I wrote an email to Representative Rangel. I have to give credit where it is due, even if to the opposition.
here it is:
To The Honorable Representative Charles Rangel,
Dear Representative Rangel,
I lived in New York City for many years, although never as a member of your district. I now live in XXXXXXXXXX, NY in VVVVVVVV county, again not a member of your district. Of course, being a New Yorker, I am pretty familiar with you from news reports. I will admit our politics are not often the same; yet I have to hand it to you for your statements today about Hugo Chavez attacking our president.
Despite the fact that you and president Bush do not often see eye to eye on political matters, it was extremely commendable how you stepped up, in such a fine outstanding show of patriotism, to defend president Bush against that attack. Today sir, you showed your true colors: red, white and blue, and I am proud to call you the HONORABLE Representative from harlem, IT WAS A TRULY NON-PARTISAN PIECE OF PATRIOTISM ON YOUR PART. From one loyal American to another, thank you sir.
If you are interested, I wrote a piece for my blog, about just this, today @ http://ballseyesboomers.blogspot.com/
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Politicians never cease to amaze me...
... and today I was amazed more than usual by one of them. I am referring to Congressman Charles Rangel, the congressional representative for Harlem in New York City (or at least the rep for part of Harlem). The Honorable Representative Charles Rangel is pretty far to the left on all issues political. He is not anyone for whom I would be likely to vote if he were to run in an election where his was among the candidates from which I could choose. Yet today, even though I know of his very left leaning stance, or maybe I should say because of that hard left lean, he absolutely amazed me, and yo will note I just called him honorable.
As I was reading this article, Chavez Repeats 'Devil' Comment at Harlem Event, at FoxNews.com @ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214973,00.html
I read the following:
"As Chavez spoke in Harlem, U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel railed against the Venezuelan leader for choosing his New York congressional district to launch an attack on the president of the United States.
"You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and criticize my president, " Rangel said from Capitol Hill.
He added that "it would be crazy to think that Americans do not feel offended" by Chavez's remarks."
Yes that absolutely floored me with amazement. You see, at just about every chance the Representative Rangel gets, he seems to slam President Bush and his administration for something. Though it may happen sometimes, Congressman Rangel does not often see eye to eye with the current president. This applies, as far as I am aware, on issues like education, poverty, minimum wages, the war in Iraq, gun control, and so on - they just seemingly do not agree. So when (and may I take this one liberty when referring to an honorable congressperson) Charlie gave the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, hell for calling our president el Diablo, among other nasty criticisms he made of our president, well I have just got to say way to go Representative Rangel. You sir are an honorable man indeed when you defend your president against a big mouth like Chavez who comes here only to stir the pot for his own political gain.
Congressman Rangel, I am proud to call you honorable sir! Today, despite your political difference with the Bush administration, you did the right thing and stood up to this interloper from another nation. Who knows, maybe if you ever run in my district, I may vote for you yet.
By the way folks, what Congressman Rangel did, despite his differences with President Bush, is called an act of patriotism. What guys like Harry Belafonte did, what guys like Danny Glover did, I think that is called grand standing and rabble raising; and it may possibly even be called sedition by some. As far as I am concerned, in my opinion, they were a disgrace to the United States of America no matter how you feel about our current president. On the other hand, Congressman Rangel showed his true colors:, red, white and blue; and I salute him for it!
All the best,
Glenn B
Twisted Valor...
...well maybe and maybe not. Maybe the guy I am about to tell you about was not trying to do anything valiant at all; maybe he is just an out and out nut case, maybe just a criminal, maybe it was truly heroic, maybe he was valiant, maybe he was not involved at all. I guess time and the courts will tell, when and if judgment is passed on him.
This story, one I found at the website of 1010 WINS @
http://1010wins.com/pages/86443.php?contentType=4&contentId=209358
centers around a house in Suffolk County, New York. Reportedly, it is the house that a man, a husband and father of a 2 year old girl, allegedly tried to burn down. It is the house reportedly in which a group of convicted sex offenders had been residing. Apparently the man lived near to this house and was not happy that there were so many (number not disclosed in the article) of sex offenders living under the same roof.
"Suffolk County prosecutors say he was upset there were so many sex offenders under one roof and he began preparations in August to get rid of the house and those living in it. Police say he even di dtest burns behind his own home."
