better than the majority? Is this Plato's theory brought to life? Did Jonathan Gruber suddenly become a Republican?
The Republican Party is entirely too monochromatic. In other words, it's too white. As a white person, I'm not opposed to white people. I just don't see the Republican Party as inclusive as it can and should be. Part of that isn't the Party's fault; the Democrats have hoodwinked blacks and Latinos into believing that it's their friend. But the Republicans share blame for a lack of effort. At best, it gives lip-service to wanting to be more inclusive. I don't see a whole lot of effort at reaching out to minorities. Perhaps it's going on behind the scenes, but while having the likes of Herman Cain, Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleeza Rice and Carly Fiorina on board, it's in the trenches that the gains have to be seen. Those four people are just that: Four votes. Four votes won't win an election.
In part, the Party's platform turns off minorities. That's because it's been sold that bill of goods by the Democrats who promise the world and provide next to nothing (Obamaphones notwithstanding). Republicans have to show why welfare is bad and how it's good only for the neediest in our society. It has to show that hardwork, education and opportunity are the by-words by which to live. It has to contrast that approach with the Democrats' approach and show the inefficacy of the latter.
It would also help if it touted its advances in minority advancement within the Party. This is a huge hurdle because brave souls who dare to label themselves as Republicans are accused of being Uncle Toms within the black community. It's ironic, one of the underlying principles of the civil rights movement was the freedom to choose one's own destiny. Yet there's a substantial block that holds that all blacks must think alike.
Republicans also reek of money, although that's as much a mistaken impression as it is that Democrats are blue collar people just getting by. If one doubts me, look up George Soros, Harvey Weinstein and virtually any Hollywood elitist supporting Cankles. Both sides have the monied elite, just as both sides have hardworking, blue collar members. The trouble with the perception is that conservative blue collar types are largely portrayed as hayseeds, trailer-trash or bikers. This demeaning perception isn't challenged enough to portray to those undecided that the Republican Party is comprised of people from all segments of society, not just the Koch Brothers.
Still, the overarching problem with the Republican Party is its arrogance. It did nothing to dispel this when it balked at Donald Trump being its nominee.
Apparently, those who would hold themselves out as true, Reagan conservatives forgot his famous Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
In my estimation, there aren't as many tawdry reasons to avoid affiliating with the Republican Party, but Wikileaks is busy right now with the Democrats. It may turn out that a cache with damning emails is produced that proves the Republicans are the devil incarnate, although right now, that title is clearly with the Democrats. But there's enough reason to question to sanity of anyone silly enough to join the Republicans.
My chief complaint against Republicans has always been their arrogance. Never before has it been on display as it has this election year, what with members of the base trying to oust the nominee who won their primary fair and square because he's not conservative enough. If he wasn't conservative enough, why was he allowed to run as a Republican? Wasn't he properly vetted? And if a vast majority of voters elected him, how can it be that an elite minority knows better than the majority? Is this Plato's theory brought to life? Did Jonathan Gruber suddenly become a Republican?
The Republican Party is entirely too monochromatic. In other words, it's too white. As a white person, I'm not opposed to white people. I just don't see the Republican Party as inclusive as it can and should be. Part of that isn't the Party's fault; the Democrats have hoodwinked blacks and Latinos into believing that it's their friend. But the Republicans share blame for a lack of effort. At best, it gives lip-service to wanting to be more inclusive. I don't see a whole lot of effort at reaching out to minorities. Perhaps it's going on behind the scenes, but while having the likes of Herman Cain, Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleeza Rice and Carly Fiorina on board, it's in the trenches that the gains have to be seen. Those four people are just that: Four votes. Four votes won't win an election.
In part, the Party's platform turns off minorities. That's because it's been sold that bill of goods by the Democrats who promise the world and provide next to nothing (Obamaphones notwithstanding). Republicans have to show why welfare is bad and how it's good only for the neediest in our society. It has to show that hardwork, education and opportunity are the by-words by which to live. It has to contrast that approach with the Democrats' approach and show the inefficacy of the latter.
