The Supreme Court has agreed to decide on a case which will determine whether the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is one that is “incorporated” against infringement by state and local governments. From SCOTUSblog:
The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) — a case in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the Second Circuit Court.
There’s been no specific date for the review but it will be done this term. This is excellent news and I look forward to hearing more.
September 30th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Politics, Virginia Politics |
one comment
That the defenders of Roman Polanski are dismissing the fact that the man raped and sodomized a 13-year-old girl – after drugging her, I might add – says a lot about them. What it says isn’t good. The staggering double-standard was described perfectly today by Father Tom Reese, Society of Jesus. A “Father Polanski”, guilty of exactly the same thing, would be in jail.
“Imagine if the Knights of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison,” Father Tom Reese, S.J., points out. “The outcry would be universal.”
Writing for the Newsweek/Washington Post website, he adds that “Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse.” And then he adds: “And they would all be correct. And I would join them.”
So would I. And I’m a Knight myself. In fact, I’d be willing to go out on a limb and say most of my fellow Knights here in my council would call, write, or march to New Haven, CT personally to make sure the Supreme Knight got the message loud and clear.
But Hollywood sees it differently. Even though this isn’t an “alleged” anything, even though the crime definitely occurred and was admitted to in court, they just can’t see their way clear to hold one of their own accountable for his sexual assault on a little girl. Like Ed Morrissey, I am adamant that he should be held accountable not only for the original crime but for fleeing justice and enjoying his freedom for the 32 years he was a fugitive. I couldn’t care less that he’s 76 years old. As has been mentioned by others, Hollywood would be calling for the man’s head if he were a plumber or a conservative talk-show host. I hope they’ll remember this when the day comes that it’s one of their daughters recovering from rape and sodomy.
September 29th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Crime & Punishment, Entertainment, Politics, The Media |
one comment
Sheer asshattery:
The U.S. Secret Service is investigating a “poll” posted on Facebook that asked users the most unsocial, unspeakable question: Should President Obama be assassinated?
Edwin Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said the agency will take “appropriate investigative steps” in connection to the survey, which was posted on Saturday and was quickly removed when Facebook employees were alerted to its existence.
“We are continuing our investigation,” Donovan told FOXNews.com, declining further comment.
First of all, no true American suggests assassination of a duly-elected president regardless of whether they personally voted for them or not. The jerks who posted this have little regard for our democracy, clearly, unless things are going their way. That’s not the measure of an American. It’s when the vote didn’t go your way and you remain committed to practice of democracy that shows your true colors.
Second, it’s not like Facebook is a completely anonymous system. You have to log in to add content which makes putting this kind of stupidity on the site… well, stupid. Go get ‘em, Service.
September 28th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, Technology |
no comments
An interesting comment appeared on my initial post regarding the Loudoun Independent story basically re-spreading some unsupported gossip. Someone claiming to be the husband of the woman who filed the initial complaint against then-Lt. Tag Greason decided to weigh in on my post. He says his name is David DesRosier, Major, US Army, Retired and that he and his wife have now come out from behind the Loudoun Independent’s anonymity shield. When I asked him to show me where that’s been reported he directed me to the comments section of the original story. Let’s look at that particular response first:
ricjames, go to the http://WWW.loudouni.com and look at the article and the comments generated. Since we never brought this out and since we don’t even have a clue where else this story is being reported she has responded to the comments and calls for her to identify herself. Hopefully that is good enough for you.
Comment by David DesRosier | September 27, 2009
OK, Major, what you’ve given me is a comment entered by an unverified, unauthenticated user of a newspaper’s public web site. A web site that requires absolutely no credentials to post on. Would that be good enough for you? You talk about yourself and your wife and reference using Google to look things up, as if you and she are on the top 10 responses from Google. For the record, a Google search on “major David DesRosier Army” produces about 225,000 hits. I don’t see anything in the first several pages that appeared to be you, so you’ll have to forgive all of us for not looking up your dossier.
