Previous month:
February 2009
Next month:
April 2009

Blacks and AIDS

As the epidemiological data shows, AIDS is primarily a disease afflicting blacks and homosexuals:

More than 4 percent of blacks in the city are known to have HIV, along with almost 2 percent of Latinos and 1.4 percent of whites. More than three-quarters -- 76 percent -- of the HIV infected are black, 70 percent are men and 70 percent are age 40 and older.

Heterosexual sex was the principal mode of transmission for blacks with the disease, 33 percent. Men having sex with men was the chief mode of transmission for white residents, 78 percent; and Latinos, 49 percent. Black women represent more than a quarter of HIV cases in the District, and most, about 58 percent, were infected through heterosexual sex. About a quarter of black women were infected through drug use.

Why so many blacks and homosexuals find it so hard to wear condoms is beyond me.  The reality is that AIDS impacts blacks and homosexuals.  AIDS hits the black homosexual community especially hard.  Andrew Sullivan, unbelievably, blames the Right for this:

HIV is not the catastrophic disease it once was - it's now more like diabetes - and so we shouldn't jump to the kind of apocalyptic gloom we inherited from the earlier years of the epidemic. But what we have to do is treat it like diabetes or any other serious disease - by removing and tackling the stigmas that prevent people from being aware of their HIV status, by addressing the core problem of homophobia in the African-American community, and by preventing rapid transmission in the prison system.

Of course, much of the last administration's HIV policies were designed never to attack this core problem, because the Christianist right cannot deal with homosexuality in anything but an ideological or theological way. That's why the Bush administration focused more on Africa than the city they lived in. And that's why black men in DC are more affected by HIV now than black men in Rwanda.

Can you imagine what would have happened if anyone in the Bush Administration had dared to address "the core problem of homophobia in the African-American community"?  When I pointed out that blacks voted overwhelming in favor of Proposition 8 - California's ban on gay marriage - I was called a racist.  Repeatedly.  My statement was a factual one.  Somehow, though, it was a fact that only a racist would notice.

So imagine actually accusing blacks of being homophobic.  And noting that this homophobia causes blacks to be gay on the "down low," and thus not openly discuss issues like AIDS.  Could you imagine the protests? 

Blacks are the protected minority.  They are the Made Men of minority groups. 

Thus, while blacks and Mormons supported Prop 8 in about the same proportions, there were protests at Mormon churches.  People wanted to burn the Mormon Temple.  Anyone who pointed out that blacks, as a group, voted the same way as Mormons were outcast and labeled as racists.

Could Andrew Sullivan or anyone else explain how it's the Right's fault that we can't have an honest discussion of homophobia in the black community?  Would people like Rush Limbaugh or Thomas Sowell be the ones screaming, "Racist!" if that discussion were raised?  I think not. 

Political Correctness, as is often the case, kills.  It's killing blacks.  Until people can openly discuss black homophobia, blacks will remain in the closet more than any other ethnic group.  They'll continue to remain ignorant of AIDS prevention and treatment. 

Attorney General Eric Holder said we should have an open and honest discussion of race.  So let's get to it.  General Holder: Why are blacks more homophobic than any other ethnic group; and what do you plan to do about this?

Let's not pretend that we can even have this discussion.  Let's just pretend that I didn't even write this post. 

AIG Bonuses: So Sue Me!

According to the latest spin, AIG must give out bonuses to avoid lawsuits:

In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy said outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.

These jokers at AIG want to play hard ball.  So let's play hard ball. Make the executives sue for their bonuses.  Tell them, "Go ahead.  Sue us."

Each plaintiff would be identified in any lawsuit.  His or her employment contract would become a matter of public record.  Each plaintiff would need to state what bonus he was promised.  None of this information would be a trade secret or otherwise be privileged. We the people could look behind the curtain.

Plus, I doubt that any of the executives have a loser-pays provision in their contracts.  So they'd need to give a lawyer a third of their bonuses in order to sue.  At least the wealth would be spread out.  Even if there is a loser-pays provision: Attorneys' fees would be relative chump change.  Even if we have to pay their lawyers, it'd be worth it.

As a taxpayer, I welcome these lawsuits.  Let's have the "best and brightest" publicly expose themselves in lawsuits. 

So, please: Sue me.

Connecticut Lawyer Brief Bank

This is a really cool idea:

Effective March 1, 2009, section 67-2(K) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requires all counsel-represented parties who file a paper brief in the Supreme Court also to file an electronic copy of the brief with the court.  Through a cooperative arrangement with the Judicial Branch, the Appellate Advocacy Committee will post the brief on this site once the case appears on the court’s docket as “ready for assignment.”  (Cases often do not appear on the docket until several months after the briefs have been filed with the court.)   Please note that the brief must be e-filed by uploading a copy through the e-filing service on the Judicial Branch’s website.  Sending the electronic brief directly to this website does not constitute compliance with the new rule.  Click here to read the Judicial Branch guidelines for the electronic submission of  briefs.)

Are they going to post every brief - whether the lawyer wants them to or not?  I hope so. 

