Blue Guy in Red Land

I am not quite sure where the latest round of immigrant bashing has come from.  Perhaps it’s the fruit of our President’s actions to stoke xenophobia within our great nation despite his words of support for immigrant populations.  At least when the GOP went after gays in 2004, it was a direct response to Lawrence v. Texas decriminalizing consensual sodomy and the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage.  The last I checked, Hispanic immigrants haven’t done anything to warrant the attention being thrust upon them.

Personally, I don’t understand the long term strategy of bashing immigrants.  Yes, illegal immigration is a problem.  You cannot live in Atlanta and not realize that illegal immigrants are everywhere.  They are taking jobs that no other American will do, and they are being paid basically slave wages.  Except when you are from Mexico and have nothing, slave wages in the US looks pretty good.  Employers like them because they don’t have to pay them taxes and they can treat them any way they like, because the illegals won’t complain for fear of deportation.  For years, the emphasis has been on making life miserable for the illegal immigrant.  Denying them access to drivers’ licenses, bank accounts, etc have been commonplace.  The latest moves by the GOP focus on denying the children of illegal immigrants access to schools and health care. 

I know that the children of illegal immigrants are flouting our nation’s immigration laws.  However, they do not have a choice in the matter.  When their parents drag them across the border, they have to go.  Punishing the children, making sure they don’t receive basic health care or education, serves little purpose.  Yes, they aren’t truly entitled to these things, but what happened to basic compassion?  The last thing we need in America is a group of children who are uneducated out on the streets.  I would rather see illegal immigrant children in school, learning English, and becoming valuable members of society. 

Yet, their parents are here illegally, and we cannot just reward them for that.  I would propose leaving the laws on immigration just as they are.  Let’s turn our focus to the economic system that allows the illegal immigrant system to flourish.  We need to turn our attention to the employers of the illegals.  Even day workers should have proof of citizenship to work.  There should be more inspectors to bust the operations and employers who skirt the laws and hire on the black market of illegal immigrants.  The fines, and jail time, should be severe enough to discourage current practices, and the enforcement should be beefed up so that it’s difficult to get away with what goes on now.

But seriously, let’s leave the kids of illegal immigrants alone.  They aren’t here by choice, but by virtue of a decision their parents made.  I don’t know the answer to making the parents responsible for their illegal immigration.  If we use the medical and school systems to catch illegal immigrants, it will have the same effect as an outright ban.  Here in Atlanta, the fear that immigration will find out about you if you open a bank accounts leads many illegals to keep money at their home.  Robbers know this, and there are countless stories of victimization in the complexes where illegals live.  Yet, these stories are largely word of mouth, because the illegals won’t report a robbery to the police for fear of deportation.

Building walls or enacting codes like the one in Manassas, VA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901220.html) which blatantly target Hispanics, both illegal and legal, is not the way to go.  Yet, that is what the GOP seems to think will help them win in 2006.  My only consolation is that while they beat up immigrants, they won’t be going after gays.   Still, that’s a cold comfort, because I know that if the attack on illegals doesn’t work, then they will come after gays again. 

I just hope America wakes up to the danger that total GOP control poses to our Nation and way of life before it’s too late.

Honestly, I wonder when George Bush last read the US Constitution, assuming he ever read it, period.  You know, the document he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend" not once but TWICE?!?  The title "commander-in-chief" is not a catch-all that allows a President to circumvent enacted laws of the United States AND the Constitution at will … so long as there’s a war going on. 

The first argument Bush has used to defend his domestic spying on Americans is the resolution to use force against those nations, groups, or persons who conducted the 9/11 attacks.  Tom Daschle, former US Senator from South Dakota, refutes this understanding of the force language in  today’s Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html) where he reveals that Bush did ask for expansive language to conduct military operations within the United States and that Congress refused this authority.  NO ONE who voted for that resolution did so with the understanding that it would grant Bush the right to conduct spying operations in secret without court approval on US Citizens.  That reading of the resolution is false, and Bush knows it’s false.

The second argument is that the US Constitution grants him this authority as Commander-in-Chief.  As Bob Barr (of all people) pointed out this Wednesday in the AJC, for Bush’s interpretation to have any standing, the Constitution would need to read, "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and when carrying out duties in such capacity shall not be subject to the laws of these United States or of this Constitution."  The underlined portion would be the NEW material. 

