Yes, the coveted/dreaded Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate stopped spinning on Saturday pointing solidly at leftists (in the Age of Obama) and the mainstream media (redundancy). There is no way to single out inidviduals here, which include diverse mainstream media outlets such as Fox News (part of the mainstream media problem and not the solution) and the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always give complete, official name the first reference). Yes, the leftists on CNN and MSNBC, and all of the rest, surely got in the act.
I am referring to the disgraceful exhibition last week (see the entry on "Eight Year Old Killers) of the mainstream media, and leftist "experts", trying to make an "issue" out of police conduct in obtaining that confession of an eight year old boy who murdered his father (and another man).
What can you say about people who think Miranda warnings make sense for an eight year old boy? Well, we can say they belong on Wall Street, or Wall Street people belong in "journalism" (see immediately previous entry). They are that stupid.
But what about people so evil, and so driven by agenda, that they are willing to argue that an eight year old boy should be "defended" like an adult criminal defendant. That ignores the entrie function of the juvenile justice system. Yes, I am perfectly aware that system can harm children. However, the idea that our goal with regard to eight year old boys is to provide them an effective criminal "defense" is so bizarre that it exposes anyone asserting it as an evil, stupid person. There may be no way to help an eight year old murderer of this type, in which case he should be locked up in an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of his life. But we have to try. Procedural protections of adult criminal defendants are almost irrelevant to this process--certainly in a case where there is no doubt about the child's "guilt". The idea is to try to change the child into a productive citizen, so that he does not eventually face the adult criminal system as an adult criminal defendant. . If you don't understand that, you are not an "expert" in any kind of criminal law--certainly not in juvenile law. If a 16 year old goes to trial as an adult, then he should get a full criminal defense. If a lawyer representing a juvenile in the juvenile system regards it as his or her job to "get the child off", then that is one evil, stupid lawyer. The lawyer should be trying to get the best help for the child the lawyer can get--not trying to avoid acknowledging "guilt".
Some may regard this as minor. I regard it as major. I regard it as one of the major illustrations of the evil and stupidity of the mainstream media, and many leftists, that I have seen. It is totally a matter of the Age of Obama putting symbols, agena, and words over substance. Anyone who wants to talk about Miranda warnings for an eight year old child (as the despicable AP/AOL story di) belongs in an institution themselves. They should not be around loose out there. Yet, I am afraid people like this are running things in the Age of Obama. Notice the real agenda: to criticize the police, and treat the police as the enemy to be fought. I guarantee you that was what was really going on here, along with the cable TV (evil) mentality of treating crime as a game to be adjudicated in the media (with "sides").
Was there not a legitimate criticism to be made of the police/authorities here? Sure there was, but the mainstream media did not want to emphasize it (some surely mentioned it) for reasons of self-interest (evil people that these people are).
Juvenile proceedings are supposed to be private. I don't think this confession by an eight year old boy (even if it was technically not yet part of a juvenile "proceeding") should have been released to the public. It defeats the purpose of the juvenile justice "system", and that is where the mistake was made here. That has nothing to do with "adjudicating" the case, or of how to handle the eight year old boy That has to do with compromising the effort to help the child, before the effort even starts. Remember, this is the media (evil cowards that they are) who (mainly) failed to reproduce those Danish cartoons of Muhammad, on the grounds of not wanting to "offend". Do these people deserve a pass for ruining the chances of an eight year old boy for a future life by putting his confession before the public? Nope. They should have printed the cartoons. They should not have publicized the details of the "confession". They got it exactly, 180 degrees, wrong--as usual. The "authorities got it wrong by releasing the details of the confession, and evidently the video iteself (no, I saw no reason to watch it). If you wanted to criticize the police/suthorities, it should have been for conducting this juvenile proceeding in the media (a criticism also fully appllicable to all of these "leaks" of material in a criminal proceeding/prosecution, including the evil leaks of grand jury material).
Award ceremony (as usual, a virtual ceremony entirely in the imgationation, without video or graphics. As usual, I suggest you use the old Dick Martin image presenting the statuette of the "Finger" on the old "Laugh In" as a visual aid, even though this award has no connection--other than getting the inspiration from--the old "Laugh IN" award. If you are not familiar with that old award, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger, the award was for outstanding stupidity and/or evil that came to light in the previous week.):
Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the statuette of the pointing Finger at the camera, and saying: Leftists (not all, but you know who you are and regularly reveal yourselves), and the mainstream media (not much qualification here), this is for you. You deserve it. Anyone who discusses the "issue" of Mrianda warnings for an eight year old child should receive an immediate sanity hearing. They are probably dangerous to themselves and others."
P.S. I have pretty much stopped posting entries on Saturday and Sunday, and that will probably apply to all Thanksgiving weekend. WAPPY THANKSGIVING (alghough I expect a blgo entry or two tomorrow). Note that Thanksgiving, despite all efforts to hide it, is really a religious holiday. Just thought I would mention it, for you "separation of church and state" advocates of the Age of Obmama. Christmas, of course, is so obviously a religious holiday that the ACLU keeps trying to destroy the enjoyment of it for our mainly Christian country--not to mention prohibit any and all explanations of what the holiday means. I say that as an agnostic, but it is true anyway. The ACLU would dearly like to eliminate Christmas as a national holiday. It would, if it could. Does it really do any good to try to trash our religious tradition (not the same as impsing a religion--to recognize such a tradition and the faith of the majority of the country)? I have given my answer over and over again, and that answer is that it is intolerant and rude to try to exclude all reference to religion from public discourse and recognition. But you can look at San Francisco, where the homosexual lifestyle is an intolerant religion, to see what the Age of Obama is likely to be like--symbol over substance, and agenda over everything.