It would also help if it touted its advances in minority advancement within the Party. This is a huge hurdle because brave souls who dare to label themselves as Republicans are accused of being Uncle Toms within the black community. It's ironic, one of the underlying principles of the civil rights movement was the freedom to choose one's own destiny. Yet there's a substantial block that holds that all blacks must think alike.
Republicans also reek of money, although that's as much a mistaken impression as it is that Democrats are blue collar people just getting by. If one doubts me, look up George Soros, Harvey Weinstein and virtually any Hollywood elitist supporting Cankles. Both sides have the monied elite, just as both sides have hardworking, blue collar members. The trouble with the perception is that conservative blue collar types are largely portrayed as hayseeds, trailer-trash or bikers. This demeaning perception isn't challenged enough to portray to those undecided that the Republican Party is comprised of people from all segments of society, not just the Koch Brothers.
Still, the overarching problem with the Republican Party is its arrogance. It did nothing to dispel this when it balked at Donald Trump being its nominee.
Apparently, those who would hold themselves out as true, Reagan conservatives forgot his famous Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Candidates, Their Statements and the MSM
The other day, shockingly (please read that word with the appropriate amount of sarcasm), Donald Trump said something controversial. In this version, he was railing about Cankles assault on the Second Amendment -- I believe his statements about her abolishing the Amendment were a little overblown, but what else is new with The Donald -- and he said:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Left, of course, is screaming bloody murder that with that statement, Mr. Trump was inciting violence. Listening to the radio, I heard several people for whom this was conclusive evidence that he was suggesting, in code, that someone take Cankles out. For them, there was no possible way that the remark could be construed as referring to the NRA's noted powerful lobby in Washington.
Nope, the Donald was putting a hit out on Cankles.
As a somewhat disinterested viewer, I don't believe that even if Cankles got into the White House (again) she'd be able to curtail the rights of gunowners, like me. At best, Congress may make it more difficult to get guns, or make the vetting process more expansive which, given the mass shootings we've experienced over the last ten years, isn't a bad thing provided that the thrust of the new regulations is at mental health. I've commented on the quagmire that that would be, so I won't go into that issue any further. But I don't think that Cankles or Congress would ever be able to require the surrender of lawfully obtained firearms.
Equally, I don't believe that Mr. Trump was advocating violence. If anything, he might have been suggesting that within the community of supporters of the Second Amendment, there might be a wingnut who would take a shot at her. It is equally plausible, however, that he was referring to the NRA's formidable lobbying group, which even the Left fears and about which it complains ad nauseum.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has tried to put distance between himself and the Left's interpretation of his comment. It's not like we'll ever know for sure, so arguing about it is really quite senseless. At best, it was a risky and possibly dangerous comment to make. Typically, Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff comments are the ones that get him in the most trouble.
What's interesting, though, is the hue and cry coming from the Cankles camp. It's to be expected, of course, that she would try to take advantage of her opponent's misstep. What's more perplexing, however, is that Cankles herself walked down a very similar path eight years ago.
My wife Karen -- the savant of all things political -- reminded me of a comment Cankles made during the 2008 primaries when asked whether she was going to end her campaign in the face of Mr. Obama's obvious impending victory.
From the New York Times article:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Here, again, was another off-the-cuff comment that got someone in trouble. She was taken to task a little, from what I can tell, although there was this odd part from Bobby Kennedy's namesake:
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Left, of course, is screaming bloody murder that with that statement, Mr. Trump was inciting violence. Listening to the radio, I heard several people for whom this was conclusive evidence that he was suggesting, in code, that someone take Cankles out. For them, there was no possible way that the remark could be construed as referring to the NRA's noted powerful lobby in Washington.
Nope, the Donald was putting a hit out on Cankles.