The FISA law is clear that it does not allow warrantless spying on US persons, which includes citizens, legal residents, etc.  The penalty for this is found in 50 USC 1809 (c):  "An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."   God only knows how many times Bush has spied on Americans in the last 4 years or so, but each incident of circumventing the court like this would require a $10K fine and/or 5 years in the federal pen.  Since Bush’s two "excuses" for spying have been shown to be shame, he flagrantly violated the law.

The sad thing is that had he come to Congress and asked for the law to be amended to do the type of spying he SWEARS he’s soley doing (i.e. scanning communications to and from certain areas or containing certain key words and then spying on those that get flagged), the Congress would have probably gone along with it, especially in 2003 when the GOP gained full control of the government.  The thing is, we’re supposed to just trust that Bush isn’t abusing his power.  Excuse me if I’m a skeptic.  Nothing this President has done warrants that kind of trust, and even if he was trustworthy, he needs to have oversight in this activity because of the sensitive nature of the intrusion.  Besides, it’s already been shown that animal rights groups, Quaker groups, and other political enemies of the President have been spied on by the Pentagon.  We have no reason to believe that Bush isn’t using his newfound "power" to spy on people who oppose him. 

Then you have these right wing idiots who say Bush has done nothing wrong, and how dare anyone mention the words "breaking the law" and "impeachment".  It seems that so long as a right winger is in the White House, the pundits on the right have no problem with any abuse of rights or breaking of the law as long as it’s purpose is to "git the terr’rists".  There is a right and wrong way to fight this war on Terror, and time after time, Bush has chosen the wrong way because it’s "easier".  He needs to actually read the Constitution carefully.  Perhaps Laura can read it to him before he goes to bed every night for a week, especially Article II about the presidency.  George Bush needs to realize that he’s a PRESIDENT, not a King or an Emperor like in the Roman days.  Otherwise, our republic may not be able to stand another 3 yrs of this man’s reign.

I took off work a little early on Friday to see Brokeback Mountain, which opened in exactly ONE theatre in Atlanta that day.  I bought my ticket in advance online, which is good since the movie sold out all showings on Friday.  The line in the theatre snaked across the  lobby, down a hallway, past the bathrooms, and back into the lobby before they let us in to sit down.

The crowd was mostly gay, but there were quite a few straight people there too.  I wasn’t sure what to expect.  The nominations of the Golden Globes (7 in all) surprised me, as did the reactions I’ve read online about the movie.  Some people love it, and others thought it missed the mark.  But this was a movie with two up-and-coming Hollywood stars (directed by the phenominal Ang Lee) in the lead roles as gay cowboy lovers in the late 20th century.  Such a movie has never been made before with this caliber of cast and crew. 

The movie is raw and powerful, and in the end it will break your heart.  Everyone who’s ever come out of the closet will recognize themselves in Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhall, who is the more out of the two cowboys.  Out in that you can see the longing in his eyes, his ferverant desire to share a life with another man, another rancher cowboy like him.  He doesn’t feel there’s anything wrong with his desire, although he knows that living it would be dangerous.  He accepts the closet that 1963 Wyoming would nail him in.  Ennis Del Mar is the more closeted of the two, and is played brilliantly by Heath Ledger.  It wasn’t until the last half of the movie that I really bought his love for Jack, mostly b/c his eyes wouldn’t betray it before, although his actions did.  When he sees Jack for the first time in 4 years, he’s about to jump out of his skin, he’s so excited, and he takes a risk in pulling Jack into one of the most desperately longing kisses I’ve ever seen on screen. 

Unfortunately, Ennis’s wife sees this kiss, although she keeps that news to herself.  She has to say goodbye to her husband as he goes off with his "fishing buddy" knowing very well they are more than friends after seeing that kiss.  The raw pain in her face, and the panic of "What do I do?" is evident in her performance.  The pain of being married to a man she knows doesn’t love her like he does his "fishing buddy" eats away at her soul, until she pulls away from Ennis and demands divorce.  Ennis and his daughters aren’t that close either, and it’s all a result of his closet.  He had kids because that was what he was supposed to do, and his heart really isn’t in the family he has with his wife.  There’s a cool scene at the end when Ennis’ daughter announces she is to marry, and you can see Ennis wondering if this boy is like him and won’t be able to love his daughter as she deserves to be loved.

