If due to fear we are too timid to confront a friend and ally with the awful truth of its past, then what hope have we ever of mustering the courage to confront others with the alarming truth of their present–the same truth that compels them forward to relive the failures committed by the Ottoman Empire a hundred years ago?
Besides, wouldn’t we all be bigger if the Turkish parliament simply apologized for its past history, promulgate its own resolution declaring as genocide the United State’s treatment of the Native Americans, and then called it even?
Finally, to make it all feasible, I will apologize in advance for my ancestors and the American people.
Loren M. Lambert
October 16, 2007 ©
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
PAKISTAN'S LAWYERS FOR DEMOCRACY
Thousands of Pakistani Lawyers, showing great courage in stepping out of the privileged lives they enjoy, have been beaten, jailed and most likely tortured, for opposing Pakistan Dictator, General Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of Marshal Law. These lawyers, who probably have great influence and widespread support throughout all levels of Pakistan, are bulwarks for democracy. They should be supported by any means available. They, instead of Musharraf, are best positioned to bring about real change and democracy to Pakistan.
Both Shakespeare and Mao Se Tung understood that, before obtaining complete control over a population, dictators first obliterate the legal system by killing the lawyers and judges. They are the proverbial canaries in the mine. After they go, so will everyone else that is a friend of democracy and of law and order.
General Musharraf only does enough to aid the US in its fight against Pakistan to placate the west and perpetuate his power. But don’t expect the Bush administration to really care about the lawyers. Like Musharraf, the Bush administration, masterful in pronouncing superficialities, will publicly, but mutely, condemn Musharraf while then continuing to aid his government and going on as if nothing has happened. In the long run, this will be a disaster and will cause the radicalization of Musharraf’s opposition, which, out of necessity, will also have to rebel against Musharraf’s most ardent supporter, the United States of the Bush Administration.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Both Shakespeare and Mao Se Tung understood that, before obtaining complete control over a population, dictators first obliterate the legal system by killing the lawyers and judges. They are the proverbial canaries in the mine. After they go, so will everyone else that is a friend of democracy and of law and order.
General Musharraf only does enough to aid the US in its fight against Pakistan to placate the west and perpetuate his power. But don’t expect the Bush administration to really care about the lawyers. Like Musharraf, the Bush administration, masterful in pronouncing superficialities, will publicly, but mutely, condemn Musharraf while then continuing to aid his government and going on as if nothing has happened. In the long run, this will be a disaster and will cause the radicalization of Musharraf’s opposition, which, out of necessity, will also have to rebel against Musharraf’s most ardent supporter, the United States of the Bush Administration.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
GEORGIA BELIEVES A YOUTHFUL INDISCRETION MERITS 10 YEARS IN JAIL
When I heard about Genarlow Wilson, who had his 10-year prison sentence overturned for having consensual oral sex when he was 17-years-old with a 15-year-old female, I was flabbergasted and astounded. First, because of the length, second, because it took two and a half years to overturn the sentence, and third, because I hadn’t heard about it before. When the sentence was first passed, it should have caused a firestorm. This case typifies almost every idiocy of the United States federal and state criminal justice systems. In our constant haste to show, by authoritarian force, how we are allegedly tough on crime, we weld our laws to impose our fanatical religious excesses and our bias ridden philosophies on the immature, impoverished and impaired. Often, it is not the blind matron of Liberty, with her equal scales of justice being held up to the multitudes, that best symbolizes our sense of fairness. Instead, it is the many-eyed, bloated black widow who is discriminately spewing out sticky webs to entrap and imprison all who are unfortunate enough to have blundered into her traps to be bundled up, stung, and stored away to have their life slowly sucked away.
Genarlow’s 10-year prison sentence is a stark example of Georgia’s, if not the Nation’s, religious and racial bigotry. Passing draconian laws to control the human race’s sexual proclivities because of our religious zealotry is like trying to control a fistful of slime by squeezing it more tightly in your hand. The harder you squeeze the more dismal will be your loss of control. While, as a society, we certainly need some boundaries to curb the dangerous sexual excesses of the few, we do not need to crucify the handful of the millions who engage in a youthful, or even adult indiscretion and are caught. The truth is there are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of thousands that have engaged in some sexual activities that would, when acknowledged publically, be deemed inappropriate by the "moral majority." This alleged "moral majority" needs to again learn the lesson that Jesus gave the world when he rescued the adulteress from stoning. I am confident that the same Jesus would stand at Genarlow’s side and many of the other alleged criminals crushed by our system of mandatory minimums and ridiculously long prison sentences. This punishment is meted out by those in authority who, if they were honest, are not without sin and, therefore, not worthy to cast such an unforgiving and unmerciful stone.
