AN UNUSUAL DEFENSE

Odds are that you don't know Richard Lawson, and you should thank your lucky stars. Mr. Lawson isn't exactly the kind of guy you would want living next to you. In fact, I'm not even comfortable knowing he's breathing the same air as me. Richard Lawson is a child molester and a murderer. But, take heart, at least it should bring you some comfort knowing that Mr. Lawson is serving a life sentence and most likely will never see freedom again. So why would I do a piece on a Piece-of-Shit? Because Richard Lawson was recently charged with molesting a boy even though he's already doing life...and he has an unusual defense that should make all of us think for a moment. He claims he did it while he was an informant for the Detroit Police Dept.and that he had immunity from prosecution.

Now, normally, I wouldn't trust the likes of Mr. Lawson any farther than I could throw him against a strong wind. But he has papers to prove it and Ex-Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon admits that he did in fact work with, and pay Mr. Lawson for his help. Add to that the fact that Lawson is already doing life and has no reason to lie and I start to wonder. The Chief however, denies that he ever gave Lawson immunity and claims Mr.Lawson acted on his own. I guess Chief McKinnon sees no problem with exposing young children to a dangerous man with his help. Why doesn't that make the Chief of Police an accessory at the very least? Why would the police department even consider working with a man who was convicted of five counts of first degree sexual conduct and a 1989 murder is beyond me, but let me explain the warped mentality that leads them to think this is right.

"There's no doubt" that you helped us arrest a number of people. Chief McKinnon is quoted as saying to Mr. Lawson. "The reason why I did it was to prevent another hundred children from being molested." the convicted child-molester reasoned. The general excuse is that the ends justifies the means. This is the justification for DEA agents selling drugs or for child molesters or even murderers being given light sentences in exchange for cooperating in other investigations. "Without informants posing as criminals, it's hard to reach the people at the top," they'll tell you. But when is the line crossed? What kind of a world is it where I worry, not only about the child molesters or drug dealers themselves, but also about the police officers that are posing as drug dealers or their paid informants. What difference would it make to me if my child dies from drugs from a dealer or a DEA agent? My child is still dead. Am I supposed to feel better about my child being molested if it's to break up a child pornography ring? What about the murderers who get out early only to prey on other people? Is it right that he was released so that some police Sergeant can make Captain because of a big bust? Will that bring my brother or sister or mother back?

We've all see the police dramas where an informant helps the cops reach the big guy. Everything works out perfect and the informant almost always sees the error in his ways and decides to work with the good guys instead of the bad. That is nothing but pure fiction. In real life, criminals use the police like pawns to get revenge on people who did them wrong. Most of the time the "Big Guy" that they bust isn't even as big as the guy they released. Police routinely take the drugs they capture and put them right back on the streets and convert them back into cash to fund other expeditions. Is it any wonder they like this policy, when it brings them more funding? When it comes to sexual predators, the police know damn well that the perv is only going to prey again. But as long as they get the collar and eventually the promotion they need, they don't care. I should point out here that the majority of cops are good decent people who disagree with these policies themselves but have to play the game the way it's played. Having your paid police officers doing drugs on the job, selling drugs, and profiting from the sale of drugs is just plain wrong and way too close to the same thing the dealers are doing. Where is the moral high ground? This is just one more example of our police going too far. Did Richard Lawson have immunity allowing him to molest children so he would be accepted into a child pornography ring they were hoping to bust? I can't say for sure. But given the other deals that are made every day in this country to catch the "Big Guys", I wouldn't be surprised. H.C.

BARACK SURGES, WHEELS COME OFF CLINTON MACHINE

"Do you really think Obama could win?" That seems to be the most common question people are asking me lately. The quick answer is "Yes", but let's not get ahead of ourselves. This is no time to rest on your laurels if your an Obama supporter. The political graveyard is littered with people who underestimated the Clintons. The "Comeback Kid" and his wife have lived through a avalanche of criticism and they are the most dangerous when wounded. However, in the past few weeks a lot of interesting things have happened that should delight Obama supporters. Not the least of these is his 8 consecutive wins! So, let's take a look at how I think things are panning out.