Jack’s closet is of a different sort.  He’s been aware of his attraction to men longer than Ennis, as evidenced by his actions.  He marries and has exactly one child and no more.  He desperately lives to see Ennis on thier fishing trips every 3-6 months.  Let’s say the way their lives proceed does not lead to a happy ending.  Yet, the trajectory of the story is heartfelt, honest, and real. 

Watching it made me want to reevaluate my life and ponder the meaning of life, love and relationships. Watching the struggle of the Jack and Ennis should make today’s gay people stop and think, "I really have it easy. Given this freedom, have I lived true to myself and opened myself to the possibility of love?"  Jack and Ennis do not live true to themselves, and they are not the only ones hurt by it, but so are their wives and children.  So many lives are destroyed by the closet they are forced to live in that you have to wonder what the point is.  After all, Ennis and Jack did the "right thing" by marrying a woman, and having a child or two.  Yet, their love could not be denied, and the closet ended up destroying them all.

The last scenes of the movie were the most wrenching when you watch the lies being spread, and the quiet truth that dare not speak its name.   I left the movie stunned and quite speechless.  But as I got into my car, I started to cry and I became angry.  Angry because the expression of what it’s like to be gay in a society where you are forbidden from "being gay" on pain of death was real, and it hit home.  I was born in Kentucky, and could easily have been a country boy on some tobacco farm, as I have many cousins who did live that life.  It was an accident of birth that I was born into my family in the city of Lexington, KY.  How different would my life be were I a ranching boy from Wyoming like Jack? 

That closet is something that is crumbling in this nation, especially in the large cities.  Sodomy is no longer a crime, and states cannot restrict gay civil rights just because the population doesn’t like us.  Yet, as Matthew Shepherd showed us, it’s still not safe to be gay in most of the country.  The world of 1963 Wyoming is not too far removed from the reality of rural gays in 2005.  This is a closet that the Religious Right, and the GOP, wants to re-establish nationwide from the most remote holler to the most densely populated city.  Sadie Fields and her "Christian" Taliban brethern hate us, and want us to go away.  They want us to live the lives that the characters of Brokeback Mountain live.  It was so senseless to see so many lives ruined.  Jack and Ennis would have hurt no one by owning a ranch and living it on it in peace and quiet.   Their wives would have found men to love them as they deserved to be loved, and no one’s life would have been ruined.  It was the closet that ruined lives and nothing else.  It’s the closet that the GOP and it’s base want us to return.  That’s why I became angry and why I cried not only for the characters in the movie, but for every gay person who is living his/her version of Brokeback Mountain today.

"To say ‘unchecked power’ is to ascribe dictatorial power to the president, to which I object."  - George W. Bush

Yes, George, you should object to "unchecked power", as all good Americans should.  Yet, what else do you call that program of spying on Americans on American soil, listening to phone calls, reading emails, snooping through mail…all without any judicial oversight of any kind?  Oh yes, you did tell the respective party leaders of the House and Senate, along with the Intelligence Committee chairs, none of whom could do a damn thing to stop you.  The Democrats should have kicked and screamed, even if in secret, when this program was mentioned.  If Pelosi and Reid just stood by and shrugged when told about this domestic spying program, then they should be removed from their positions of leadership for having let down not only their party but the American people.  I hope the record, as it comes to light, will not show that the Democrats didn’t care when Bush launched his domestic spying agenda.

When this story broke, why was Condi Rice sent out on the TV circuit to defend this policy?  She’s the Secretary of State, not the Attorney General.  She’s not even a lawyer.  She’s a Bush hack, and why the AG wasn’t available to make up some justification for the domestic spying, I’ll never understand.  The AG was the WH counsel after all when this spying program was set up, so he certainly had to know about it.  Unless the Bushies kept it all "in house" at the NSA, which is entirely possible.