Some may think that Genarlow’s case is a single anomaly of things gone horribly wrong. It is not. It could never have happened without the combined effort of hundreds of religious extremists and secretly racist zealots in the Georgia State legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government who have joined forces to promulgate, enforce, prosecute, and impose a law that would knowingly be selectively used against black Americans and other disfavored minorities and groups. Now, how can I make such a claim when the law is religiously and racially neutral? I can because, while the dictator of Iran may claim there are no homosexuals in Iran, and the elite in Georgia may claim there are no other 17-year-old men that have had consensual sex with 15-year-old women, every honest human being who has knowingly experienced this life with their eyes fully open and their ears fully engaged (no matter how "pure" their own lives) know this is just not the case. The only reason it may appear so is, because in Iran any homosexual who dares reveal his or her orientation is murdered; and in Georgia you can bet when some elite white law enforcement officer’s child is caught in the act, discretion is exercised by quietly looking the other way. Intuition would also indicate that, although it was not said, Georgians most likely passed such a law to wield against any black American who dared touch a white woman. In essence, if they couldn’t get away with lynching, then a mandatory 10-year sentence could maybe pass under the radar (which it apparently did).
The other issue brought to the front by the Genarlow case is the fallacy, in its current day application, that statutory rape and statutory sexual abuse laws can be wholly justified without serious question. These laws often impose unduly harsh sentences for engaging in sex with a minor even though there is not a great disparity in age of the participants and the female was honestly perceived for being of adult age. Also, most of these laws are imposed, either explicitly or by implementation, against only the male partner of the consensual sex. This is not appropriate.
The notion that consent when given by a minor child to engage in sex or that a mis-perception of the age of one’s partner in consensual sex should not drastically mitigate the consequences is unjustifiable. Moreover, the additional cultural sentiment that the minor female never bears responsibility for consensual sex sends the wrong message and is inequitable.
As an attorney, I have encountered many cases in which the female partner’s choices, actions, and own criminality, were equal too, if not more condemnable than her male partner. In such cases, should not society be as equally concerned about redirecting the female participant as well as the male? Additionally, there is a great difference in a male who knowingly pursues and entices an underage female into engaging in sexual relations than a male who honestly believes he is having sex with an adult who is fully capable of understanding the consequences of her choices. In short, instead of disintegrating into a revengeful society bent on metaphorical lynching and stoning, as Bill O’Reilly has said, we need a fair and balanced approach in our laws that attempt to manage human sexuality within reasonable boundaries without creating criminals of all who are unwilling or unable to adhere to our religious and moral views on human sexuality.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Genarlow’s 10-year prison sentence is a stark example of Georgia’s, if not the Nation’s, religious and racial bigotry. Passing draconian laws to control the human race’s sexual proclivities because of our religious zealotry is like trying to control a fistful of slime by squeezing it more tightly in your hand. The harder you squeeze the more dismal will be your loss of control. While, as a society, we certainly need some boundaries to curb the dangerous sexual excesses of the few, we do not need to crucify the handful of the millions who engage in a youthful, or even adult indiscretion and are caught. The truth is there are perhaps hundreds if not thousands of thousands that have engaged in some sexual activities that would, when acknowledged publically, be deemed inappropriate by the "moral majority." This alleged "moral majority" needs to again learn the lesson that Jesus gave the world when he rescued the adulteress from stoning. I am confident that the same Jesus would stand at Genarlow’s side and many of the other alleged criminals crushed by our system of mandatory minimums and ridiculously long prison sentences. This punishment is meted out by those in authority who, if they were honest, are not without sin and, therefore, not worthy to cast such an unforgiving and unmerciful stone.
Some may think that Genarlow’s case is a single anomaly of things gone horribly wrong. It is not. It could never have happened without the combined effort of hundreds of religious extremists and secretly racist zealots in the Georgia State legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government who have joined forces to promulgate, enforce, prosecute, and impose a law that would knowingly be selectively used against black Americans and other disfavored minorities and groups. Now, how can I make such a claim when the law is religiously and racially neutral? I can because, while the dictator of Iran may claim there are no homosexuals in Iran, and the elite in Georgia may claim there are no other 17-year-old men that have had consensual sex with 15-year-old women, every honest human being who has knowingly experienced this life with their eyes fully open and their ears fully engaged (no matter how "pure" their own lives) know this is just not the case. The only reason it may appear so is, because in Iran any homosexual who dares reveal his or her orientation is murdered; and in Georgia you can bet when some elite white law enforcement officer’s child is caught in the act, discretion is exercised by quietly looking the other way. Intuition would also indicate that, although it was not said, Georgians most likely passed such a law to wield against any black American who dared touch a white woman. In essence, if they couldn’t get away with lynching, then a mandatory 10-year sentence could maybe pass under the radar (which it apparently did).
