Why You Must For Obama

What happened yesterday is why you should vote for Obama but this is a dagger in the heart for those who want to vote for McCain.   It is the most scathing commentary aganist what McCain would do as President

The One Time Where I Will Agree With the National Review

From the National Review

1) No more bailouts: There is no good time to stick taxpayers with the liability for financial executives’ mistakes, but now would be a particularly bad one. Unfortunately, too many CEOs seem to have gotten the message from the Bear Stearns and Fannie/Freddie deals that Washington will ride to their rescue. Lehman Brothers was rightly turned down. AIG should be turned down, too — and Fannie and Freddie should be reformed to limit any future taxpayer exposure. On this issue, conservatives should be unafraid to be populists.

2) Hard money: In the 1970s and 1980s, conservative politicians stood for preserving the value of the dollar against inflation. Their stance made it possible, even necessary, for the Fed to tighten money. They were so successful that inflation disappeared and the lesson was forgotten. It is time to remember it.”

Yes, I agree with that and I am a liberal.  I will usually fight conservatives on raising taxes and whole of host issues but this time the National Review has designed an excellent idea that the Obama campaign should use.  On point one, liberals can totally agree with point one because we do not bail out crony capitialists.  On point two, this is exact technique used by Paul Volcker to end Carter’s stagflation and the low growth rate of the 1970s.  It would also increase the worth of the US dollar and along with major entitlment reform, than the US can make a successful recovery economically.   Last time, I check Volcker is an Obama guy so there is exactly what Obama or McCain should do. 

What “Life” Sentence Really Means for O.J

I have yet to hear one media report that provides an accurate defination of what “Life” sentence means with the O.J Simpson case.  None.  

Actually, based my analysis of the Nevada State Code is that the sentence is Five to Life.  That means that the maximum term is life and the minimum term is five years (See the text in bold to see what statue is O.J is charged with.

Here is the excerpt from the Nevada State Code to provde my point

“  NRS 200.320  Kidnapping in first degree: Penalties.  A person convicted of kidnapping in the first degree is guilty of a category A felony and shall be punished:

      1.  Where the kidnapped person suffers substantial bodily harm during the act of kidnapping or the subsequent detention and confinement or in attempted escape or escape therefrom, by imprisonment in the state prison:

      (a) For life without the possibility of parole;

      (b) For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 15 years has been served; or

      (c) For a definite term of 40 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 15 years has been served.

      2.  Where the kidnapped person suffers no substantial bodily harm as a result of the kidnapping, by imprisonment in the state prison:

      (a) For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 5 years has been served; or

      (b) For a definite term of 15 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 5 years has been served.

      [2:165:1947; 1943 NCL § 10612.06]—(NRS A 1967, 469; 1973, 1804; 1995, 1184)

The media reports need to state that O.J has a 5 to Life term not a life sentence.  Since OJ has other charges aganist, the minimum will be most likely more than five years. 

I just heard too many media outlets have not reported this corrected and I wanted to bring it to public’s attention via this blog

215 Years? For that

Yeah, the guy who did this crime deserves the stiff sentence.  But friggin 215 years, that is considered to be an excessive sentence for the crime.  It should be a life sentence with non-parole period of 20 years.

He did not kill anybody and a life sentence is justified but there must be the chance at parole unless the offender has committed several prior felonies.  Than a life without parole sentence is merited.

This is another gung-ho judge that makes the sentence excessive given the gravity of the crime.  Of course the public says he deserve it instead stating that the sentencing is excessive

When the media publishes stories about prison overcrowding, we should look ourselves in the mirror.  We created this issue upon otherself because we the public has created a cowboy lock-em mentality instead of creating a culture of strict but equitable sentencing.  In Europe, Canada, and the rest of the Free World, this sentence would be barbaric and it will be less stricter than what I recommending.