As a somewhat disinterested viewer, I don't believe that even if Cankles got into the White House (again) she'd be able to curtail the rights of gunowners, like me. At best, Congress may make it more difficult to get guns, or make the vetting process more expansive which, given the mass shootings we've experienced over the last ten years, isn't a bad thing provided that the thrust of the new regulations is at mental health. I've commented on the quagmire that that would be, so I won't go into that issue any further. But I don't think that Cankles or Congress would ever be able to require the surrender of lawfully obtained firearms.
Equally, I don't believe that Mr. Trump was advocating violence. If anything, he might have been suggesting that within the community of supporters of the Second Amendment, there might be a wingnut who would take a shot at her. It is equally plausible, however, that he was referring to the NRA's formidable lobbying group, which even the Left fears and about which it complains ad nauseum.
Mr. Trump, for his part, has tried to put distance between himself and the Left's interpretation of his comment. It's not like we'll ever know for sure, so arguing about it is really quite senseless. At best, it was a risky and possibly dangerous comment to make. Typically, Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff comments are the ones that get him in the most trouble.
What's interesting, though, is the hue and cry coming from the Cankles camp. It's to be expected, of course, that she would try to take advantage of her opponent's misstep. What's more perplexing, however, is that Cankles herself walked down a very similar path eight years ago.
My wife Karen -- the savant of all things political -- reminded me of a comment Cankles made during the 2008 primaries when asked whether she was going to end her campaign in the face of Mr. Obama's obvious impending victory.
From the New York Times article:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Here, again, was another off-the-cuff comment that got someone in trouble. She was taken to task a little, from what I can tell, although there was this odd part from Bobby Kennedy's namesake:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.
“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”
Now, I suppose that party affiliation is stronger than blood, at least in the Democratic Party, but if I were the son, I wouldn't have been so gracious. Still, like Mr. Trump's comment, there is room for interpretation of Cankles' comment. And that's why I would think that someone who blazed the very trail down which her opponent trod yesterday would know better than to utter this:
"Words matter, my friends, and if you are running to be president or you are president of the United States, words can have tremendous consequences," Clinton said at an event in Iowa this afternoon.
"Yesterday we witnessed the latest in a long line of casual comments from Donald Trump that crossed the line," she said.
Perhaps. But didn't she cross the line at least as badly in 2008, especially when referring to a contest involving the first viable black candidate?
Again, I'm not defending Mr. Trump's rhetoric. I'd hoped he'd have tightened up his speaking by now, but he hasn't. Instead, it's just safer to keep the seat belt on, because it's going to be a bumpy ride until the end of the year.
But Cankles is true to form: Flip flop as needed, disavow doing anything wrong and point the finger at someone for doing something similar to what she's done.
The more things change, the more Cankles stays the same.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 8, 2016
Travel
I'm hardly a globetrotter. I've visited exactly six foreign countries, including Canada, and only about a third of the states in the Union. I know some states very well, others not so much. I like traveling, as long as I avoid tourist traps and crowds. Seeing new places and experiencing new things feeds my curiosity. I really do wish I'd traveled more in my youth. Unfortunately, when my family finally went beyond Wisconsin, which as about the only place we ever traveled when I was younger, I had to work in the summers to put myself through school. Although that sounds harsh, consider that nowadays, there's no way a kid can work during the summer to put him- or herself through college for the upcoming year.
This morning I got to thinking about places I would never visit, places that I have no interest in seeing. That led to places that I'd love to see but am unlikely to ever see. So this is my list of the places I don't want to see and the places I would love to see but won't.
PLACES I NEVER WANT TO SEE
India -- There isn't enough money in the world that can make me want to go there. It's filthy, overcrowded and filled with people unctuously doing jobs outsourced there by U.S. companies. Don't tell me about the Taj Mahal; pictures suffice. I like spicy food, and I would probably like curried food, but I can get that Stateside.
Pakistan: I'm not stupid: I'm an American. Pakis don't like us, which is fine with me. The feeling is reciprocated. There is absolutely nothing worth my time in Pakistan...unless it's to see where Osama bin Laden was killed. But I doubt that's a tourist attraction.
