Quantcast
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs

I'm really disappointed. I ripped an article out of the L.A. Times the other day. I wanted to blog about it. Now, I can't find it anywhere. I remember the basics behind it. But one stat I wanted to quote accurately. I'll be off by a few hundred, but oh well.

A woman wrote about Siskel & Ebert, and the show "At the Movies". We know Gene Siskle passed away about 10 years ago. Ebert hasn't been with the show for awhile, but officially quit a few weeks back. And his sidekick Richard Roeper, who has been there at least 7 years, has quit.

Two young guys (both named Ben) have been hired to replace them. And this woman was upset. She said something along the lines of: There are 2,368 film critics in America. You know what percentage of them are women?

Now, when she said that...I guessed 15%. If she was mad, it had to be low.

Nope. It was 30%. So, what is her gripe? Now, personally, I think a woman and a man working the show would've been a better dynamic. But, more because you get different personalities. Would she like romances more? Would she be tougher on them, to show she doesn't just like "chick flicks"?

But, this reminded me of an argument I had with my friend Peg, when we worked in radio together. She was the highest rated afternoon DJ. She was also our Music Director (who is like the assistant to the Program Director). She complained she was the lowest paid music director in San Diego radio. I finally said, "Peg, our morning show, is the lowest paid morning show in the market (even though our ratings were in the middle of the pack). Also, our program director, was the lowest paid in the market." She didn't have an answer for that. She still swears, that it was because she was a woman.

Adam Carolla, claims women deserve to make 80 cents to the dollar. He said once, "A guy can go drinking until 4 a.m. And get up at 6, feeling like crap, and then swing a hammer all day. A woman would need to take the next two days off."

I've also wondered about the amount of times we've seen a woman cry in the work place. But that's a topic for another day.

The greatest thing was when that lady in the Parade section of the paper...can't think of her name. Marilyn Van something or other. She was asked the question about women making less than men. She said, "I don't believe they do." She explained a few reasons why. She also wanted to hear from people in different professions, and said she'd print the results. Which she never did.

Think about it, though. In government jobs, that certainly isn't the case. There's a pay scale that everyone follows (I know, my stepdad worked at the post office, and I spent a few years there). In fact, women often didn't have to do the physical things we had to do.

I remember 60 Minutes did a story about female fire fighters, not being able to pass the physical portions of the test. So, for them, the standards were lowered. But, womens groups never bring that up.

Marilyn brought up the fact that when she looked into the stats, she called a few law firms. She found at one, the women attorneys made less than the men. She talked to a woman that was there for 10 years, and a man, who worked about the same amount of time, yet made significantly more. The woman said, "Oh well....I took two years off when I had my child. He didn't. Also, he was putting in 4 hours extra a day. I wanted to go home and make dinner for my family. He deserves to be higher paid."

It makes me wonder, when these stats come out, do they break things down like this? Or do they just find out what female doctors make. And male doctors, and then womens groups complain.

I would say to my friend Peg, "If I was a female, and worked at a law firm, and I made $20,000 less than a male, I would say I wanted more money or I'd quit. If I was worth it, I'd get it. If not, I'd go to another law firm. Isn't that something you can do at every job?"

Now, don't get me wrong. I think a lot of women have it tough in the work place. There's a lot of good ol' boys that probably don't respect women. A woman that orders someone around is a "bitch" yet when a man does it, he's just strict.

I understand the sexual harrassment they have to deal with, etc.

But when it comes to pay, these things just aren't a factor.

I dated a Chinese woman in my early 20s, and all we did was argue. This was one of our debates, too. She said something like, "It's insane that Meryl Streep makes $5 million a film, while Arnold Schwarzenegger gets $20 million." I said, "No it isn't. Arnold can make a movie, and it makes $100 million. If Streep does a movie, she might get an Oscar nomination, but that doesn't mean it will make money."

Hollywood doesn't worry about whether you are male or female. They want butts in seats. She argued the point with me.