I can understand this man having feelings of fear because sex offenders were living near to his home, this especially in light of the fact that he has a 2 year old daughter. Some sex offenders apparently often repeat the same types of crimes over and over again; yet we do not know if that is the case with those in this story. Still I guess it is enough, having them live near you when you have young children, to make you fear them. I guess it is also enough to spur you to take some sort of action (legally) to get them out of your neighborhood, though I am not necessarily in agreement with taking such action. I say I do not necessarily agree because I figure they have served their time, and they have to live somewhere once out of jail. I am all for the death penalty for certain sex crimes, such as the rape of a child; yet, we don't even know the extent of their offenses. (I wonder if the father in question knew of what type of sex crimes they had been convicted.) These guys may have had nothing to do with children. I am making no excuses for them or their crimes mind you. I am geting to the point though, that no matter what they had done, I have to question the alleged actions of the suspect in question.
Do the prior offenses of these convicted sex offenders give the father, or anyone else, any right, legal, moral, ethical or otherwise, to try to murder them by burning down their house with them supposedly in it? Even if these reported sex offenders had all been previously convicted of offenses against children, as much as I would hate them for it, as much as I despise such criminals and their crimes, does it give anyone the right to try to murder them. I think not. I think though that such crimes should be dealt with in a different manner by the law in the first place. The death penalty for the first offense of rape or anal or oral sodomy of a child, 25 years to life for other sexual molestation of a child that included fondling of sexual organs of the victim or forcing the victim to fondle the molester, and I believe that before release from prison the guilty should be forced into intensive corrective therapy. In a case of second offenses, I believe that the death penalty would be in order; and I don't care that the offender is found mentally competent or not. Our children need to be protected, but it needs to be done through the law, not through someone self appointing him or herself as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
I can understand the fear of the father that may have pushed him to do this alleged act; though I think those fears will prove to have been, if he is found guilty, magnified beyond rationality. Of course, had the father been able to have armed himself and his wife with handguns, and had they been able under the law to use them in a reasonable defense of their home under a Castle Doctrine, and had they not had to fear legal reprisals if they had done so justifiably, well maybe he would not have been driven to take these alleged actions; but then New York State is an anti gun state, and pretty much a state that does not care for its citizens to be reasonably able to defend themselves even in their own homes. This may have lent to any irrationality that may possibly have contributed to the alleged actions of the father.
One thing I really do not understand in all of this was the reported actions, or seemingly to me, the untimely actions of the police. According to the article, it seems the police were well aware of the fathers alleged intentions before he took the alleged action to burn down the house.
"Suffolk DA Thomas Spota said an undercover detective met with (name removed by me, GRB), who revealed his murderous plot while being recorded on video and audio tape. Spota said the video shows the defendant explaining that he intends to start the fire on the side of the house."
Now folks, you tell me, am I reading too much into that quote. Does it not say that an undercover police officer met with the suspect? Does it not say that the police recorded both on audio and video, the suspect revealing his plot to the undercover officer? Does it not say that the recording was of the defendant explaining his INTENT. This would mean the recording was made before he did the alleged act, wouldn't it? If the article is reporting this correctly, then the police had more than enough to arrest the suspect right then and there, or so it seems to me. Yet, what did the police do. Well, to me, it appears they let him go on with his life until he allegedly tried to kill the occupants of that house by allegedly starting a fire there.
I know sex offenders can be scum, and I think of them as less than dog poo in many cases. Yet it does not give anyone the right to murder them, nor does it give the police the right to ignore a murder plot against them until after the act allegedly has been committed; and it sure seems to me that this is what happened! What if the guy had targetted the wrong house from the get go? What if the guy had to get his fill of courage from a bottle before allegedly going out to burn down the house, and then in a drunken stupor had gone to the next house over. No matter how much you may despise sexual predators, think about the consequences that could have played out by the police allowing him his freedom after they became aware of the alleged plot and had things gone just a bit differently. It could have been your house burning.
This man is innocent until proven guilty; I imagine he will have his day in court, probably many days. The police are innocent until proven guilty too of any wrongdoing. Yet, this article sure makes one think about what the heck was going on in the minds of the police; and of course in the mind of the suspect. Doesn't it?
All the best,
Glenn B
This story, one I found at the website of 1010 WINS @
http://1010wins.com/pages/86443.php?contentType=4&contentId=209358
centers around a house in Suffolk County, New York. Reportedly, it is the house that a man, a husband and father of a 2 year old girl, allegedly tried to burn down. It is the house reportedly in which a group of convicted sex offenders had been residing. Apparently the man lived near to this house and was not happy that there were so many (number not disclosed in the article) of sex offenders living under the same roof.