The Defense Department has released some of the names of people and groups it spied on too.  Included was an anti-war Quaker group.  I’m sure they were planning a big-Al-Queda-like attack on the US.  That’s the problem with giving a president unchecked, dictatorial powers to spy on Americans domestically.  He will inevitably abuse that power.  Does anyone doubt that Cindy Sheehan, Move-On.org and other groups that fight the Bush agenda are also being spied on?   I don’t even believe the claptrap about it just being a spying program on communications "to/from" the United States.  How can we trust ANYTHING that comes out of Bush’s lying mouth?  He’s already shown us that he’s willing to say anything, withhold evidence, and destroy lives in order to get his way politically.  He led us into a war knowing that his reasoning was just a hunch about Saddam’s alleged WMDs, and a poorly based hunch at that.  Yet, he and his henchmen made it sound like they had color photographs of nukes in some bunker in Tikrit.  He misled us then, and it’s not a stretch to say he’s probably misleading us again.

Bush says his justification for violating the law (FISA - the statute that governs domestic spying) came from a use-of-force resolution for Afghanistan and his "inherent" war powers as Commander in Chief.  I’ve read Article II of the Constitution a couple of times today, searching for this authorization.  All I can find is a statement that the President is "Commander in Chief".   NO WHERE does it say that domestic spying is included as a commander in chief right.  The 4th Amendment, however, does prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant.  The key there is a WARRANT, which FISA calls for.  There’s a whole special court set up specifically for this, so I don’t see why asking for authority for even a "roving wiretap" could not be put before a judge of some kind first.  This is the United States of America!  Some things we can’t just "give up" in the name of safety.  We should never suspend our civil liberties, especially those enshrined in the Constitution, for any reason.  If we do suspend those liberties, we destroy the very thing we say we are fighting to protect.  It doesn’t make sense to destroy something in order to "protect" it.

The other justification for the spying program is the resolution passed right after September 11, which said, "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."   The Supreme Court has said this was explicit  authorization for detention of persons, but to detain someone you must use force, so it makes some sense.  Spying on people is not using force; it’s spying, pure and simple.  In fact, if you do it right, the person(s) being spied upon will never know they are being watched.  How can that be "force" if the object of that force has no idea it’s going on?

Bush’s internal lawyers, most of whom I’m guessing where at NSA, made up this justification because they knew their jobs depended on it.  They knew what Bush and others wanted to do, and their job was to find a justification to do it.  They were not acting as "independent analysts" when finding reasons why the President could ignore FISA and spy on Americans without court approval.  It’s incredible that they even believe their own story, or expect others to believe it.  Even some Republicans are calling "bullshit" on that!  The President’s powers are limited by our Constitution and the laws of this nation.  He cannot just circumvent them at will.  He did go to the trouble of making up some authority, but most people can see that the reasoning is flawed, to be kind.

I hope that there will be hearings on this domestic spying program in the coming year.  I hope the public does not let up on this until they find out the whole truth about this program, and there is a determination if Bush broke the law by pushing it.  I think he did, but you will never see the GOP punish Bush about it.  Now, with Clinton, he gets head in the Oval Office, and he’s impeached by the House and put on trial in the Senate.  Bush, however, can misled us into a war, wantonly break federal laws regarding domestic spying, and push to shred our Constitutional rights in the name of "safety" with nary a word out of Congress.  Nothing will change as long as one faction of one party controls all the levers of power in Washington.  If for no other reason than to finally reign in our would-be Dictator Bush, we need to have Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress after the 2006 elections.  If that doesn’t happen, then the American people will fall into the trap warned of by Ben Franklin, "A people that surrenders its rights for security deserves neither."

I don’t know who peed in Bill O’Reilly’s Wheaties to get him to declare the War on Christmas, but I wish they hadn’t.  I imagine that Bill got a memo from Murdoch saying that Faux News anchors needed find something to help distract the public from Bush’s failures and halt the slide in his poll numbers.  While searching for porn, he probably found a link to Faux News online store where he saw "Holiday Ornaments" on sale, and a War was born.

If reality meets my fantasy, then the plot has worked somewhat.  Bush’s numbers have bottomed out, and he even rebounded to 40% approval in recent days.  However, the nutjobs on the right are taking this War on Christmas thing a bit too seriously.  Just last night, I saw on the local news one of the "Georgia Gang" (kind of a talking heads program for Georgia politics on Sundays) hawking her own "Merry Christmas!" signs.  She’s a talk show host up in Hall County, GA who’s making a buck off the "Merry CHRISTMAS (and f-ck you, atheist a-hole!)" movement.