As for suggesting that I (and any other HoodaThunk? reader) peruse those comments left at the original article, I’m not sure you’re doing yourself a service. First, you have the same issue as your wife allegedly does: simply posting your name on a comment over there proves nothing about your identity. That’s why I pinged the Loudoun Independent to confirm your wife was the source of the story. They haven’t responded, not at all. They are the only participant in this story that can confirm where they got the story and to whom they spoke, so we’re really going to need to hear that from the Independent to consider that to be a solid sourcing.
But just for the sake of completeness, let’s look at the 1st comment left here anyway and see what we can address:
Yet another hack job on summarizing a story without really telling the whole story. The woman in question, my wife, has come forward and revealed her name. The charges were not filed two years later. The initial report went to her 1SGT who dismissed her. Her sister did file a complaint. WE also filed a Department of the Army IG complaint when it became apparent the Fort Polk IGs office was doing nothing with the complaint. Another misstatement on your part, the woman never came forward, she was called out of the blue by the reporter to verify that she still stood by the claims she made in 1994, and again in 1996. She didn’t want the story to go forward but the reporter stated it would regardless of her request. Thanks for calling my wife a moron without any knowledge of who she is. Let me tell you a bit about the accuser, she is still in the military, She has attained the rank of SSG. She has served her country in peace time and in war time doing a tour in Afghanistan. She was extremely brave to have brought these charges against then LT Greason; I am sure you can imagine why it takes a certain kind of strength to level a charge like this. Because of that article Loudoun Independent readers have verbally assaulted my wife and I, and no one believes we didn’t initiate this. That is there right of course. but they spew out BS based on no knowledge of who we are and what happened. And let me repeat, NEITHER of us brought this case forward, as to how this got into the hands of a reporter, I can only imagine but do a google search every now and then and see what comes up. FOIA requests can get you lots of information. I guess just one more thing before I end this. There was no Military Court that reviewed this, otherwise my wife would have had to testify. Many will find this hard to believe but the Federal Court case was a complete mystery to us until this article came out. Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.
Respectfully,
David DesRosier, Major, United States Army, Retired.
Comment by David DesRosier | September 26, 2009
Well, where to start with this one? I don’t normally go into full Fisking mode but when the situation demands it, I guess we must. You’ve got a lot of nerve calling my post a “hack job” considering the story that got this whole sorry situation started. You want to know who to blame for not going into the whole story? You head right over to John Geddie’s office. The reason no one who wrote about that gossip-rag review posing as “news” story told the “whole story” is because the Independent’s article was woefully deficient in that department. (Part of my complaint, if you’ll actually read my post in its entirety, I might add.) You complain about the reference to the charges being filed 2 years after the fact. The US District Court records are quite plain about that, if the story is to be believed at all: the charges were filed with them in 1996. Do the math. That’s 2 years. If you have a complaint with the way the IG’s office handled things, take it up with them. I commented on the facts as they were reported in the Independent and they said the charges were filed 2 years after the fact.
To address your next point, that I made a misstatement about your wife coming forward with this story, how about we go to the text of my actual post?
And how, exactly, did this story come up? The report says the woman expresses “concern” for Greason and hopes the incident doesn’t impede any good work he’s doing now. First off, what moron would think that an accusation like this wouldn’t hurt a person’s reputation and impact any work they’re doing? If she was so concerned about it and considers this “something in the past”, as she’s reported to say, then why come forward about it now?
Unless she didn’t come forward. Unless she was actively pursued by the reporters. Which, if true, calls the reporters’ motivations into question.
Emphasis done here. Not a misstatement, Major, it’s a question and it’s one the original “reporting” left open. I’m the one who suggested it might be either and that knowing which one it was would be important, not the one making the definitive call.
Strictly speaking, I didn’t call your wife a moron. I suggested that anyone who came forward repeating an unsubstantiated rumor like this and then expressed concern that it not harm any “good work” being done by the target of the unsupported accusation would be a moron. You say she didn’t come forward with this, she was pursued. Fine. Then it doesn’t apply to her, does it? But even if you think it does, your thanks belongs to John Geddie and the Independent, not me. His story is what leads the reader to think she was an active participant in this.