I had read something a few months prior, and was able to spring it on her. I said, "Who is the first actor that made a million bucks for a movie?" She guessed some man from the mid-70s. It was Liz Taylor, for Cleopatra, in the early 60s. She had just gotten married, didn't want to do it. They kept offering her more and more. Asked her how much it would take to do the film, she said a million bucks, thinking they'd never pay it. They did.

I then said to this woman, "Do you think studios say, 'We can't pay Madonna more than we're paying Michael Jackson. She's a woman.' No. Studios are bidding for the contracts of these people once they are big, and the contract runs out with one studio." She disagreed.

Now, when it comes to television news, yes, women get the short end of the stick. When their looks fade, so does their job security. Yet, Walter Cronkite can keep reading the teleprompter until he's 85, and people just think he's like an old, comforting, grandfatherly figure.

But, I'm sure there are professions where women make more. Waitressing. Modeling.

I don't know. I think women that complain about not being paid the same as men, aren't looking at the big picture.

More like this:

Comments
20

Overlooking the spelling errors, I have to say that this is a big pile of crap. A lot of your facts are just plain wrong. Yes, Adam Carolla does say a lot of sexist things. He's also a comedian.

I find it sad how you back up your claims without evidence. For example, you mention Carolla thinks women should make 80 cents on the dollar, then you quote him describing the ability men have to "rally" and get things done.

Who gave you a blog anyways?

Aug. 1, 2008

Well Kinneas, tell me what you don't agree with (other than bad spelling). It was almost 3 a.m. and as I've said, I don't use spell check or care, when it comes to blogs. I'm typing fast, off the top of my head.

I think I'm making it obvious, that I'm not backing that theory up with facts, just what I think. But if you disagree, can you throw some facts out there?

Tell me why you think it is, that women make less than men. Or, why a woman would work at a place that pays her less.

And, why women that have been questioned on the topic, say that their male counterparts have chosen to stay hours later and work the overtime, which they didn't want to work. One woman said they wanted to get home to spend time with their family.

Women and men are different. When it comes to work, also. So, maybe that's why men "make more" for doing "the same job."

But, you don't dispute that. You just say I don't deserve a blog.

Yet, you say Carolla is a "comedian." Guess what? He started out as a carpenter and boxing trainer, who used to call into an L.A. radio station to say funny things.

What makes him more credible then me to comment on anything? In fact, I could argue I've done just as much "comedy writing" as Adam...both for radio, print media, commercials, etc.

But that's not what we're talking about right now. So, let's hear your facts.

Aug. 1, 2008

Josh, I think you're missing a salient point.

Women get lots of stuff free.

From ladies nights to boyfriend's gifts, we guys gotta make a bit more just to stay even.

Think of it...if a guy buys a woman a car, nobody raises an eyebrow. In fact, both are praised. The man for being generous, and the woman for getting a "good catch".

What happens when it's reversed? The woman is a fool for supporting a deadbeat, and the man's a bum.

I've done so much unpaid labor for various girlfriends, fixing their cars and apartments, paying vet bills, bailing them out of their credit card debt...you guys all know the story.

If I were to marry my sweetheart, and if she never worked another day, she'd still be claiming half my assets in a typical California divorce. The law is so twisted, she's more rewarded the less she contributes.

All this is quite unfair, yet you'll never hear the women who long ago got wage parity mention any of this. Instead they'll trot out household chores as unpaid additional labor, calculate an inflated wage for this work, and claim it's discrimination.

Well, how about all us guys fixing your cars? Do you know what professional mechanics earn ladies?

None of us are paid enough, true. But women have far better access to both government subsidies and outright gifts than most men.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with that. "Women and children first" had better be our society's motto, or our socity will not last long. Women have tremendous advantages, and mostly deserve them.

Yet I predict shrill cries of unfairness (to women) will continue throughout our lifetimes.

Best,

Fred

Aug. 1, 2008

Well Fred, I'm not on board with you on this one. If a man chooses to do those things, so be it. I think a good boyfriend (husband), does those types of things. I remember dating a stripper (I was young and stupid), and she told me about a Charger who would come in and spend lots of money. He bought one dancer a car one time. Hey...that's his choice.

If a man can work on a car, and she's having problems with her vehicle, fix it.

Where I would use your argument, is when the housewife, says that a woman doing what she does...."taking care of the kids, making dinner, cleaning the house,"...24 hours a day, etc, would be paid $150,000 a year. They do those stories every few years. Well, that's when you whip out the point you just brought up.

At my 20 year high school reunion, I also thought how a woman doesn't have to have a job, and nobody bats an eye. She could just be married to someone that has a good job, and she's at home with the kids. Men can't do that. But again, that's between the man and the woman, and what they choose to do raising their kids and their income, etc.

But, my point is, women that go on and on about making less for doing the "same job." When, all indications are, that isn't the case.

Aug. 1, 2008

What are you talking about that a woman could have no job, but just be married to some well off guy, and nobody bats an eyelash? Are you really that out of touch with current reality?

People would probably nod their head nicely at some chick at your reunion who didn't amount to nothing more then a housewife, but people still take in that fact.

I mean, people would think differently if she said she had her degree in something, or had a successful job doing something, but then decided to stay at home and raise a family, but people are people, and they judge, and whether it's a guy or girl saying "well, after high school I haven't been doing much except living at home, or living with my spouse, or living with my partner" they'll still think "damn, so and so hasn't really amounted to much" and move on. I think judgment is fairly equal across the board on this one.

I really think women have a good shot at equality in the workforce nowadays.

Aug. 1, 2008

Richard Roeper's outta there, huh? I'll be darned...

Aug. 1, 2008

Well towel, the problem with your logic is you're saying "amount to nothing more than a housewife." There's nothing wrong with someone that is just a "housewife". My mom was "just a housewife" that raised three kids, cooked all our meals, cleaned the house, etc.

I just saw some show on MSNBC tonight, where a female prison guard got beat up so bad....50 stitches over each eye, broken eye sockets and broken jaw, really messed up. She couldn't even return to the area she was attacked, without breaking down in tears. Now she has a job supervising vehicles that come into the prison, away from the prisoners.

I wonder if she makes less than the men that have to face the prisoners. The prisoners that spit at them. That curse at them. That throw feces at them. I'll bet she does. Or, did she say, "You know what? I do a job that's a let less of a risk. Why don't you give me less pay."

People always complain about job cuts and pay cuts, but it never happens the opposite way around.

Sort of switching subjects, it's like when I get on that kick about wrongly accused people getting a big payday from the state. That anthrax guy killed himself. Well, apparently, the first person they suspected, sued and got millions, because his name was leaked to the media. Well, this guy that killed himself...will the police, or the state, get millions from his estate? If not, why? (Fred?)

Aug. 2, 2008

The treatment of Hatfill was a disgrace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hatfill

How the investigators could have missed Ivins is puzzling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_E._Ivins

I don't know that Ivins had much in the way of assets, but I wouldn't mind the government confiscating it.

The right of citizens to sue government over unfair treatment is a crucial balance against abuse of power.

Otherwise, when a cop on steroids busts out your teeth just for taking his picture when he's on duty, how can you pay for your lifetime of wearing dentures?

Aug. 2, 2008

I can only speak from my experiences as a 30-something male in San Diego, but it seems like women want equality sometimes but not in others. They want equal pay in the workplace, but also want men to open doors and pull out chairs for them and pay for all their meals. They want to be the first ones off a sinking ship or out of a burning building but when it comes to a job that they can't physically match a man they want equal pay. Some jobs CAN be equally performed by both sexes, the pay should be equal in these instances.

Women and Men are not equal, physically or mentally. Life isn't fair either!

Aug. 2, 2008

Fred...I have no problem if a cop busts your teeth for no reason, being compensated. But, when someone sues the cops...like this gay guy that was shot for attacking the police. Well, it seems they don't have a case. When that is proven, they should have to pay the police, for filing a false claim.

