RUSH TO JUDGEMENT? ANOTHER AFRICAN-AMERICAN POL FACES JAIL
In the Metro section today (1/12/06), page 4, we see
the results of
another government fishing expedition, and The New York Times jumps right on
"Clarence Norman Jr., the disgraced former state assemblyman and
Brooklyn Democratic Chief, was sentenced to two to six years in prison
on corruption charges yesterday."
That should shut him up for a while. Note that The Times, in describing Norman as
"disgraced," hops on the bandwagon of judicial injustice which is now
rampant. How many leaders have we seen become the victims of expensive
stings and fishing expeditions? It's a great way to undermine the
African American community and make sure it stays in its place, must be
the thoughts of the local judicial system that meted out this piece of
discriminatory punishment. Norman was not contrite, according to the
article by Andy Newman, one of the reasons State Supreme Court Judge
Martin Marcus slammed him with the maximum sentence, according to The Times. Apparently, Norman
deposited $5,000 intended for his campaign into his personal account,
and he was also charged and convicted of several other irregularities,
according to The Times.
why would I defend a person like Norman? Because the initial
investigation that led to Norman's conviction had nothing to do with
the, I assume former assemblyman's, prosecution. It began, according to
The Times, with some hearsay
that judges could be bought for $50,000. Selective prosecution of
so-called "irregularities" is a great way of undermining a populist
democracy, as it results in the negation of the results of an election.
It also lines the pockets of desperate prosecutors when their initial
case are found to have no substance after they have invested thousands
of man-hours and dollars into an investigation that goes nowhere.
Norman could have accepted a plea bargain and probably gotten off with
a slap on the wrist, but he chose to fight his case, entering a plea of
"not guilty," according to The Times
If Norman's case is not a tape that has been played
over and over again, from Adam
Clayton Powell Jr. to the one-time mayor of Washington, D.C., what else
is? The prosecutors should be investigated and the guilty verdict
overturned on the basis of selective prosecution.
IRAN AND NUCLEAR FUEL
It was fun reading The
article (1/12/06 p A6) by Steven R. Weisman on the decision by Iran to
take seals off their nuclear enrichment facilities. Naturally, the only
case made in the article was the one in which Iran is made to look like
an international villain, even though the treaties to which it is a
signatory do not ban the activity that it plans to undertake. Why is
not Iran's case stated? Does The
Times revert to being a propaganda
sheet, spouting the party line with respect to international affairs as
dictated by, say, the Council on Foreign Relations, which trains The Times's reporters? Oh my!
My suggestion? Meet with both Iran and Korea
concessions such as the destruction of some of the arsenals of the
major nuclear powers with promises to do more in that direction, in
turn for pledges by these countries not to continue their enrichment
activities. (These two countries are already being lumped together by
national intelligence chief John Negroponte, who just appointed a few
of his cronies to an office that concentrates exclusively on the
the perceived strategic threat posed by the two "axis of evil" nations:
NYT 01/12/06 p 12).
It may appear that the United States is powerfully
almighty, but such is not the case. History shows that various factors
prevent powerful nations from controlling the world, and lead to the
disintegration of those nations. Internal disputes alone can disable
national resolve, good or bad. In spite of its overwhelming superiority
in terms of arms, the United States would do well to properly assess
its strategic position, and opt for concessions and negotiations rather
than try to inflame the world with unjust policies that will ultimately
undermine international support and lead to its demise as a world power.