The service and record of your wife – and you, for that matter – are wonderful things. The service you two have rendered to your country (and that she continues to render) are respected a great deal by my family and I. It buys neither of you a thing in accusing a man of unethical, dishonorable, and illegal behavior. Even if it did buy you some additional credibility over the average joe, it’s precisely the same service rendered by Tag Greason, also an officer in the US Army. Why should it mean something when weighing your claims and mean nothing when weighing his? Your service is commendable but it’s meaningless for the purpose of validating an accusation. I have no need to imagine the strength required for a woman to bring such charges. I am fully cognizant of what it requires. That does not excuse anyone from having to justify those accusations with evidence and, to date, I’ve not seen anything to indicate such evidence exists. In fact, the dismissal of the charges says that such evidence does not exist.
As to your contention that no one believes you two didn’t bring this story forward, that’s not true. I actually do believe that and I suggested it might be the case in my original post, as I’ve already mentioned. Which, of course, brings up the question of why she elected to contribute to the story if she really didn’t want it to go forward. I read somewhere that she was told by the reporter that the story would go ahead with or without her cooperation. If that was true, what was the point of contributing? If she really didn’t want the story to proceed and she was powerless to stop it, she certainly wasn’t in the position of being required to assist it. She made the call the she did and it was her call. The ramifications of that decision include criticism for doing it. You don’t get to contribute to re-airing baseless allegations and then not be subject to the commentary that flows from that action.
You say that you never knew about the Federal Court case and that many will find this hard to believe. You’re right, I do. I have some working knowledge of how the Federal Courts work. The notion that the IG’s office would forward them a case and that the District Court would file criminal charges against someone without ever contacting the purported victim to build that case is just a huge stretch. Especially considering your wife’s still on active duty and a simple phone call to the IG’s office would be able to produce your locations, it just makes no sense that they would pursue multiple extensions in court without ever attempting to notify you. Or, rather, your wife since you technically weren’t a party to the case.
Your closing comments reveal a bit of either ignorance or confusion on certain matters. For Google searches to be effective you need pretty specific search criteria. Nothing in that story nor in any of your comments produces a search specific enough to definitely identify you as I’ve already said. FOIA deals with public agencies and documents, not newspapers, unless you’re suggesting I FOIA the court documents. You’re missing the point of my post if that’s what you mean. My entire anger over this story was centered on the newspaper’s insistence on printing an accusation already determined to be unsupported without asking all of these questions. And what would I really find if I did issue that FOIA request? That the case was dismissed? What would that prove that I don’t already know? Nothing.
Your closer’s a real howler, too:
Had Sherry been notified of any court case she would have been there and any interviews with Tag Greason would have had to be from his prison cell in Fort Leavenworth.
Says you. Which is the whole problem with the whole thing, isn’t it? Anyone can make an accusation. That’s why our legal system is “innocent until proven gulity” and not vice-versa. You say no review was made of this. Garbage. No review was made that resulted in support for the allegations, you mean, and that’s not how it works. The accusations were completely without supporting evidence and that’s why the case was dismissed. My issue all along has been with the decision by the Loudoun Independent to print this story as if it were news. It’s not news, it’s gossip. It’s gossip that’s aimed directly at hurting the reputation of a man who’s been a class act and a fine Loudoun citizen and who, incidentally, is running for public office. The running of this story is a dirty political trick. Neither you nor your wife should have been involved in that and neither of you is really the story, here. The story is who is attempting to utilize the Independent as a political knife to stab Tag Greason in the back and whether the leadership at the Independent is complicit in that arrangement or merely possessed of extremely bad judgment.
Good luck to you and your wife, Mr. DesRosier. Assuming you are who you say you are and that you and your wife really don’t want to be involved, I suggest you prove it and drop the matter. Go back to your lives wherever that is, since that’s all you’ve supposedly wanted to do, and leave Loudoun politics to Loudouners. G’day.