The other issue brought to the front by the Genarlow case is the fallacy, in its current day application, that statutory rape and statutory sexual abuse laws can be wholly justified without serious question. These laws often impose unduly harsh sentences for engaging in sex with a minor even though there is not a great disparity in age of the participants and the female was honestly perceived for being of adult age. Also, most of these laws are imposed, either explicitly or by implementation, against only the male partner of the consensual sex. This is not appropriate.
The notion that consent when given by a minor child to engage in sex or that a mis-perception of the age of one’s partner in consensual sex should not drastically mitigate the consequences is unjustifiable. Moreover, the additional cultural sentiment that the minor female never bears responsibility for consensual sex sends the wrong message and is inequitable.
As an attorney, I have encountered many cases in which the female partner’s choices, actions, and own criminality, were equal too, if not more condemnable than her male partner. In such cases, should not society be as equally concerned about redirecting the female participant as well as the male? Additionally, there is a great difference in a male who knowingly pursues and entices an underage female into engaging in sexual relations than a male who honestly believes he is having sex with an adult who is fully capable of understanding the consequences of her choices. In short, instead of disintegrating into a revengeful society bent on metaphorical lynching and stoning, as Bill O’Reilly has said, we need a fair and balanced approach in our laws that attempt to manage human sexuality within reasonable boundaries without creating criminals of all who are unwilling or unable to adhere to our religious and moral views on human sexuality.
Loren M. Lambert
November 6, 2007 ©
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Utah Mormons and Mitt on Polygamy
During an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Mitt Romney indicated that he couldn’t "imagine anything more awful than polygamy." He also apologized for his great-grandfather who took on additional wives because he was ordered to do so. This is same sentiment that many Utah Mormons have expressed during the Jeffs trial.
Please spare me the political and self-righteous prattle. Maybe Mitt and Utah Mormons can’t think of something more awful (with the exception of losing the political support of the Christian right), but I can. I’ll start with Mormons who try to pretend that polygamy was just some strange aberration with no connection to early Mormon doctrine.
To the contrary, polygamy was a core tenant taught from every pulpit and expounded by the highest leaders as a practice needed for eternal salvation. While I don’t have a problem with fellow Mormons who personally believe that polygamy is an awful idea, I do have a problem with Mormons who disavow our forefathers and history in order to more conveniently comport with our modern sensibilities. This approach is hypocritical and repugnant.
If polygamy was needed for eternal salvation one hundred and fifty years ago, don’t brand as abhorrent those who believed it then nor those who believe this same "truth" today. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, nor is there anything inherently right about monogamy– it’s just the most sensible ideal for our modern age– nothing more, nothing less.
Loren M. Lambert
March 1, 2007 ©
Revised Sept. 25, 2007 ©
Please spare me the political and self-righteous prattle. Maybe Mitt and Utah Mormons can’t think of something more awful (with the exception of losing the political support of the Christian right), but I can. I’ll start with Mormons who try to pretend that polygamy was just some strange aberration with no connection to early Mormon doctrine.
To the contrary, polygamy was a core tenant taught from every pulpit and expounded by the highest leaders as a practice needed for eternal salvation. While I don’t have a problem with fellow Mormons who personally believe that polygamy is an awful idea, I do have a problem with Mormons who disavow our forefathers and history in order to more conveniently comport with our modern sensibilities. This approach is hypocritical and repugnant.
If polygamy was needed for eternal salvation one hundred and fifty years ago, don’t brand as abhorrent those who believed it then nor those who believe this same "truth" today. There is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, nor is there anything inherently right about monogamy– it’s just the most sensible ideal for our modern age– nothing more, nothing less.
Loren M. Lambert
March 1, 2007 ©
Revised Sept. 25, 2007 ©
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Ex-Congressman Cannon Calls All to Multiply and Replenish the Earth
Well now we know, thanks to Deseret News Editor Joseph A. Cannon, it is not the threat of nuclear war, global warming, middle east strife nor environmental degradation that threatens our planet, it is the "impending ‘empty cradle’" that most threatens our world. Moreover, we also know that those who choose not to have large families to drive around in their 15-Person Ford Assault-Vans are just plain selfish and most probably Godless and unfeeling. And if you think about it, Jesus Christ would fit into this category (apparently he was single and had no children). Now, I do not necessarily disagree with Ex-Congressman Cannon that it is indeed sometimes selfishness that causes people to choose to be childless, but it is also that same selfishness that causes people to gut steel mills and send jobs to cheaper labor markets, own huge homes, drive around in Hummers, and act as if there’s no one else in the world but them (or me, you, or Ex-Congressman Cannon).
