Friday, April 4, 2008

Does Hillary Have Any Shame?

This article from Beth Arnold (Huffington Post) says it well:

I'm asking. Does Hillary Clinton feel any shame at all? She was just on the Leno show to publicly announce--again--that she had a "lapse" and that was the reason she repeatedly lied in stump speeches about running from sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia. Obviously, the point of her appearance was to offset the political nightmare that ensued after the print media (including Frank Rich's great column)/TV/Internet pandemonium--the almost 2,000,000 views of this video--that forced her hand.

So the way she and her staff cleverly addressed this fabrication and others--like her non-support of NAFTA--was by lying again? Hillary walked on Leno's set and sat down in his chair. She was laughing while she dismissed herself from responsibility. She looked down instead of facing the audience, which she seemed unable to do (not a good sign in the truth department, if you ask me, but might show a smidgeon of shame), while she repeated her dog-ate-my-homework excuse. Hillary: "It's such a mismatch of words and actions...I wrote about this in my book, and I obviously just had a lapse...."

Uh-huh. Well, she's having another one now. We might say that Hillary is "prevaricating," since this word's meaning is all about trying to dodge the bullet or confuse the issue. Certainly, she has "rationalized" through her whole campaign--including about having 35 years of experience. We have gotten enough confirmation to ascertain that she didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland as she had claimed. And she did this pointedly without shame?

We can solidly say Hillary was "misleading" the American public about her Bosnia escapade, although the videotape and other first person accounts of Sinbad and some journalists who were with Hillary in Tuzla definitely support the notion that she told a "bold-faced lie" about it. In Wikipedia:

A bold-faced (or barefaced) lie is a lie told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, the child with chocolate all over her face who denies having eaten the cake is a bold-faced liar. The adjective "bold-faced" indicates that no attempt has been made to hide the fact that it is a lie.

"Why Did It Take Sinbad to Expose Hillary Clintons' Misstatement?," as Eric Deggans wrote in this blog. The answer appears to be because the American media--even the journalists who had been with Hillary--didn't bother to either research/write/talk/blog it. And so what is with the big whine from Hillary and Bill that the press is so unfair to her? Seems like they've given her an almost free ride in plenty of important areas. Not surprisingly, after being accused of this unfairness the traditional press then worked up enough shame to condemn themselves and turn on Obama. But as George W. proved, it is easy enough to lead them around like they have rings in their noses.


States may Free Inmates to Save Millions

A sign of the times. It is also spells a return to the rise in the crime rate. The government is endangering families because they determine priorities. Public safety is a priority. You have to wonder how much of this can be attributed by a wasteful war in Iraq. It is no coincidence that the crime rate exploded during the Vietnam War:

Lawmakers from California to Kentucky are trying to save money with a drastic and potentially dangerous budget-cutting proposal: releasing tens of thousands of convicts from prison, including drug addicts, thieves and even violent criminals.

Officials acknowledge that the idea carries risks, but they say they have no choice because of huge budget gaps brought on by the slumping economy.

"If we don't find a way to better manage the population at the state prison, we will be forced to spend money to expand the state's prison system — money we don't have," said Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri.

At least eight states are considering freeing inmates or sending some convicts to rehabilitation programs instead of prison, according to an Associated Press analysis of legislative proposals. If adopted, the early release programs could save an estimated $450 million in California and Kentucky alone.

A Rhode Island proposal would allow inmates to deduct up to 12 days from their sentence for every month they follow rules and work in prison. Even some violent offenders would be eligible but not those serving life sentences.

A plan in Mississippi would offer early parole for people convicted of selling marijuana or prescription drugs. New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont are considering funneling drug-addicted offenders into treatment, which is cheaper than prison.

The prospect of financial savings offers little comfort to Tori-Lynn Heaton, a police officer in a suburb of Providence whose ex-husband went to prison for beating her. He has already finished his prison term, but would have been eligible for early release under the current proposal.

"You're talking about victim safety. You're talking about community member safety," she said. "You can't balance the budget on the backs of victims of crimes."

But prisons "are one of the most expensive parts of the criminal-justice system," said Alison Lawrence, who studies corrections policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "That's where they look to first to cut down some of those costs."

[...]"To open the prison door and release prisoners back into communities is merely placing a state burden onto local governments and will ultimately jeopardize safety in communities," said Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who could see 1,800 inmates released in his area.

In Kentucky, which faces a $1.3 billion deficit, lawmakers approved legislation Wednesday to grant early release to some prisoners. Initial estimates were that the plan could affect as many as 2,000 inmates and save nearly $50 million.