"Suffolk County prosecutors say he was upset there were so many sex offenders under one roof and he began preparations in August to get rid of the house and those living in it. Police say he even di dtest burns behind his own home."
I can understand this man having feelings of fear because sex offenders were living near to his home, this especially in light of the fact that he has a 2 year old daughter. Some sex offenders apparently often repeat the same types of crimes over and over again; yet we do not know if that is the case with those in this story. Still I guess it is enough, having them live near you when you have young children, to make you fear them. I guess it is also enough to spur you to take some sort of action (legally) to get them out of your neighborhood, though I am not necessarily in agreement with taking such action. I say I do not necessarily agree because I figure they have served their time, and they have to live somewhere once out of jail. I am all for the death penalty for certain sex crimes, such as the rape of a child; yet, we don't even know the extent of their offenses. (I wonder if the father in question knew of what type of sex crimes they had been convicted.) These guys may have had nothing to do with children. I am making no excuses for them or their crimes mind you. I am geting to the point though, that no matter what they had done, I have to question the alleged actions of the suspect in question.
Do the prior offenses of these convicted sex offenders give the father, or anyone else, any right, legal, moral, ethical or otherwise, to try to murder them by burning down their house with them supposedly in it? Even if these reported sex offenders had all been previously convicted of offenses against children, as much as I would hate them for it, as much as I despise such criminals and their crimes, does it give anyone the right to try to murder them. I think not. I think though that such crimes should be dealt with in a different manner by the law in the first place. The death penalty for the first offense of rape or anal or oral sodomy of a child, 25 years to life for other sexual molestation of a child that included fondling of sexual organs of the victim or forcing the victim to fondle the molester, and I believe that before release from prison the guilty should be forced into intensive corrective therapy. In a case of second offenses, I believe that the death penalty would be in order; and I don't care that the offender is found mentally competent or not. Our children need to be protected, but it needs to be done through the law, not through someone self appointing him or herself as police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
I can understand the fear of the father that may have pushed him to do this alleged act; though I think those fears will prove to have been, if he is found guilty, magnified beyond rationality. Of course, had the father been able to have armed himself and his wife with handguns, and had they been able under the law to use them in a reasonable defense of their home under a Castle Doctrine, and had they not had to fear legal reprisals if they had done so justifiably, well maybe he would not have been driven to take these alleged actions; but then New York State is an anti gun state, and pretty much a state that does not care for its citizens to be reasonably able to defend themselves even in their own homes. This may have lent to any irrationality that may possibly have contributed to the alleged actions of the father.
One thing I really do not understand in all of this was the reported actions, or seemingly to me, the untimely actions of the police. According to the article, it seems the police were well aware of the fathers alleged intentions before he took the alleged action to burn down the house.
"Suffolk DA Thomas Spota said an undercover detective met with (name removed by me, GRB), who revealed his murderous plot while being recorded on video and audio tape. Spota said the video shows the defendant explaining that he intends to start the fire on the side of the house."
Now folks, you tell me, am I reading too much into that quote. Does it not say that an undercover police officer met with the suspect? Does it not say that the police recorded both on audio and video, the suspect revealing his plot to the undercover officer? Does it not say that the recording was of the defendant explaining his INTENT. This would mean the recording was made before he did the alleged act, wouldn't it? If the article is reporting this correctly, then the police had more than enough to arrest the suspect right then and there, or so it seems to me. Yet, what did the police do. Well, to me, it appears they let him go on with his life until he allegedly tried to kill the occupants of that house by allegedly starting a fire there.
I know sex offenders can be scum, and I think of them as less than dog poo in many cases. Yet it does not give anyone the right to murder them, nor does it give the police the right to ignore a murder plot against them until after the act allegedly has been committed; and it sure seems to me that this is what happened! What if the guy had targetted the wrong house from the get go? What if the guy had to get his fill of courage from a bottle before allegedly going out to burn down the house, and then in a drunken stupor had gone to the next house over. No matter how much you may despise sexual predators, think about the consequences that could have played out by the police allowing him his freedom after they became aware of the alleged plot and had things gone just a bit differently. It could have been your house burning.
This man is innocent until proven guilty; I imagine he will have his day in court, probably many days. The police are innocent until proven guilty too of any wrongdoing. Yet, this article sure makes one think about what the heck was going on in the minds of the police; and of course in the mind of the suspect. Doesn't it?
All the best,
Glenn B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)