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Ex–Congressman Cannon’s editorials go on to champion those countries that have promulgated policies to encourage procreation while he castigates Malthus and his adherents who warned the world of overpopulation. Never does this proponent of exuberant procreation stop to analyze why declining populations present a crisis for westernized countries. It is this: Declining populations are a threat to consumer-based economies and are the bane of xenophobics who realize that in order to maintain their consumer-based, market-driven economies, foreign workers of different races, cultures, colors and religions must be immigrated into their economies to maintain their standards of living. You see, if populations decline, then there is less demand for food, clothing, and shelter and all of us that are depending upon our land values to remain high would see them plummet with the population. We are all part of a giant house-of-cards Ponzi scheme that is one deadly flu virus away from crashing down on our heads. That is what concerns the President Putins of the world.
Ex-Congressman Cannon concludes that this empty cradle dilemma was purposely foreseen by God who therefore gave the commandment to humankind to "multiply and replenish the Earth." His opinion, naturally and not surprisingly, comports with what many of the LDS faith believe as an unquestionable doctrine of the Mormon Church; that is, they are commanded to have large families. Therefore, at least in Utah, his editorial will ride high above the grinding truth mill of serious public discourse. However, the LDS Church has never established a doctrine regarding the number of children a couple should bring into the world. Moreover, as occurred with polygamy, what the individual, the couple, or the body of the church may be asked to do, when it comes to procreation, may very well depend upon individual circumstances and the collective exigencies of a particular era.
Once, when asked if Mormons were directed to have large families, a prominent LDS leader responded that Mormons, "plan to have children, and plan to take care of them." The problem is that Mormons, as well as with many of similar bent, very naturally remember the "multiply" part of God’s commandment and engage in it with exuberant, often mindless abandon but forget the equally relevant requirement to "replenish" and to plan to take care of their families. "To plan" does not mean to tumble into bed for a 10-year love binge and then when the fog of procreation lifts with the advent of six children under the age of 10, to get two jobs, go to night school, max out the credits cards and, if all this fails, go on welfare and take out bankruptcy. Nor is the Earth replenished, when during the pleasure-filled fog of procreation or birth-controlled sex you are able to provide your many progenies (or yourself) with a 500,000 square foot home, a houseboat on Lake Powell, and an SUV for each child’s graduation or for all you friends.
There is a balance and it is a balance that we humans either need to establish or it will be forced upon our heads. Nature in its natural God-given cycle goes through its replenishment process in cycles of population growths and population declines. Population declines occur when there are insufficient resources. Having the benefit of foresight, Humans should not be so arrogant that God will spare them from this natural law, and He therefore will not save us from our failure to replenish the Earth. Perhaps the "impending empty cradle" crisis is a solution to humanities’ inability to find this balance. It will force upon us a solution that doesn’t involve mass human extinctions, which will occur if all give heed to Congressman Cannon’s call to multiply.
To seek this balance, and avoid a Cannonisian tragedy, some people should not have children, some people should have fewer children, and some people who are responsible and plan to take care of their children should be allowed the privilege of having several children. However, no society should be allowed, with or without half a dozen kids a couple, to deplete, degrade, and destroy the Earth and thereby extinguish all of its many creatures. Similarly, no couple, including Ex-Congressman Cannon, should steep themselves in opulent luxury. We are all guilty of this in the United States, as it is the common denominator of the Godless and the God-fearing.
Despite Ex-Congressman Cannon’s inference to the contrary, I do not believe it was ever God’s plan that every square mile of Tierra Firma be a developer’s paradise with sterile theme parks and the few animals we deem worthy to live. To survive physically and spiritually, we need our wild places, our tundras, our teaming seas, our barrier reefs, our jungles, and unpolluted expanses.
I say, do not fear the Cannonisian prophecy of doom and an impending "empty cradle." Fear more a world populace that cannot find balance; that, instead of becoming an educationally driven society engaged in developing the depths of its love, knowledge, skills, abilities, and spirit, it is only interested in expanding its waistline, families, portfolios, houses, vehicles, and resorts. Yes, plan to have families and plan to take care of them, but more importantly give money and time to those who would fill and enlighten your minds and mold and develop your bodies, and not to those who would overfill your eyes or your bellies. This is the only path towards a sustainable, replenished and peaceful Earth and provides a place for both the childless, the "child wealthy," and all of our fellow creatures.