Great Britain: Even if I weren't Irish and American, I don't think there's anything on that wretched island that would entice me to visit. I've promised Karen I'll go to Scotland -- if it's ever safe to fly again -- and Scotland does look beautiful from the pictures I've seen. Until Great Britain gives us back our Six Counties in the North, I'm not going there.
Japan: I don't like the culture. I don't like the food. I don't like the women. I don't like crowds. I don't like that Japan still tries to blame us for World War II. I'm never going there.
Brazil: I know, great bodies abound there. Still, there's nothing there that interests me. I'm not nuts about soccer. I don't speak Portuguese. I don't like Oscar Schmidt. I think Giselle Bundchen isn't all she's cracked up to be. I'll take a pass.
Russia: If I liked museums more, I'd go to St. Petersburg. About the only thing that would attract me to Russia would be to see Stalingrad, one of the defining battles of the Second World War. The food stinks, I have no interest in touring gulags and it gets terribly cold. No thanks.
Asia: Frankly, I could say that there isn't a single country in Asia that interests me. I'd go to Iwo Jima simply because of the battle, but nowhere else there interests me. I don't like the food, the culture, the women -- nada.
PLACES I WANT TO SEE
Australia-New Zealand: Without a doubt, this is the number one place on this list. Given my Irish background, I'm curious to see where my forebears were exiled. Beyond that, the landscape is austere yet beautiful. New Zealand is rapturously beautiful. The people are friendly and the food looks inviting. Heck yeah, sign me up. Given the distance, however, it would have to be a two-fer.
Machu Picchu: The rest of Peru does nothing for me. This place is mystical. The problem is that having had pulmonary embolisms, I think I'm disqualified from going up there.
South Africa: I have no desire to see the rest of Africa, even the pyramids, but the coastline of South Africa is rugged and rustic and dangerous. That alone warrants a trip.
Norway: A pattern is developing. The fjords of Norway have always beckoned me. I love their ruggedness. I'd have to tolerate the rather bland cuisine, but the people are supposed to be nice and the landscape beautiful.
Greece: I love the food. The islands are intriguing. The culture is beyond enticing. The only downsides for me are the pollution and the anti-American sentiment.
Vancouver/Banff: Now that I've finally spent some time in Canada, the only places in that country that I want to see are the picturesque Vancouver and the bucolic Banff. From all the pictures I've seen, these two places are not to be missed.
The trouble with wanting to travel to these places is that air travel nowadays is scarier than ever. Vancouver and Banff I can probably get to safely enough. I'd love to travel there by train. The other places I'll probably never see, but that's all right. There is so much of this country I haven't seen that I can spend the rest of my life visiting it.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
This morning I got to thinking about places I would never visit, places that I have no interest in seeing. That led to places that I'd love to see but am unlikely to ever see. So this is my list of the places I don't want to see and the places I would love to see but won't.
PLACES I NEVER WANT TO SEE
India -- There isn't enough money in the world that can make me want to go there. It's filthy, overcrowded and filled with people unctuously doing jobs outsourced there by U.S. companies. Don't tell me about the Taj Mahal; pictures suffice. I like spicy food, and I would probably like curried food, but I can get that Stateside.
Pakistan: I'm not stupid: I'm an American. Pakis don't like us, which is fine with me. The feeling is reciprocated. There is absolutely nothing worth my time in Pakistan...unless it's to see where Osama bin Laden was killed. But I doubt that's a tourist attraction.
Great Britain: Even if I weren't Irish and American, I don't think there's anything on that wretched island that would entice me to visit. I've promised Karen I'll go to Scotland -- if it's ever safe to fly again -- and Scotland does look beautiful from the pictures I've seen. Until Great Britain gives us back our Six Counties in the North, I'm not going there.
Japan: I don't like the culture. I don't like the food. I don't like the women. I don't like crowds. I don't like that Japan still tries to blame us for World War II. I'm never going there.