There can be no doubt that the Clinton's are shaken by Obama's wins. As positive evidence, Hillary has been cleaning house and the heads are rolling. She recently lost (fired, asked to leave, bowed out, stepped aside, whatever) both her Campaign Manager, Patti Solis Doyle and her Deputy Campaign Manager, Mike Henry. That's a sign of a campaign in trouble. Further evidence is that she's had to loan her own campaign money (even though she got it right back in a surge of contributions). But probably the biggest problem that she's having right now is that the spotlight is on the Superdelegates that she so counted on to secretly hand her the win. Thanks to exposure by bloggers and the internet, the DNC now finds itself in the precarious position of having to chose between backstabbing the Clintons (and remember, a lot of them owe their jobs to the Clintons) and risk getting caught with blood on their hands should Barack win the majority of the committed delegates but lose thanks to the Superdelegates. Handing the nomination over to someone who clearly lost the populous vote is going to have the Republicans screaming "hypocrite" after the tongue-lashing the Dems gave them over the 2000 election. How can any self-respecting Democrat allow this to happen? Already I'm hearing my Dem friends say that they will quit the Democratic Party if it does happen. I promise, if it does, I'll supply all of you with a list of the Democrat Superdelegates that pushed Hillary in so we can run them out of office one by one.

But will it happen?

My best guess is "no". I can't imagine the Democratic Party forming a circular firing squad when the other choice brings young voters into the fold and solidifies their stand not only with blacks but most likely with all minorities including the much sought-after Hispanic vote.

So does that mean Barack's in?

Not quite yet, the race isn't over and the DNC is not going to just hand the election over to Barack without a fight. There's still the issue of Michigan and Florida's disenfranchised delegates. (Don't say I didn't warn you!) The "uncommitted" delegates that they told you to vote for here in Michigan are Hillary's for the grabbing along with the committed delegates she got in her largely uncontested win. The Florida delegates are also likely to come into play even though Barack honored his pledge not to campaign there. I'm telling you folks; This is the most corrupt election process I've ever witnessed. In a desperate attempt to calm things down, the DNC is searching for other solutions. Such as having Michigan and Florida holding a caucus to replace the primary results. That has the Clintons in an uproar as they feel they stole those votes fair and square and know they won't come out as well the second time around. We'll have to wait and see on that one, but should Hillary be handed those votes, Obama supporters should take to the streets in civil protest.

Finally, there is still the issue of the Clinton media machine. Lately I've been seeing positive press coming out for Hillary all over the place. People like Diane Rhem from radio's NPR are fawning all over Hillary while questioning everything Barack does or says. Normally, a candidate would be hearing cries to step down by now if they were in Hillary's place. She had a disappointing showing in the Super Tuesday runoff (winning only 8 states to Baracks 13) and has been getting her butt kicked by nearly 2 to 1 margins every since. Yet, Barack's wins seem to be marginalized. The press doesn't seem to want to concede his acheivements. Michigan and Florida are always included in Hillary's wins (even though the delegates are removed) to make the match seem closer. Obama is also suffering from what I call "small font syndrome". Meaning that all his wins seem to be relegated to small font in the major newspapers while Hillary's are portrayed as major events in larger font. Also, I've noticed that the pictures of Barack don't show supporters or a happy candidate the way that Hillary's do. Just a coincidence? I don't believe it. Barack has been getting better press from Fox News or the Wall street Journal than by NPR, MSNBC, or ABC. That leads me to believe that Hillary has cranked up her media machine. To cover her tracks, she has even been accusing the press of being bias in favor of Barack. I find that laughable, but it provides cover for the press to do more pro-Hillary pieces and to attack Barack.

Counting Hillary out too early would be a big mistake and I think we all have to take a bigger role in complaining loudly that we will not accept bias and shady practice by our media. If you see it, e-mail your media and let them know how you feel. If you live in Michigan and Florida, tell the DNC you won't tolerate Hillary being handed those delegates she did not earn. Barack is sitting good but has to press on hard. He needs to focus on Ohio and Wisconsin and put the last shovels of dirt on Hillary's campaign. Remember, together we can end this family dynasty and the dual monarchy that threatens to end everything our country has stood for. H.C.