Loren M. Lambert
August 5, 2007 ©
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You're Sorry
Prosecution Means You Never Have to Say You’re Sorry
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
and/or
Why Can’t Prosecutors, Governmental Attorney and
Law Enforcement Officers Say They’re Sorry?
and/or
Attorney General Foti and Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen
Joins Ranks of Those Who Think They’re God
A New Orleans grand jury exonerated Dr. Ann Pou and nurses Cheri Landry and Lori Budo, on allegations that they murdered four patients in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The grand jury felt that the allegations were not true.
But Foti, erstwhile Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff and the current Attorney General for the state of Louisiana, instead of thanking the grand jury for its civic duty and apologizing for ruining the lives Dr. Pou and nurses Landry and Budo, arrogantly stated, "I am very proud of our efforts on behalf of the victims and their families."
Also, Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, upon hearing the news of the exoneration, herded her fellow prosecutors Michael Morales and Craig Famularo quickly from the court and quipped, "It's our position that it was homicide."
This reaction is typical of, I would dare say, every law enforcement officer, prosecutor, and government official who tears into a fellow citizen, then is proven wrong. Why can’t they ever just apologize? Why don’t they believe in the Constitution that states that we are innocent until proven guilty? Is there some innate, genetic flaw that disallows an ounce of humility in such public officials?
Admittedly, as an attorney, when I lose a case I usually think the judge or the jury was wrong. However, please don’t tell anyone, but in hindsight there are many cases that I wish I never would’ve taken because they were mistakes for all kinds of reasons, sometimes including my fallibility, and the fact that the other side was right. There, I’ve confessed. Please let me know if you have ever heard a prosecutor, government attorney, or law enforcement officer apologize for, in hindsight, making a mistake. If so, it would be an earth-shaking revelation. The saddest thing about this all is that not only are no apologies ever given, the victims of prosecutorial misconduct are rarely compensated for their devastating losses.
Loren M. Lambert
July 28, 2007©
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Moral Relativism
Unsettled by all the uncertainty looming on our national horizon with the Iraq war, global warming, the Supreme Court’s right wing verge, and finally Sean Hannity’s comeuppance at the hands of Mayor Anderson, I sought counsel from my old standby, the Thirteenth Apostle, Elder Secret Name. The same guy who has also been the lost Imam, the Fourth Wise Man, the Third Nephite and the Reclining Buddha.
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
He explained to me that, due to its moral relativism, western civilization is headed over the brink. I asked him if VP Dick Cheney’s use of extraordinary rendition to torture alleged terrorist suspects was an example of this. "No, no, no," Elder Secret Name counseled, "Republicans can do that, especially since they do it in Gods name and in a friendly legal forum."
"Oh, yeah, stupid me," I piped up, thinking I understood. "That’s why you, the Thirteenth Apostle, having spent time in one of those friendly legal forums when you were the Fourth Wise Man, were able to have three wives." He didn’t respond to this, but only smiled slyly.
Emboldened, I asked if I extraordinarily rendered myself into a friendly legal forum like Hilldale or Kuwait, could I pick up a couple of wives? He frowned and reminded me that I was practically a democrat, if not a libertarian, and therefore was not entitled to use extraordinary rendition for this privilege. He then suggested that I be patient, because in heaven even democrats were allowed as many republican wives as they wanted. "Why republican wives?" I asked. "Wasn’t that still against the law like miscegenation once was?"
"No," he chuckled, explaining that democrat women were unwilling, democrat men were scarce, and republican women were tired of all the prissy republican men. Besides, he said, Hilldale was being extraordinarily rendered by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
Yeah, what about that, I asked, what did he think of all the pomp and hypocrisy on the evils of polygamy by the descendants of the polygamists? Then he said, borrowing a phrase from VP Cheney, that it was a no-brainer. He explained that some things were not okay some of the time in some places but, as long as you were a God-fearing Republican, those same things were okay some of the time in other places."Oh," I said. "I get it. Things like drinking, speeding, abusing prescription drugs and cheating on your taxes?"
"No, no, no," he admonished, this time getting a little peeved. "Everyone, even Republicans, can share in the blessings of the principles of temperance and paying their taxes, especially if the taxes go to support a capitalistic war, and not a socialistic health care system." Hoping I’d finally gotten it, I asked him if to avoid moral relativism I just needed to become a good Republican. He then smiled serenely, blessed me and disappeared.
Loren Lambert© April 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)