Or, when police and the state, have to pay someone wrongly accused during an investigation (and usually they are wrongly accused, because they acted guilty, lawyered up, and did other weird things instead of just answering questions honestly)...well, when the correct person is arrested, or dies, the state should seize EVERYTHING they own, to pay for said investigation (as you agreed with).

Burn...it's a decent point, but I don't see a problem with a woman wanted to be treated with that chivalry that has been around for ages. A man that will open a door, pay for a meal, etc. There's a difference between that, and a woman that just wants a sugar daddy.

But, I've had many jobs over the years, and I can honestly say, I've seen a different work ethic when it comes to men and women. And, many women have often admitted that to me as well.

I'm not saying that means women should be paid less. I'm saying we pay each person based on the job they do. But, if surveys come out that show women make less, we don't freak out over why that is. Because, there are reasons for it.

The woman, that inspired me to write that blog...probably doesn't realize, most female journalists, probably didn't gravitate toward film criticism, and that's why there are fewer film critics out there. I bet if she walked into one of the more popular film schools, it would probably be 70% male. Just like the percentage of film critics she complains about.

Aug. 2, 2008

Josh, maybe you've not yet seen Radley Balko's work:

http://www.theagitator.com/

particularly have a look at:

http://www.theagitator.com/category/innocence/

Your faith in the integrity of prosecutors and cops is unfounded, I think, by ongoing revelations such as these:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DOJ_Investigating_two_US_Attorneys_involved_0604.html

I find it appalling that the judges seek the endorsements of the police unions and prosecutors for their elections. Isn't that outright declaring they're going to be on their side in the courtroom? When have you ever seen a campaign sign like "Josh Board for Judge...endorsed by public defenders"?

You wrote parenthetically, "usually they are wrongly accused, because they acted guilty, lawyered up, and did other weird things instead of just answering questions honestly".

Really? Usually? On what data do you base this bold assertion, sir..?? A link or two would be appreciated.

Read Balko, and you find case after case of railroaded defendents who never had a fair chance. Prosecutors who don't share exculpatory evidence, grossly unequal access to expert witnesses, the multiplication of charges in a uniform effort to force a plea...this is all well documented and I thought it was well known.

I'll be happy to provide you several links to more information about this subject.

Josh, I was on the San Diego Crime Commission and the Border Solution Task Force at an earlier stage in my political development. I am not asserting these things out of any dislike of cops, but out of an intense concern for our public safety and fairness in the courts.

Totalitarian states around the globe envy our prison system, and our world-beating incarceration rate. No one locks em up and throws away the keys like Americans.

Go U.S.A.!

Not.

It's shameful, actually, when we examine how our injustice system functions. You've written some about the subject yourself...

When the system malfunctions, reasonable compensation is due. When the system is hacked to predetermine biased outcomes, criminal investigations are due...

Best,

Fred

Aug. 2, 2008

Well, I don't have facts to back all this up, Fred. I just think the numbers are on my side. EVERY DAY, cops are pulling people over. And, they're doing it by the book. So, when there's one cop that does something wrong, well....that means thousands of cops were doing things right.

Now, this recent case locally where a cop supposedly fondled a prostitute, and he had been accused of that five years earlier, but it was his word against the womans. Well, they should investigate, find the Internal Affairs officer, and he gets canned. And, that woman should get a big payday.

But, when people sue the cops, and are lying, they should get nailed for that. My point is this. If we pay regular citizens millions, just because the police questioned them and thought they were suspects (like the anthrax scientist, who got $5 million), well....when someone accuses the cops of something, and turns out they lied (because they were merely mad the cop gave them a speeding ticket), that person should do 10 years in prison. Or, they should owe the police force $5 million, and their paychecks should be docked the rest of their life. It will keep people in line from making false charges against someone.

As it is now, people can make claims against someone (ie Duke case), and nothing happens to them. Did that woman do any jail time for saying those guys raped her? No. Heck, nobody even knows her name.