Nothing in any of this has changed what the real focus of this situation should be. The accusation was baseless and without merit years ago and it still is. The Loudoun Independent has seen fit to repeat what amounts to vicious gossip on its pages, rendering their entire credibility in news reportage suspect. Who pointed them at this unfounded rumor remains the question as does whether they decided to help someone stage a personal attack against an opposing candidate or if their judgment on what’s news and what’s gossip is deficient. That’s all this story really means.
September 28th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Military, Virginia Politics |
4 comments
If you’re a resident of Loudoun County then you’ve received this week’s print edition of the Loudoun Independent and the story I first wrote about on Monday (and then revisted on Wednesday) is in your hands. Our neighbors who don’t follow blogs and on-line news sources are reading this story just tonight for the first time and they are doing so without the benefit of the discussions that have taken place both on the loudouni.com site and throughout the blogosphere. The editor at the Independent, John Geddie, Jr., has seen fit to deny requests made by several of us to withhold printing the article until solid research has been done. To make matters worse, he dedicates his editorial space to a poor excuse of a justification for this journalistic malpractice. It is a matter of adding insult to injury, and it’s even a two-fer at that: he not only insults Tag Greason’s honor and integrity he insults the intelligence of the rest of us.
The very title of the editorial is preposterous: “Does It Matter?” If it didn’t matter, why print it? Is Geddie’s day so empty, his paper’s pages so unused that he has to dive into the dung heap and pull out vicious gossip to fill the inches? Geddie’s entire premise – that such an event, truely or falsely accused, shouldn’t matter to the voters in determining who represents them – is ludicrous enough on its own. But the editorial does everything it can to keep the notion alive that hey, you know, he might have done it! – even in the face of the most obvious evidence that he didn’t. The. Charges. Were. Dismissed.
Geddie says right up front that Greason has denied the event occurred “and there are certain details that support this.” There aren’t “certain details” that support it, the attorneys in the US District Court found no merit to the accusations whatsoever and dismissed the charges. That’s the only “detail” that matters and to suggest that “certain details” “support” that it was a bogus accusation is to imply that certain others don’t. Which ones? Feel free to read the entire article but don’t get your hopes up. There are no details that do not support the dismissal. Geddie’s “reporting” on the matter has absolutely nothing to support the accusation but that’s not stopping him from continuing to suggest otherwise. Read on:
There are very few us of who did not make mistakes at 24. Most of us made mistakes much older. Being imperfect is a facet of being human and if mistakes serve a purpose, it’s to help us grow. In general, that’s why you should always listen to the advice of those who have a few years on you—the wisdom they have is likely hard-won.
A bit too often, today’s society appears to be looking for something perfect—modern incarnations of our founding fathers, who were likely as flawed and human as we are. If their ideas have survived longer than any personal foibles, then that’s because it was their ideas that were important.
Taken in the context of this discussion – and that’s Geddie’s intent, clearly – Geddie is obviously suggesting that Greason did, in fact, do as he’s been accused. Hey, after all, we all make mistakes, right? We’re all human! No one’s perfect! Even those guys with the wigs way back when were probably guilty of something, too, right? So, hey, you shouldn’t worry that this Greason guy acted in a totally unprofessional, unethical, dishonorable fashion back then. I’m sure he’s gotten over that behavior by now.
The clear problem with Geddie’s position is the same one as the original accuser – zero proof that any such thing ever occurred. She had her shot at the accusation, it was investigated, and there was nothing to it. It’s a rumor, gossip, an unsubstantiated accusation, a fabricated charge. Why’d she do it? Good question. Of course, we’d need to know who she is, first, and that’s information Geddie thinks we don’t need to know. Funny, that, considering he claims that’s not his job:
The story on page 3 is news. It’s our considered opinion that there are readers who would want to be informed of the alleged incident, whether the charges have a basis in fact or not. As a news outlet, it’s our job to deliver the news to you—not to decide what news is appropriate for you to read.