Posting every brief will improve the quality of advocacy.  If you know the public is watching, you'll work harder.  Moreover, it will expose the incompetent.  

Those who want to hire a lawyer can do their due diligence beforehand, reading work product.  No marketing ploy can dazzle a prospective client who has seen not just the best work a lawyer shows the client - but the actual work filed in court.

Another Cruel Joke on Humanity

Your brain is strongest from ages 22-27.  But you haven't lived long enough to actually know anything.  Isn't life grand?

I'm reminded of the expression: Youth is wasted on the young.  When you're young, you worry about adult problems, or want to "grow up."  This is moronic.  There is very little that is interesting about old age.  You only realize this once you're old, and thus lack the vigor of youth.

Our course, the Ponzi Scheme that is the United States depends on upon the young wasting their youth.  If the young decided to enjoy their youth - perhaps goofing off until in their earlier thirties before getting serious about life, national productivity would decline.

Get people productive.  Plug them into the matrix.  Get them into homes with lengthy mortgages so they have less mobility in life.  Tell people to start families, so that a person is even more of a slave to a Machine.  A person with a mortgage and family to support won't tell his boss to, "Fuck off."

Teach the children to protect their credit with their lives.  Make them "buy and hold" stocks, and become a "loyal employee."  Tell them to ignore that loyalty does work both ways, and that an employer will ruthlessly fire them.  It's just business only applies when an employer fires you: It does not apply when you leave for a better job.

Make people who won't pay economically non-viable mortgages feel guilty.  Tell them, "You entered into a contract," as if a contract with a bank has any moral authority.  Tell them to ignore that banks are thieves that spend billions in Washington to weasel out of deals and rob people.

All of these national mantras exist so the corporations and the unproductive may exploit the productive.  Republicans want us slaving away for their donors at the Chamber of Commerce.  The Democrats want us slaving away for people who won't work.

When the young realize that they are wasting their youth, the Ponzi Scheme will collapse.

Credit Card Companies Are Thieves

The latest credit-card scam is to change your available credit limit to an amount less than what you currently owe.  Details here.

This allows credit card companies to charge you over-limit fees.  They change the rules in the middle of the game.  You were fine one day.  The next day, you're not.

Where are Barney Frank and other friends of the poor?  They talk about reform, but they do little. 

What credit card companies do is literally thievery.  Whom does it hurt?  It doesn't hurt me.  I pay off my balances every month.  I use my credit card for SkyMiles and other rewards programs.  I am a leech on the credit card companies.  And damned proud of it.

The latest credit card scam hurts the people who can't afford to pay off their balances - the so-called "little guy."

Why won't Barney Frank and other Democrats stand up for the little guy?  For whom do they really work for?

Some of you will get laughed at when you say, "There was some reform!"  The "reform" took decades, and the reforms don't even go into effect until July, 2010. (!)  How many more billions will be stolen by then?

Hilariously, Obama's tax relief might put $13 a week into the pocket's of the little guy.  The little guy is having way more than that picked from his pocket every week by credit card companies.  Why didn't Obama bring any change? 

All of these people are on the take - and they all take from the little guy.  Give me a break with your pro-Democrat, pro-liberal nonsense.

Juliet Sorensen is an Unethical Prosecutor

Judge Richard Posner explains why in United States v. Farinella (which is itself a great illustration of overcriminalization at play) (via Eugene Volokh).

In the opinion, Judge Posner notes: "We asked the government's lawyer at argument what an appropriate sanction for the prosecutor’s misconduct might be.... The government's appellate lawyer told us that the prosecutor's superior would give her a talking-to.  We are not impressed by the suggestion."

So what will the government do to Ms. Sorensen?  Nothing.  What will the State Bar do to her?  Nada.  At least Google isn't so charitable.

Judge Posner identified the unethical prosecutor in the opinion, a rare thing.  He waited until late in the opinion - at first making me think he was going to pull the usual, "the prosecutor" trick.  Judges will write lengthy discussions of prosecutorial misconduct.  Almost always, instead of using the prosector's name, the judge will protect the prosecutor by referring to the miscreat as "the prosecutor."  This is a cover-up.  It used to work.

In the age of PACER, the cover-up doesn't work.  Motivated bloggers committed to justice can just pull up the docket sheet to find out whom the prosecutor was.  Yet another reason PACER is the awesomeness. 

Identifying Juliet Sorensen as the unethical prosecutor was valuable for two reasons.  First, anyone - i.e., dinosaurs - who uses Westlaw to serach for her will realize she has no ethics.  They'll know to watch out for her.  Second, he prevented me from overpaying [sic] for PACER

Thanks, Judge Posner.

Bernie Madoff is Free

So argues Norm Pattis.  He makes good points - at least regarding federal prison time.  Federal prison is not Club Fed, but it's not that bad.  This isn't due to a kind-and-gentle federal government.  It's due to the prison population.  In the federal system, you tend to be incarerated with druggies, crooks, and scammers rather than rapists and murders.  You have a lot of time to read books and think about life.  I can think of worse ways of living.