I doubt that businesses have gone from a "Christmas Sale" to a "Holiday Sale" for any other reason than one of pure profit.  It’s about making money, and if you can extend that period by being more "inclusive", business is going to do just that.  Anyone else remember the days when you never saw any Christmas advertisements until Thanksgiving?  Now, you start seeing ornaments and other Christmas items by HALLOWEEN.  At this rate, by the time I die, we’ll be starting the Christmas shopping season right after July 4th.

Seriously, Christmas was attacked and conquered from a Christian perspective long ago.  In many Christian traditions, this is the Advent season, which is like a "mini-Lent" of preparation for the celebration of the birth of Jesus.  It’s about God’s grace for mankind, and SANTA is not included.  I shudder to think how many children probably think that Santa was there to help Mary give birth to Jesus.  Maybe Santa was one of the wisemen.  The point is that the holiday has lost its meaning before now.  Peace on Earth?  Goodwill toward men?  No sign of that today, especially with the current administration.

Of course, according to the right wingers, the "PC" crowd of liberals (Oh no!  The L-word! And I don’t mean Lesbian!) has made a determined plot to destroy Christmas and drive it from the public consciousness!  If that’s true, someone forgot to send me the memo for the meeting.  Oh, that’s right…that is because THERE WAS NO MEETING.

"Happy Holidays" grew as the Christmas shopping season extended past Thanksgiving to Halloween.  Thanksgiving, I daresay, has merged with Christmas and New Years as the "Holiday Season".  Makes sense; there are three national holidays in this time frame.  Not to mention Ramadan and Hanukkah usually fall during this period too.  It’s a cornucopia of holidays that mean different things to different people.  Saying Happy Holidays is a way for business to attract non-Christian customers and invite them into the national orgy of spending.  After all, for Hanukkah, Jewish children are supposed to get one gift for each NIGHT of Hanukkah.  It’s not just one day of gifts; it’s a week!  I don’t know if Ramadan has a gift component, but stores would love nothing better than for American Muslims to add one!  Even atheists (like my father when I was growing up) celebrate Christmas as a family holiday if nothing else.  For most people, it’s like Thanksgiving.  It’s a time for families to get together, exchange presents, and either enjoy each other’s company or remind one another why they only do this once a year.

Truly, the degradation of Christmas was started by the Roman Catholic Church as it attempted to attract pagans like the Druids and the Romans.  Our Christmas tree is of German origin, and the exchanging of presents and bright decorations came from the Saturnalia celebration of Rome.  The winter solstice occurs on Dec. 21, and it has traditionally been a high holy day for pagans, probably b/c it was the shortest day of the year.  Jesus was not born on December 25th.  It’s more likely he was born in late spring if the scholarship I’ve read is correct.  But if it made the leap to accepting Christ easier for the pagans, the Church saw no harm in setting Dec. 25 as Jesus’ birthday since Jesus a) wasn’t born in a hospital and b) didn’t have a birth certificate.  The Santa story was born later, and thanks to Coke and The Night before Christmas poem, has exploded into the shopping orgy we have today.

I personally don’t care if you say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to me.  I will wish you the same, whatever you say.  I generally use "Happy Holidays" simply because I do want to be inclusive.  It’s not about excluding fellow Christians; it’s about including my fellow citizens who are not.  Here in Georgia, the War on Christmas has produced people who practically shout CHRISTMAS! at you when saying "Merry Christmas".  It’s ridiculous, not to mention aggressive and blatantly offensive.  Just say "Merry Christmas" if you want.  But don’t lean forward, give your head a sister roll, and shout "CHRISTMAS" with eyes bugging out, daring someone to say something.  That is the antithesis of the season, and I daresay that Jesus himself would not be pleased that this is how you choose to celebrate the season of His birth. 

Christmas is not in danger!  So chill out, have some egg nog, and have a happy holidays, merry Christmas, and happy new year!

Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed this morning in California, and that’s a good thing.  While I will add my own commentary, I must refer the handful of people who actually read my blog to my friend Kirk’s thoughts on this episode:  http://kirkdawg.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/2005/12/it_took_long_en.html.  I find myself agreeing with Kirk’s points.