DATING DEMI, AGAIN

Every once in a while I feel the need to stretch a little in my writing. For those of you that would rather I stick to the serious side, just skip over this one. I really only write them to try to become a better writer, and besides..it's fun.

*WARNING*

This piece contains sexually explicit material not suitable for young children and some Republicans.

"Oh, my God, that was great!" I said , falling onto my back. "That wonderful day in Washington, Kansas, and Louisiana! Then, just when I thought it couldn't get any better, now a perfect day in Maine. It felt like...,like old times." Demi just stood up, putting her shirt back on first.

"What?" I questioned.

"You know what." she shot back, obviously irritated.

"Oh, come on!" I pleaded. "Can't we just live for the moment here? I thought that was what you were all about." I really don't think I should have said that last part as it looked like it just irritated her more.

"Remember what it was like H.C?" she said as she sat back on the bed, her face suddenly cooling. "Remember how you took me home that first voting day one cold November? Remember how proud your working class parents were? And what about your friends...our friends? Didn't they all like me? Everything was going perfect and then you left. What wasn't I giving you, H.C.?"

"I don't know." I lied.

The truth is, when I first started dating Demi way back when I was 18, everything did seem perfect. She believed in everything that I believed in; legal marijuana, an end to the war, and a soft landing should I lose my job. Back then, nothing else seemed all that important. But as I grew I began to feel her restraints. At times it felt like she didn't want me to achieve, she wanted me to rely on her for food, for work, and for power. In her effort to comfort me I began to feel smothered.

"It's because I started dating minorities isn't it?" she asked.

"No, I understood that they needed us and we needed them." I answered.

"Was it the Gay thing? Because I was only experimenting." she said, her cheeks flushing a little. "No," I said, "I was cool with that, but I didn't understand the need for the whole 'Marrying' thing."

That irritated look suddenly reappeared on her face. "Oh, I see, marriage is only for the privileged few." she said scornfully.

"Look, we both have had our differences." I said, hoping to retreat a little. "Let's focus on the now. The new guy looks good with you and I'm supporting him."

She thought that over for a minute, her face turning to a open window. "You know, I'm committed to someone else." she whispered.

"I know" I replied, putting my hands on her shoulders, "But, you could leave her! You could make up your own mind and give the people who they want. Follow your own principles, be the girl I once loved. We could win this thing together, it would be like it used to be, me and you against the forces of evil."

She continued staring out the window for a long few seconds, her face firmed. "You don't know what your asking," she said. "I've been with her for a very long time and she's not exactly the forgiving type. And by the way, how do I know that this isn't just a trick? We've seen this before. White guy votes for the black guy in the primary and then runs back to the white guy in the main election? No. I have to stay where I am, with her." She stood up and reached down for her pants. Pulling them up, she turned toward me. "Still, it was fun," she said, half smiling. "And I'll be seeing you in D.C., Maryland and Virginia. Maybe then, things will be different."

"I hope so." I sighed. She opened the door and stepped halfway into the hallway. Then, stopping as if she remembered something, she turned back towards me.

"I really hope to see you this fall, H.C." she said sweetly.

"It all depends on who you're with," I replied.

THE SUBPRIME CRISIS; COULD IT BE OUR OWN FAULT?

Foreclosure after foreclosure, bankruptcy after bankruptcy, the mortgage crisis seems to grow every day. The Dow has taken a sharp hit and dropped more than 10% in the past few months resulting in all of our retirement accounts shrinking instead of growing. Realtors are getting ulcers watching housing prices shrink while inventories of houses grow, and the average homeowner is watching the equity in his/her house disappear slowly. Pundits are all over my T.V., each claiming something different is at the root of it all. Some say the builders built too many houses, others claim shady leading practices are the cause. Still others point to gas prices, inflation, and even rising tuition as factors. Finally there is the argument that government intervention caused banks to be required to give loans to people that had bad credit histories (the definition of subprime is, after all, people with less than prime credit). All of these things contributed in one form or another to the problem, but in the end are we not at fault ourselves? Have we become a society that doesn't know how to take responsibility for our own spending habits? Do we have to have the government step in and tell us when we're over-extending ourselves? Do we need to be given an "allowance" by our paternal government to stop us from financially destroying ourselves?