Brazil: I know, great bodies abound there. Still, there's nothing there that interests me. I'm not nuts about soccer. I don't speak Portuguese. I don't like Oscar Schmidt. I think Giselle Bundchen isn't all she's cracked up to be. I'll take a pass.
Russia: If I liked museums more, I'd go to St. Petersburg. About the only thing that would attract me to Russia would be to see Stalingrad, one of the defining battles of the Second World War. The food stinks, I have no interest in touring gulags and it gets terribly cold. No thanks.
Asia: Frankly, I could say that there isn't a single country in Asia that interests me. I'd go to Iwo Jima simply because of the battle, but nowhere else there interests me. I don't like the food, the culture, the women -- nada.
PLACES I WANT TO SEE
Australia-New Zealand: Without a doubt, this is the number one place on this list. Given my Irish background, I'm curious to see where my forebears were exiled. Beyond that, the landscape is austere yet beautiful. New Zealand is rapturously beautiful. The people are friendly and the food looks inviting. Heck yeah, sign me up. Given the distance, however, it would have to be a two-fer.
Machu Picchu: The rest of Peru does nothing for me. This place is mystical. The problem is that having had pulmonary embolisms, I think I'm disqualified from going up there.
South Africa: I have no desire to see the rest of Africa, even the pyramids, but the coastline of South Africa is rugged and rustic and dangerous. That alone warrants a trip.
Norway: A pattern is developing. The fjords of Norway have always beckoned me. I love their ruggedness. I'd have to tolerate the rather bland cuisine, but the people are supposed to be nice and the landscape beautiful.
Greece: I love the food. The islands are intriguing. The culture is beyond enticing. The only downsides for me are the pollution and the anti-American sentiment.
Vancouver/Banff: Now that I've finally spent some time in Canada, the only places in that country that I want to see are the picturesque Vancouver and the bucolic Banff. From all the pictures I've seen, these two places are not to be missed.
The trouble with wanting to travel to these places is that air travel nowadays is scarier than ever. Vancouver and Banff I can probably get to safely enough. I'd love to travel there by train. The other places I'll probably never see, but that's all right. There is so much of this country I haven't seen that I can spend the rest of my life visiting it.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Can the Mainstream Media Steal This Election?
It's no secret that I'm a harsh critic of the MSM. I've violated Godwin's Law so many times that I may as well call myself the Simon Wiesenthal of the MSM. I maintain that the greatest threat to this country isn't ISIS or anything environmental but the MSM because of the way it manipulates the news and presents it to the public. No, it's pretty clear to see where I stand on the issue of the MSM.
So perhaps this blogpost will be merely redundant. O' well. So be it.
Yet, with an open mind, consider what's happened in the wake of the party conventions that took place over the last couple of weeks. The MSM has gone after Mr. Trump with gleeful abandon, pouncing on any of his public statements that lack political correctness as if he were advocating sedition. Whether it be how he treats Cankles, how he comments babies at rallies or how he handles a shady parent of a fallen soldier, everything he does is scrutinized more than a urine sample or an NFL game. It's not that I object to the scrutiny, since he's running for president he deserves to be scrutinized to make sure he's made of presidential timber. Sometimes he's wanting in that department. Other times he's more presidential than the present President himself.
No, the problem I have with the scrutiny is the disproportionate level Mr. Trump gets compared to that meted out to Cankles. Considering the actions that are deserving of scrutiny, one would think the would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins would be salivating at the chance to dig into Cankles' misdeeds. It doesn't appear that the MSM has any interest in that because, probably fearful of what people already assume is true, it could sidetrack history in the making on the Inevitability Tour.
Wikileaks has released thousands of emails that show it is more probable than not that the Democratic National Committee did everything it could to hamstring Bernie Sanders. So bad was it that the harpie who used to be head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to resign by no less than the President himself. Shortly thereafter, Cankles hired her in some honorary role in her campaign.
So if I understand this correctly, Cankles hired the person who was in charge of the organization that ran an unfair primary election that resulted in her opponent being defeated and who, upon the revelation of the rigged primary election is forced to resign, and Cankles brings her into her campaign...and the MSM yawns???? Imagine if Mr. Trump had done the equivalent. The knives would be honed to a fine edge and it would be open season on candidates with bad hair.
Then there's the whole email scandal. When asked about it -- finally -- she gave such a bad response that some are calling it Pretzel Logic. She says that James Comey, the head of the FBI, didn't say she'd lied, but in fact that she'd told the American public the truth, or some such pap. In fact, Director Comey only said that what she'd done didn't rise to the level of an actionable offense, but several times said she'd not told the truth. Again, the MSM is giving her a pass on this without digging into the emails, her deflections and lies and the actual content of Director Comey's statements. It's old news, move along.
Mr. Trump would be burned alive at the stake.
Then there's the whole spat about Gold Star Families. Look, I'm as supportive as the next person about the military and especially when it comes to the extraordinary sacrifices they make for our country. And I'm sure Khizr Khan and his wife grieve everyday for their son, who died in defense of this country. But why is their story elevated above those of the four men who lost their lives in Benghazi? What's more, his life was at risk the minute he joined the military, whereas the men in Benghazi were not necessarily going to be in the line of fire. An absolutely galling interview took place on CNN where Charles Woods, the father of one of the former SEAL's killed in Benghazi, was repeatedly asked whether Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan for his comments about Muslim immigration, but when Mr. Woods asked whether Cankles should apologize to him for lying about what got his son killed, the talking head at CNN kept asking about Mr. Trump. In other words, we place value on lives based on which political candidate is in the discussion and how the lives factor into the political equation. Why is there no investigation into Cankles' lies about what prompted the attack on Benghazi? Why is there no examination of where she was and what she was doing when the attack took place? Why must the MSM tie Mr. Trump's position on Muslim immigration to Mr. Khan's loss?
The conflation of Mr. Trump's stance on Muslim immigration with the death of Mr. Khan's son is ridiculous, but it serves to distract from Cankles's misdeeds and put the focus on Mr. Trump as a bigot. Nevermind that Jimmy Carter, once the darling of the Left, advocated shutting down Muslim immigration after the embassy in Tehran was taken by the Iranians. No, Mr. Trump must be a bigot, and let Mr. Khan whip him with the Constitution to prove it.
Meanwhile, Cankles gets away with anything.
Don't think for a minute that the MSM can't steal this election. If not by actual deed, then by controlling the talking points so that the electorate gets the message the MSM wants it to receive.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
So perhaps this blogpost will be merely redundant. O' well. So be it.
Yet, with an open mind, consider what's happened in the wake of the party conventions that took place over the last couple of weeks. The MSM has gone after Mr. Trump with gleeful abandon, pouncing on any of his public statements that lack political correctness as if he were advocating sedition. Whether it be how he treats Cankles, how he comments babies at rallies or how he handles a shady parent of a fallen soldier, everything he does is scrutinized more than a urine sample or an NFL game. It's not that I object to the scrutiny, since he's running for president he deserves to be scrutinized to make sure he's made of presidential timber. Sometimes he's wanting in that department. Other times he's more presidential than the present President himself.
No, the problem I have with the scrutiny is the disproportionate level Mr. Trump gets compared to that meted out to Cankles. Considering the actions that are deserving of scrutiny, one would think the would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins would be salivating at the chance to dig into Cankles' misdeeds. It doesn't appear that the MSM has any interest in that because, probably fearful of what people already assume is true, it could sidetrack history in the making on the Inevitability Tour.
Wikileaks has released thousands of emails that show it is more probable than not that the Democratic National Committee did everything it could to hamstring Bernie Sanders. So bad was it that the harpie who used to be head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, was forced to resign by no less than the President himself. Shortly thereafter, Cankles hired her in some honorary role in her campaign.