Aug. 3, 2008

Josh, there are already laws on the books with very harsh penalties for making a false claim against an officer. Look it up. The standards of evidence for proving a case are very high...it's tough to even file such a case, from what I understand.

So your concerns are covered.

The Hatfill case wasn't only one of being wrongly accused, he was wrongly accused to the media which predictably went on to thrash his life and career. Didn't you read that link?

Finally, you must admit the following sentence makes no sense whatsoever:

"So, when there's one cop that does something wrong, well....that means thousands of cops were doing things right."

I can demonstrate its nonsensicality (is that a word?) by simple replacement:

"So, when there's one doper that rolls a joint wrong, well....that means thousands of dopers were rolling joints right."

Under-reporting of misconduct is understandable considering the difficulty and perceived risks. Confidential informants routinely lie. Read those articles, including congressional testimoney, by Radley Balko.

Cops lie, especially when it comes to protecting fellow officers, Josh. Are you claiming otherwise?

Are you really proposing that any one who does get through all the hurdles of trying to prove a case of misconduct yet ultimately fails deserves to additionally go to prison for ten years, Josh?

Well, let's all put on our jackboots and learn to salute.

I really don't think you believe these things. You write as if you have contempt for the presumption of innonence, coupled with a wondrous belief in the infallibility of authority figures.

I don't buy it. You're smarter and more experienced than that.

I'm either misunderstanding you, or you ought to qualify things a bit more clearly.

Your devoted fan and self-selected sparring partner,

Fred "Righteous Fist" Williams

Aug. 4, 2008

Josh, It's obvious from your rather amatuerish comments that you seldom, if ever, do any research on what you right about, i.e. the following: "Well, I don't have facts to back all this up, Fred. I just think the numbers are on my side.". But as you have said, it's only a blog and you don't care.

You said "My point is this. If we pay regular citizens millions, just because the police questioned them and thought they were suspects (like the anthrax scientist, who got $5 million). To expand slightly on what Fred said, Hatfill wasn't simply wrongly accused to the media. His lawsuit claimed the FBI wiretapped his phones, made it impossible for him to work and leaked information about him to the news media "in a highly public campaign to accuse Dr. Hatfill without formally naming him a suspect or charging him with any wrongdoing."

The judge hearing the case ordered both sides to try and settle the case after reading the FBI's secret memos and finding "There is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with this". I would say that's just a little bit more than "the police questioned them and thought they were suspects" and have no problem with his settlement. I have no problem with law enforcement questioning, charging etc, if they have valid proof or evidence, but as Fred said "When the system malfunctions, reasonable compensation is due". When the system is hacked to predetermine biased outcomes, I have a big problem with that. And it happens, alot.

If you are truly proposing that any one who does get through all the hurdles of trying to prove a case of misconduct yet ultimately fails deserves to additionally go to prison for ten years, then what about those people who go thru the ordeal of a trial and are found innocent? In that case, shouldn't those who brought prosecution be subject to exactly the same penalties? Or would you propose the not be held accountable because "usually they are wrongly accused, because they acted guilty, lawyered up, and did other weird things instead of just answering questions honestly".

And as for the female prison guard while on the job. For some reason you forgot to mention the fact that she qualified for 100% disability, it was offered to her and she made the choice to return to work.

I don't know you Josh and I don't know whether or not you actually believe these things these things that write nor do I care. As you said "It was almost 3 a.m. and as I've said, I don't use spell check or care, when it comes to blogs. I'm typing fast, off the top of my head." At least you qualify yourself accurately in your little mini bio: I've now become a writer full-time (which doesn't explain why I'm still so poor at it).

Aug. 4, 2008

Josh PS Roger Ebert hasn't appeared on the show since July 2006 but he was indeed still with the show, being very active behind the scenes. And he didn't quit. the studio, Disney, decided to take the program "in a new direction" and he will no longer be associated with it. In other words he was let go.

Aug. 4, 2008

Well trestles, since you're so hardcore about what a good writer is, etc...a quick note for ya. "a lot" is two words, not one. You must've missed that class in junior high.