One only needs to look back 20 years to see how much worse our debt ratio has become. All through the 90's we leaned harder and harder on our credit cards to make ends meet. From 1989 to 2001 alone our credit card debt nearly tripled from $238 billion to $692 billion, this resulted in bankruptcy jumping 125%. Note in the link provided that low income people had the biggest percentage increase in debt. How is it that the people with the least ability to pay, are the ones leading the pack getting themselves more in debt? On the housing side we went from having a U.S. mortgage debt of $2.188 trillion in 1988 to a debt of over 11 trillion in 2007, an increase of over 500%! Are we loaning out to just about anyone, with any kind of credit, in an effort to give everyone a chance at homeownership? Or are people simply over extending themselves and overstating their incomes so they can get bigger and bigger houses? We seem to think we have to have the newest car, the biggest house and thousands of dollars worth of computer components. This has become a country where even the poorest amongst us are driving brand-new lease cars while talking on their cell phone. The new norm is way beyond what most people can afford and to reach it they push themselves farther and farther into debt. But whose fault is it really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not letting lenders off for their part in the bargain. In their effort to sustain an economy that was overinflating itself, they found new and creative ways to give us more borrowing power than we ever should have gotten. Every quarter report was judged on it's own merit with no thought of the future, so mortgages were bundled and sold and resold. The purpose was always to take the "cream" off the mortgage (the first few years of the loan where the principle was the highest) and then to sell it to someone who would except less money for more risk. It is a game of mortgage "Hot Potato", making quick profit while trying not to get caught holding should the housing market reverse. To keep it sustainable, housing values were constantly pushed up so the borrowers would have even more equity to refinance. Over and over again. To make it even more profitable, they turned to the least educated and most risky borrower, the subprime. To make it worth their time they wrote in high interests rates with appealing first year rates. "You can always refinance." Was their main selling point. The people, convinced that they can't, or shouldn't have to, resist the temptation of putting themselves further in debt, simply borrowed and borrowed all the way to foreclosure.

We desperately want to blame the people who lent us the money, but is it their fault really?. Without them, we contend, we wouldn't have the money to push ourselves into debt. But isn't it also true that if we didn't take their money we wouldn't have gotten into such a mess? We act like we're all little children with no self control. We blame the T.V. for its sexy ads, we blame Hollywood for it's commercialism. "Who can blame us?" we plead. "We're victims of their evil powers." We buy for vanity. We buy to make ourselves feel better. We buy to keep up with our neighbor, or our brother. We buy things to fill the empty spaces inside ourselves that were once filled with the joy of everyday events, or the pride of making something yourself. Have you ever noticed that materialism never leaves you feeling fulfilled for very long?

When I was just a young man trying to understand this complicated world, I was blessed to have a teacher wander into one of my classes who explained finances in a way that has helped me more than anything else I've ever learned. For some strange reason, (I suspect community service), this multi-millionaire was stuck teaching economics in the poorest school in Flint. While the rest of my poverty stricken classmates threw pencils at each other and laughed at his partially stroke-frozen face, he explained credit, financing, interest and budgeting. He told us, "Most of you will be poor your whole lives because you don't understand interest." And I listened intently. He warned against credit cards and refinancing endlessly. He told us to live within our means and to remember, "You can't be better off tomorrow by spending tomorrow's money today." And I listened alone. He taught me to budget and to plan. And to have a plan "B", and even "C". That year I learned those important lessons while my classmates played. Like the proverbial ant, I have lived better for it than my grasshopper counterparts.

It's hard to blame people for lessons they didn't learn. It's even harder to tell people things they don't want to hear. But is it fair to exempt ourselves from the blame for this whole mess when we're the ones that should know what we can and cannot afford? I doubt very much that you could borrow money from a drug dealer or a bookie and then claim, "You should have known better than to loan me money I couldn't afford." So why would you try that on a bank? Ultimately, we are the ones responsible for our own finances. Even though there is plenty of blame to go around for the economic mess we're in, lenders and regulators included, it's clear we're not getting the full view of the problem unless we also look in the mirror. H.C.