So if I understand this correctly, Cankles hired the person who was in charge of the organization that ran an unfair primary election that resulted in her opponent being defeated and who, upon the revelation of the rigged primary election is forced to resign, and Cankles brings her into her campaign...and the MSM yawns???? Imagine if Mr. Trump had done the equivalent. The knives would be honed to a fine edge and it would be open season on candidates with bad hair.
Then there's the whole email scandal. When asked about it -- finally -- she gave such a bad response that some are calling it Pretzel Logic. She says that James Comey, the head of the FBI, didn't say she'd lied, but in fact that she'd told the American public the truth, or some such pap. In fact, Director Comey only said that what she'd done didn't rise to the level of an actionable offense, but several times said she'd not told the truth. Again, the MSM is giving her a pass on this without digging into the emails, her deflections and lies and the actual content of Director Comey's statements. It's old news, move along.
Mr. Trump would be burned alive at the stake.
Then there's the whole spat about Gold Star Families. Look, I'm as supportive as the next person about the military and especially when it comes to the extraordinary sacrifices they make for our country. And I'm sure Khizr Khan and his wife grieve everyday for their son, who died in defense of this country. But why is their story elevated above those of the four men who lost their lives in Benghazi? What's more, his life was at risk the minute he joined the military, whereas the men in Benghazi were not necessarily going to be in the line of fire. An absolutely galling interview took place on CNN where Charles Woods, the father of one of the former SEAL's killed in Benghazi, was repeatedly asked whether Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan for his comments about Muslim immigration, but when Mr. Woods asked whether Cankles should apologize to him for lying about what got his son killed, the talking head at CNN kept asking about Mr. Trump. In other words, we place value on lives based on which political candidate is in the discussion and how the lives factor into the political equation. Why is there no investigation into Cankles' lies about what prompted the attack on Benghazi? Why is there no examination of where she was and what she was doing when the attack took place? Why must the MSM tie Mr. Trump's position on Muslim immigration to Mr. Khan's loss?
The conflation of Mr. Trump's stance on Muslim immigration with the death of Mr. Khan's son is ridiculous, but it serves to distract from Cankles's misdeeds and put the focus on Mr. Trump as a bigot. Nevermind that Jimmy Carter, once the darling of the Left, advocated shutting down Muslim immigration after the embassy in Tehran was taken by the Iranians. No, Mr. Trump must be a bigot, and let Mr. Khan whip him with the Constitution to prove it.
Meanwhile, Cankles gets away with anything.
Don't think for a minute that the MSM can't steal this election. If not by actual deed, then by controlling the talking points so that the electorate gets the message the MSM wants it to receive.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Baltimore
The verdicts are in. Well, mostly they are. The ones that count the most, the judicial verdicts, are in. But public opinion's verdict still remains.
Three of the indicted policemen have been acquitted by a judge in the death of Freddie Gray, who died after being put in a police van. A fourth policeman's trial resulted in a mistrial. Two trials remain. Should those trials even go forward.
Legal observers who've paid close attention say that the prosecution has exhausted all its possible theories. To try to the remaining defendants would be a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, it might expose the City of Baltimore, which has already paid the family of Freddie Gray $6.4M to settle any wrongful death cause of action, to further suits for wrongful prosecution, not to mention claims for back pay and attorneys' fees.
No one can ever know how Freddie Gray died. There are those who want to believe that Mr. Gray's death was a result of negligent and reckless police behavior. Others believe it was the result of a pre-existing condition.
The trouble I have with the prosecutions is how they were fast-tracked, politically. Much like the infamous Duke lacrosse team prosecution, it appears that the prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, was trying to make a name for herself by pandering to the public. Calls are being made for an investigation of Ms. Mosby, given that reports indicate that she didn't provide a grand jury with the correct information when she sought an indictment for second degree murder against the driver of the police van in which Mr. Gray was transported and in which he died.
