Slate Magazine: Helen Vera- Against Solitary Confinement: State Are Finding it's Impractical as well as Immoral

Source:Slate Magazine

The current use of the process of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons is deplorable.  There are no guidelines relating the length of confinement to severity of offense.  The process is used at the discretion of onsite officials.  This results in wide variations with some cruel and counterproductive results.  Indefinite solitary confinement is simply inhumane and can only intensify anti-social tendencies in inmates suffering any psychological disturbance.

Solitary confinement should be used as a punishment that is commensurate with the offense committed and the need to convince the inmate that objectionable behavior is unacceptable.  It may provide a needed cooling-off period when there is conflict in the prison population.  It should be managed by psychological professionals.

Inmates considered too disturbed to live in the prison population are sometimes subjected to  indefinite solitary confinement because the onsite authorities have no other strategy for managing them.  This experience only makes them worse and makes the job of dealing with them much more difficult for the prison staff whose professional training is often inadequate. These inmates need to be in prison hospitals where they can do their time and get the mental health care they need.  Rotting away in solitary confinement only makes them worse.  Cutting them off from the prison world and outside world all together just makes them meaner and angrier and more convinced that they have nothing left to lose.  They take that anger out on the first people they see.  The really hard to manage inmates, who have consistent records of violently acting out, should be in mental institutions where they can get the help that they need.

A lot of us when we were kids had the experience of being sent to the office for acting out in class and even doing an in-school suspension.  The penalty box in a hockey game is an example of what isolation units in prisons should be for the mentally healthy inmates, a place they go for short-term punishment but then they go back to their normal prison life.
The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian- Man Forgotten in Solitary Confinement For Years

The American Conservative: Leon Hadar: The Right's Putin Problem

The American Conservative: Opinion: Leon Hadar: The Right's Putin Problem


I'm not trying to sound overly partisan or harsh and when my dad reads this he might say, "Why not?". But when I think of Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, I think of Neoconservatives in America, especially when they praise the man for his clamp down on homosexuality in Russia.  He is not democratic or authoritarian. He's somewhere in between, a fascist politician who believe he knows what's best for his country and therefore shouldn't have to contend with any real opposition or dissent.

Sound familiar in America, especially when you look at the Neoconservative flank of the Tea Party that see themselves, a lot of them from the least populated parts of America, as the true American Patriots?  The believe that they know what is best for America and anyone who disagrees with them should just shut up or move to Canada or some socialist country. Well, again, that is Vladimir Putin who believes that it's his way or no way and you if you don't like it you may end up in jail labeled as a traitor to the Russian Republic.

Imagine what it would be like if we really had a Tea Party President of the United States.  This will never happen as free speech, privacy and personal freedom becomes more popular everyday. But how different would someone like a Michelle Bachmann or a Rick Santorum or Steve King, U.S. Representative from Iowa, be from Vlad Putin. They wouldn't be able to lock up the entire opposition in the country but they may try to. I would doubt we would see much difference in governing style  between a Tea Partier and Vlad Putin.

Film Society at Lincoln Center: Q&A With Raquel Welch on Myra Breckinridge

Source:Film At Lincoln Center- Simon Doonan, interviewing Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch, at Lincoln Center in 2012.

“Cinematic goddess Raquel Welch sat down with author and fashion commentator Simon Doonan for a Q&A before a screening of cult classic “Myra Breckinridge” (1970) as part of a Film Society of Lincoln Center retrospective of her films. Camp, sexuality, and Mae West were all covered, obviously.”

From Film Society at Lincoln Center

Myra Breckinridge is not the movie that made Raquel Welch a star. Myra Breckinridge was a loser at the box office no matter how funny it was. It was one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.

Myra might have been an official loser but Raquel was great and hilarious in it and it was in several ways a great movie. Just imagine going back to 1969-70 the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s. Yes, the cultural and sexual revolutions were already under way. The gay rights movement was already under way as well.

But take that a few steps forward where you have a formerly open gay man who decides that even living the life of a queen gay man, wasn’t good enough for him and decides to take it a step forward and become a transgender woman. The word transgender might not have even around yet in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I’ve argued before that Myra Breckinridge both the book and the movie, were at least twenty years ahead of their time. Which I believe is why it was a loser at the box office. But that move comes out in the 1990s with the same cast, writing, and everything else, and I believe we’re talking about one of the most celebrated comedies of all-time.

Myra wasn’t seen as a great comedy then, but seeing it today it certainly looks like a very funny entertaining movie. And Raquel Welch was great and hilarious in it. As well as gorgeous, adorable, sexy, like she always has been. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

CNN: Video: Crossfire: Is America Becoming a Nanny State?

Its not the job of  government,at whatever level. to protect people from themselves, to micro-manage their lives and say you can do this or that with your life or your body. In case you haven't noticed, this blog is not in favor of the nanny state.  What government should do as a protector but not director of society is to develop and broadcast good information on what is good for you and what isn't good for you.  Individual citizens can then make decisions about their own lives.

The Fiscal Times: Report: Eric Planin: President Obama Looks to Tax Reform to Save America's Highways

The Fiscal Times: Report: Eric Planin: President Obama Looks to Tax Reform to Save America's Highways

This would be an interesting way to raise the much needed revenue to rebuild America's infrastructure system but, as I've argued in the past, we wouldn't need to go to this length if we created a National Infrastructure Bank instead. That would prioritize the national infrastructure projects that our country actually needs, real projects that support strong economic and job growth as opposed to pork .

A National Infrastructure Bank was proposed by senators John Kerry (D) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R)in the 112th Congress. This would be an independent corporation created by Congress.  It would simply prioritize national infrastructure projects and then find funding for them in the private sector by bringing in investors.  It would make profits from the investments from tolls and fees that users would pay to use the roads, bridges, airports etc.

This is how we should paying for infrastructure improvements, moving past Congress to create an organization that could work on its own without taxpayer funds, collecting revenue from the projects. Our country would have all of the revenue needed to pay for its infrastructure requirements and not need to go to a dysfunctional Congress every year to meet its cash requirements.

MLB Classics: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1971-World Series-Game 7: Pittsburgh Pirates @ Baltimore Orioles: Full Game

The Orioles blew great opportunities to put together a real dynasty in the 1970s and become the MLB team of the 1970s.  Yes, they won two World Series from 1966-71 and won three American League Championships and four AL Eastern Championships from 1966-73.  They could easily have accomplished so much more but instead they lost the 1969 World Series to the New York Mets, an inferior team even with their great pitching.  They then did not play up to their capabilities against the Pirates in the 1971 World Series.

FOX Sports: Beyond The Glory Mike Tyson

Source:FOX Sports


Mike Tyson was the most devastating and intimidating force in boxing for about five years from some point in 1985 to 1990 and I could end the story right there because that pretty much sums up his career. Oh wait, you want the rest of the story.  A man who was the most devastating and intimidating force in boxing for five years, who was undisputed World Heavyweight Champion during that time is not good enough for you. You actually want more than that?

That was really the only productive part of his career.  He was not only champion but was also winning  fights against major contenders. For the rest of his career, he was either in prison, beating fighters who had no business fighting him, or losing to simply better fighters like Evander Holyfield, twice, and Lennox Lewis.

But the five-year run that he did have was one of the most impressive careers any boxer had.  Not just because of the fights he won and how long he was undisputed World Heavyweight Champion but also because of how he won the fights, the title, and how he defended it against the best.  It is not his fault that he fought in a relatively weak era.