A "DUEL" MONARCHY

"So prone are they (the people) to suspicion, that where a President appoints a relation of his own, however worthy, they will believe that favor and not merit was the motive. I therefore laid it down as a law of conduct for myself, never to give an appointment to a relation."

Thomas Jefferson

John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the first father and son to both serve as President. Each man served one term. Our 41st President, George H.W. Bush and current President George W. Bush are also father and son (as I'm sure most of you know). But did you know that several other Presidents also had family ties to a previous president? Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of William Henry Harrison. James Madison and Zachary Taylor were second cousins. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Theodore Roosevelt were fifth cousins. And many people believe that only an assassin's bullet stopped Robert F. Kennedy from succeeding his brother John F. Kennedy as President. So in this time of a wife of a past President seeking election to dethrone the son of a past President, I think we should all take a moment and consider whether or not we should be a country of privilege for the very few, or a country of hope, where any kid has a chance to grow up and become President of the most powerful country on Earth.

As is my way, I'm going to throw out my disclaimer; I don't like Hillary in any fashion or form. Frankly, I feel she already did her two terms. There, I think that was plain enough. My dislike for her is based on the way she portrays herself as a politician and the fact that she represents to me the kind of nepotism that shouldn't be in our highest office. It has nothing to do with her being a women. I should also point out that I was making the same nepotism argument against George W. Bush in 2000. I think we'll all agree that electing that SOP (Son of a President) was a big mistake.

Obviously, since I pointed out some of our nation's prior examples, I am aware that there has always been a bit of nepotism in our politics. For the most part, I don't think many people care. The argument that I have heard in support of family ties to our elected positions goes like this; We need people that know the ins and outs of politics so that they can be better prepared for the problems ahead. While I think that argument does have some merit, I believe that the negatives far outweigh the positives. So, here are some of the reasons I feel re-electing, oops, I mean electing, Hillary Clinton, or for that matter any close relative of a past president, is be a bad idea.

First and foremost is the transparency of our government. When George W. Bush officially became President in 2001, one of his first acts as President was to seal some of his father's records through executive order 13233. Most of the records he had sealed were relative to Iran-Contra, one of the shadiest events in recent history. The way it has worked up until now (via the Presidential Records Act of 1978) is that the standing President would seal his records for 12 years to allow for the true results of his efforts to play out. After that, they are reviewed and anything that isn't specifically a threat to national security is released to the public. If we keep electing family over and over we'll never know the truth behind the scenes of some of our nation's crises. Hillary herself was asked by Tim Russert if she would release Bill's records and she did what every good politician would do and avoided answering the question. If we want to have any idea what the hell is going on in the White house this has to end. Remember, without these records we wouldn't know what really happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis or that Hoover was spying on MLK's widow. We need to know...period.

My second argument is that when the Presidency is kept within a family, there will be situations where the standing President is basically doing clean up work for the prior administration. The War in Iraq for instance. Do you really think G.W. would have thought of attacking Iraq if his opinion of Saddam wasn't tainted by his father's experience? Hell, I knew he was going to go into Iraq even before he was elected. Even President Bush himself admitted that Saddam's attempt at assassinating George Sr. was one reason he wanted to topple Hussien. Isn't it getting a little too close to being Mafia-like to have the "Family" take care of each other, with our blood and treasure?

My final argument is that this has to be seen for what it is. An attempt to do a end-around on the two term limit on the Presidency set by the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution. It's really hard not to look at the obvious, Bill and Hillary were in the White House together for two terms. To believe your not, in one way our another, subverting the term limit by putting the same two people back in for more terms takes a streatch of the imagination. Just because it's your guy doesn't make it right. The greatest thing about this country is that it gives opportunity. The message of our country always has been; If you work hard, you could be anything you want to be. (remember the word "could", meaning you get the chance, not the guarantee) To rob our kids of that dream, no matter how distant, is to take away something that you and me have had up until now. This duel between two families is being fought with our children, our money, and our country. We were not born a Monarchy and we should never become one. Our fascination with dynasties is in direct contrast to our belief in open government and equal oportunity. It's time to take a stand and send a clear message to both the Bushes and the Clintons. This is our country...not your family business. H.C.