I'll try to address your comments, and Freds, as I remember them, in no particular order.

Whether or not Ebert quit or was fired, wasn't the point of what my blog was on. It was about why there was a lack of female film critics, and why a woman would even have a problem with that.

Sure, Ebert hasn't been with the show since then. But, he took his "thumbs" and left, a year ago, when he got angry with them. That was, back then, him "quitting," in a sense. Sure, the system they came up with instead "see it", "skip it" or "rent it" actually works better, because as Siskel & Ebert themselves said, a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" sometimes doesn't do justice to what they want to convey. A "rent it" is the perfect middle ground. So, Disney/studio "firing" him, was just a formality. He was gone long ago. And, without him being able to talk, I don't think it would've worked even if both sides had come to agreements.

Do cops lie? Sure they do. Heck, in the OJ case, two different sets of cops lied (Mark Furman, on his use of the "n word", and those two good cops, on why they jumped OJs fence without waiting for a warrant). They claimed that was for OJs safety, because he could be hurt inside the residence (they hardly believed that, but they didn't want to see all the blood evidence they collected thrown out, on some technicallity). Which is exactly my point. I think we've gone too far in protecting the criminal.

So, when someone lies, I like the book to be thrown at them. The way the woman who said a finger was in her chili at Wendy's, got 10 years or whatever it was. If you accuse cops, and you are wrong, it should be a stiff penalty. A lot tougher than if you accuse a coworker or some silly thing.

Aug. 4, 2008

I don't like the cops "using the media" so that a suspect can be named, without them naming one. A perfect example of how that can create problems was shown nicely in the film "Absence of Malice."

But, I also hate the fact that police sometimes feel they have to resort to this, because other ways of questioning suspects and gathering information, don't work the way I think they should.

And what I hate most of all...is people that go thru life, just thinking the cops are out to get us. And that it's that "man" mentality.

A perfect example is this liberal attorney friend of mine. All she does is gripe about Bush and Republicans. She went out and bought 10 Dixie Chicks CDs when they comment in concert about Bush. She is the most liberal person on the planet. It often even blinds her to reality. She doesn't think Michael Moore is a liar. Things like that.

Well, she went and donated blood the other day. Came out and was getting a parking ticket, and she yelled at the meter maid. I asked her why. She said, "Well, I was only a few minutes over. And I was doing a nice thing, donating blood. But she wouldn't even let me explain that."

So, she can give a cop, metermaid, whatever...a hard time. Because it affects her. She doesn't realize, that cops get a hard time from EVERYONE when they pull them over. When they investigate a domestic abuse case. Anything.

And then, you all wonder why they act like jerks when they pull you over, and you start mouthing off about "Why did you pull me over?" or whatever else you say.

Now, sure, I think they should have a thicker skin. Ignore it, and give you the ticket. But hey, they're human. And they can't do it. They're tired of people (guilty people) giving them crap. So, when they get to court, and some technicality is going to throw out a mountain of evidence, that lets a guy that beat his wife leave the court free as a bird, and they might lie to get him in jail...excuse me if I don't have sympathy if they do that.

Is it right? No.

Do I care. No.

Would I care if it involved me? Of course I would. But then, I don't beat women, or commit crime, so I don't have to worry about that.

Aug. 4, 2008

I could care less about the poor gramatical structure of your blogs, except it would be nice if once in a while you spelled names correctly, especially the names of children. To me "good" writing in this instance is the quality of the content and the accuracy of facts given. When your giving an opinion in one of your little blogs such as your thoughts on a band or the cross on Mount Soledad it's just your opinion. And everyone knows opinions are like ex-wives: if you have one you would like someone else to have it. But when you write about actual events or people, using what actually occurred or was said would seem to be warranted instead of taking a short cut and just throwing out some general version of whatever you "think" the facts are. I understand that you don't take your blogs very seriously,that's obvious to anyone who reads them, even though you seem to take yourself VERY seriously. Iguess it's nice someone does. Sometimes you are so far out to lunch that I just can't resist the urge to respond. So anyway how about an answer my question, joshua. What about those people who go thru spurilous prosecution and the ordeal of a trial and are found innocent? In that case, shouldn't those who brought prosecution be subject to exactly the same penalties you proposed for people who wrongfully sue law enforcement? Or do you feel they should not be held accountable because "usually they (the accused parties)are wrongly accused, because they acted guilty, lawyered up, and did other weird things instead of just answering questions honestly".