It may surprise some people to know that I’m a supporter of the death penalty.  I know it doesn’t deter many people, if any, from committing heinous crimes.  I look at the death penalty as society’s just vengeance for heinous crimes, particularly murder.  As a Christian, I know we are supposed to the turn the other cheek, and not take an eye for an eye.  Perhaps it is my fallibility as a human being that leads me to still demand vengeance for those who have been murdered.  I do, however, want to be sure that the right people are executed.  I don’t mind the lengthy appeals that death penalty cases undergo, because it increases the likelihood that mistakes will be caught before it is too late.  In any case where DNA could come into play, testing should be required.  Evidence should be safeguarded until the execution is completed.  With the sensitivity of forensic testing today, there’s no excuse for not having every rock looked under to be sure we have the right perp.  Once we are as certain as possible that we have the guilty party, if a jury finds for death, death should be the punishment barring any legal errors.

Mr. Williams, aka "Tookie", was one of the founders of the Crips.  Together with the Bloods gang, the Crips have been responsible for an untold amount of crime, violence, and murder.  These gangs have chapters all across the nation, luring young men of color into a life of crime, drugs, and violence.  Of course, if society presented young men of color with adequate opportunities for legitimate self-improvement and a way out of abject poverty, gangs wouldn’t have any members.  However, just because we have allowed the circumstances that lead to gangs does not mean we should excuse gang violence.

Tookie (what kind of nickname is that anyway?!?) protested his innocence of the murders throughout.  There are the usual charges of ineffective counsel, flimsy evidence, etc.  Since Tookie exhausted all possible appeals, I can only conclude that there was no legal error in the trial and that the verdict was just.  I haven’t read the trial transcript, and I certainly didn’t sit on the jury.  The fact remains he was found guilty of 4 murders, and as a Crips "founder", he’s likely responsible for God-only-knows how many more. 

I’m uncertain why his case became a cause celebre around the world, and especially in Hollywood.  Is it because he "found God" and decided to renounce gang violence and write children’s books on the matter?  If so, that’s a lovely gesture on his part to try to undo some of the damage he did when free.  I’m glad Tookie discovered that gang violence leads to no where anyone intelligent would want to go.  Yet he takes no responsibility for the murders he committed, and seemed to be playing the race card in his attempt at clemency.

Death Row is not a rehab camp.  It’s a place you go while waiting to die.  If a murderer finds Jesus, Mohammed, or whomever while there, good for them.  It doesn’t change what they did or the punishment for it.  God will forgive them of the murders; society doesn’t have to.  Besides, if you truly believe in the Christian message, you know you’ll go straight to heaven upon execution anyway.  I don’t see how living in prison the rest of your natural life is better than seeing the Savior post haste.

I don’t mean to be glib, but I’m highly suspicious of death row conversions.  If they are sincere, I’m happy for the condemned.  But just because you’ve become a changed person on death row doesn’t mean you should be granted mercy.  Tookie’s case did not warrant Gov. Arnold’s intervention.  From the reports this morning on the Today Show, Tookie was quite defiant even to the end.   They apparently had trouble finding a vein for the lethal injection, which is something that should have been done before he was brought to the death chamber.

I’m disturbed but not exactly surprised that the YDA Minority caucus sponsored a resolution that was adopted in Phoenix to ask for mercy for Tookie.  It seems all the partners of Democrats (NAACP, etc) were all asking that Gov. Arnold commute his sentence.  I understand people who take a principled stand against the death penalty.  It is unevenly applied, and if you’re black, you’re more likely to get sentenced to death than if you are white, even if you commit the same crime.  People who are poor in this country, black or white, rarely have the effective assistance of counsel.  There are many fine public defenders in this country, but they are overloaded and overwhelmed by the system.  Money, as OJ Simpson and Micheal Jackson have proved, can buy you freedom.  I doubt that Tookie was prosecuted simply because he was black.  If you believe the system is hopelessly corrupt or broken, then fight to change it; fight for a moratorium so that the system can be fixed as best as possible.  Individuals come with their own baggage, and Tookie had a full set.  Like Kirk, I wonder if the press and Hollywood would have been so quick to jump on the "forgiveness" bandwagon had Tookie been a white supremacist, Neo-Nazi who had murdered 4 people of color but later recanted his beliefs on death row.  If the answer is no, as I suspect it is, then Tookie’s supporters are guilty of gross hypocrisy.