Ms. Mosby started off on the wrong foot, declaring that she heard your call -- our time is now. What investigation of a potential crime has to do with some group's time being now escapes me. That she ultimately failed to obtain a single guilty verdict indicates that at best, she jumped the gun with the indictments and, at worst, knowingly prosecuted men she knew to be innocent simply to ingratiate herself with the public.
Much like the rush to judgment in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, where even the Department of Justice set up a task force long before the autopsies were in, the Freddie Gray incident was used for political gain. It also helped fuel the summer of assaults on policemen across the nation. Certainly, other incidents stoked the flames, and certain of those incidents deserve greater scrutiny and punishment for the police involved. Yet now, anytime a black man dies at the hands of the police, it's presumed that it was a wrongful death and justice must be obtained.
Prosecutors serve the people -- all the people -- and must strive to prove the truth. They're not supposed to have an agenda and mold the facts and the law to support that agenda. That's what Ms. Mosby appears to have done in the Freddie Gray case. For as unfortunate and senseless Mr. Gray's death is, it's equally unfortunate and senseless that a prosecutor used the case to further her career at the expense of public servants and, in the end, accomplished nothing for the public or Mr. Gray's family.
Ms. Mosby should be referred to the state bar of Maryland to account for her actions. In the future, prosecuting attorneys would do well to remember the names of Michael Nifong and Marilyn Mosby before they decide to get justice for someone who died in questionable circumstances and before they have all the evidence.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Three of the indicted policemen have been acquitted by a judge in the death of Freddie Gray, who died after being put in a police van. A fourth policeman's trial resulted in a mistrial. Two trials remain. Should those trials even go forward.
Legal observers who've paid close attention say that the prosecution has exhausted all its possible theories. To try to the remaining defendants would be a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, it might expose the City of Baltimore, which has already paid the family of Freddie Gray $6.4M to settle any wrongful death cause of action, to further suits for wrongful prosecution, not to mention claims for back pay and attorneys' fees.
No one can ever know how Freddie Gray died. There are those who want to believe that Mr. Gray's death was a result of negligent and reckless police behavior. Others believe it was the result of a pre-existing condition.
The trouble I have with the prosecutions is how they were fast-tracked, politically. Much like the infamous Duke lacrosse team prosecution, it appears that the prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, was trying to make a name for herself by pandering to the public. Calls are being made for an investigation of Ms. Mosby, given that reports indicate that she didn't provide a grand jury with the correct information when she sought an indictment for second degree murder against the driver of the police van in which Mr. Gray was transported and in which he died.
Ms. Mosby started off on the wrong foot, declaring that she heard your call -- our time is now. What investigation of a potential crime has to do with some group's time being now escapes me. That she ultimately failed to obtain a single guilty verdict indicates that at best, she jumped the gun with the indictments and, at worst, knowingly prosecuted men she knew to be innocent simply to ingratiate herself with the public.
Much like the rush to judgment in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, where even the Department of Justice set up a task force long before the autopsies were in, the Freddie Gray incident was used for political gain. It also helped fuel the summer of assaults on policemen across the nation. Certainly, other incidents stoked the flames, and certain of those incidents deserve greater scrutiny and punishment for the police involved. Yet now, anytime a black man dies at the hands of the police, it's presumed that it was a wrongful death and justice must be obtained.
Prosecutors serve the people -- all the people -- and must strive to prove the truth. They're not supposed to have an agenda and mold the facts and the law to support that agenda. That's what Ms. Mosby appears to have done in the Freddie Gray case. For as unfortunate and senseless Mr. Gray's death is, it's equally unfortunate and senseless that a prosecutor used the case to further her career at the expense of public servants and, in the end, accomplished nothing for the public or Mr. Gray's family.
Ms. Mosby should be referred to the state bar of Maryland to account for her actions. In the future, prosecuting attorneys would do well to remember the names of Michael Nifong and Marilyn Mosby before they decide to get justice for someone who died in questionable circumstances and before they have all the evidence.
(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)