Aug. 4, 2008

Trestles...since you often correct me, I'll start with correct you again. The phrase is "I couldn't care less." Not "I could care less" because that would mean that you, well, COULD care less.

Along with that line in your opening, you say your only wish is for me to spell the names of the "children" properly. What is that? Who the hell really cares about the names of the children? If some famous celebrity named their kid "Proxy pilot inspector toe jam dweezil moonunit sputnik crater face jupitor moon beam," and I get one of the names wrong, I really don't care. Maybe that's why they should've named their kid Mike instead of Dweezil. Oh wait, I forgot. That's what Gails toe was called, therefore it's a good name. You already explained that.

To answer your question...if the police and prosecutors tried someone that is found innocent, no...I do not think the police/prosecutors/judge should be held accountable for anything, UNLESS they did things like....in the case of the Limbergh baby (I won't make an attempt at using that babies name, I know how you get if I'm wrong). The prosecutors were so sure they had the right guy (he used the marked ransom money...which he found in his garage; as he stated, from a man he rented the garage and a room out to).

They planted wood from the ladder that was used to kidnap the baby. They even had a handwriting expert say it wasn't the same handwriting (his vs the ransom note), so they erased the note, changed some letters, to make them match better). The guy was then executed. All for finding money in his garage, and having a story that didn't seem to fly (they couldn't find the guy, named something like Mr. Fish, who supposedly rented the room out to).

In that instance, yes. All the people involved (one of them was General Schwarkopfhfhflse (sp?) dad or grandfather. THey should all be jailed. Because, our system shouldn't be trying to frame the bad guys. If you can't get them on the evidence, then you don't have a strong enough case.

But, that being said...believe me, if the prosecutors felt you did it, there was probably a rap sheet on you, you probably had a history of crime, or something. So, if you turned out to be innocent, well...enjoy your freedom.

After all, if we go to court to fight traffic tickets, we don't get awarded anything when we prevail. We merely DON'T have to pay some $298 traffic fine. We still missed a day of work, to sit in court and plead our case.

Aug. 4, 2008

Josh, Trestles may be jabbing you with a sharp stick, but he's got some points you've simply not bothered to answer.

Sure, it's just a blog, but you ought to work on your rhetorical skills. At least jot down the points you want to respond to so we don't talk past each other.

I'll repeat my request for you to link to some independent validation of your assertions. When you say "believe me" as in the second to last paragraph in the post above, it's totally weak.

It undermines rather than enhancing your point. You're not a prosecutor. Why should we believe you? Give me some facts from people who have systematically looked at the evidence.

As for missspellinggs, you might want to download and use the Firefox browser which has a handy spellchecker built in. I recommend it.

Best,

Fred

Aug. 4, 2008

Sign in to comment

Sign in

Art Reviews — W.S. Di Piero's eye on exhibits Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Best Buys — San Diego shopping Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits City Lights — News and politics Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Famous Former Neighbors — Next-door celebs Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town Here's the Deal — Chad Deal's watering holes Just Announced — The scoop on shows Letters — Our inbox [email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news News Ticker — News & politics Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated Of Note — Concert picks Out & About — What's Happening Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Pour Over — Grab a cup Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers Reading — The hunt for intellectuals Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds SD on the QT — Almost factual news Set 'em Up Joe — Bartenders' drink recipes Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Sports — Athletics without gush Street Style — San Diego streets have style Suit Up — Fashion tips for dudes Theater Reviews — Local productions Theater antireviews — Narrow your search Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads Waterfront — All things ocean Your Week — Daily event picks
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs
Close