The story on page 3 is not news. It’s a rumor passed along by someone in a position to spread it far wider than most people can. And by a person who claims to be operating within the standard ethical practices of journalism, to boot. It’s my considered opinion that if someone dropped a tip on Geddie’s desk that Dave Poisson had, a few years ago, been involved in trafficking child pornography but had no evidence of any kind to back up such a ridiculous claim that Geddie would never dream of printing that accusation. Not without proof. You see, that’s the critical issue, here. It’s not a matter of the absurd statement he makes about not deciding what news is appropriate. (Of course he does, he’s the editor and he decides what stories run in his paper. What, he runs every story reported anywhere? I don’t think so.) It’s about deciding what’s news and what’s gossip.
What’s the news value in running a baseless accusation determined to be without merit or truth years ago? As close to zero as it gets.
What’s the propaganda/political value? I’m guessing it’s much more. The real news, now, is who planted this story with Geddie? Who’s he helping out and why? Who is he protecting while he facilitates their political attacks? These are important questions and the answers would be valuable. I’m certain that there are readers who would want to be informed of this stuff. For some reason, I no longer believe that John Geddie or the Loudoun Independent are very interested in what their readers what to be informed of. It’s disappointing to see the Independent choose to change formats to a gossip-rag. Disappointing and so very sad.
September 25th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, The Media, Virginia Politics |
3 comments
Good news, if the results are confirmed:
For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.
The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world’s largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.
Now, 31% isn’t a “cure” and I’d argue that such a low rate of protection doesn’t really qualify as a “vaccine” in the manner we’ve come to understand that term. But it’s a tremendous improvement over other attempts and strongly suggests a path for continued experimentation. The full study is going to be released next month in Paris.
Kudos, by the way, to the US Army for providing lead scientists to this effort.
September 24th, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Medicine, Science, Technology |
no comments
I wrote on Monday of a story in the Loudoun Independent regarding local candidate Tag Greason. The story is, simply put, a smear job. I went into all of that in that original post so feel free to read that one first if you want to get caught up. In answering some e-mail about it this evening I was notified that the Independent has actually updated the story. They have included 2 new paragraphs in the original story that involve speaking with Greason’s former commanding officer, retired Colonel Gene A. DeWulf. I’m told it took someone over there at the Independent about an hour to come up with DeWulf’s contact information and get a call to him. Here’s the new material from the story:
Greason’s military service was recalled by Col. Gene A. DeWulf (ret.), who said, “Tag Greason is one of the finest soldiers and officers with whom I have ever had the privilege of serving. He is a proven leader who cares deeply about America and has served her well.”
DeWulf went on to say, “I am fully aware of the false charges brought against Lieutenant Greason. The federal court decision to dismiss the charges obviously exonerates Tag. But more importantly, his service record is exemplary and he continued that service in the Virginia National Guard. I was his commanding officer, and I have nothing but pride and admiration for Tag’s character, integrity and service to his country.”
Might have been nice to have had this take on things before publishing the original article, wouldn’t it? So, this is solid confirmation that the case was fully reported and the allegations determined to be baseless. Which puts the entire episode squarely in the “fiction” department. Which begs the question of why it’s appearing in an alleged news publication.
John Geddie of the Loudoun Independent: you’ve been had. You’ve either been suckered into it or permitted yourself to be used as a political weapon. Either way, it’s your credibility and that of your newspaper that’s now in serious question. What are we to think the next time you publish some kind of investigative series? Whose political rear end will you be covering then? Whose bidding will you be doing in pursuing whatever line of investigation you’ll do?
Whomever it was that aimed you at this story and sent you after it was complicit in publicly accusing a man of a crime he was exonerated of years ago. You don’t owe someone who does that to your newspaper the anonymity you’re granting. If you felt your readers needed to know about the accusation, then you owe it to us to tell us who it was now that it’s clear that the accusation was bogus. Someone is trying to use you to skew an election, sir. We should be told who that someone is.
Either way, Tag Greason has been seriously wronged and this personal attack against him should make us all wonder why his political opponents are getting so desperate.
September 23rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics, The Media, Virginia Politics |
7 comments
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter