Update 12-17-2010 - Information on the State of Texas vs. Richard Nutt in available online. For the record, Nutt's SPN is 02535111. For updates enter the SPN at the Harris County District Clerk Office search page.
Recently two cases of police accused of allegedly working with drug dealers for protection surfaced in Houston. While I believe most law enforcement officers are honest, I also believe power corrupts and sometimes even an honest person will throw away his good name in pursuit of seemingly easy gain.
This topic is also of concern and interest to me due to the on going violence, corruption and drug cartel wars in Mexico. For people believing that their influence and reach isn't strong in the United States, they are delusional. Drugs and money are powerful influences and the corruption that is caught may only be the tip of the iceberg.
In the case, Harris County Deputy Richard Nutt stands accuse of helping out drug dealers in a scam called a "Drug Rip." A drug rip is a simple scam. The dealer sells to a buyer. The crooked cop pulls the buyer over on a traffic stop and confiscates the drugs. The cop returns the drugs to the dealer and gets paid. The drug dealer gets to keep the money and the drugs. It's a nice deal cause is the dealer really going to go to the cops to report his stolen stash?
To top things off, according to the linked article in the Houston Chronicle, Nutt pulled down over $94,000 in salary. I know deputies don't earn that much so it had to be through overtime and extra jobs. When you earn that much and it's dependent on extra work, it is easy to get in over your head financially. Since the money is dependent on extra work, if the work dries up the bills loom big. He may have used the drug money as a way to make up in case the extra work goes away. Or the temptation of easy money was just to good to pass up.
Whatever the case, I'm sure we'll find out more in the future.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Nothing To Fear - Part 3
One of the battle cries on the Great Immigration Debate is "if you're here legally then you have nothing to worry about."
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."
Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.
So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.
Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.
So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?
Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.
So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?
To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."
Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.
So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.
Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.
So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?
Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.
So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?
To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
GOP & Obama Tax Cut
Like most people, I don't like paying taxes. In fact I don't know anyone who likes paying taxes. Taxes are a fact of life and won't ever go away.
Recently President Obama and the GOP leadership agreed to extend the Bush regime's tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits for 13 more months for 7 million people and cut 2% off the Social Security payroll tax.
I agree with extending the Bush tax cuts to all levels of income. Included on that cut are dividends taxed at reduced rate instead of ordinary income. I like the lower dividend tax rate for many reasons. First, retirees fund part of their retirement income with dividend paying stocks. Others use dividends payouts to build their nest egg for retirement. The lower tax rate encourages people to invest and save for the future. It also encourages companies to reward investors with cash versus stock buy backs. Money goes directly into the accounts of shareholders or reinvested. The capital gains tax also falls under this category of tax cuts that I like.
I disagree with the continuous unemployment extensions. By constantly extending the payments, the government creates a dependency and gives the unemployed no motivation to find jobs. One of Obama's battle cries is that small business are the engine behind the growth of the economy. He backs this talk up with trying to create incentives for small business to hire.
However, the unemployment extensions kill a major source of small business ideas. Who goes into business for him or herself? Usually those that either struggle financially. They get creative and look for innovative ways to make a living. With the government hand outs, that innovation and motivation is eliminated.
Another problem unemployment creates is that jobs out there aren't getting filled. Many people turn down jobs because they would earn less than unemployment pay. Shortening the length of payments again gives people a reason to take jobs versus taking a free ride.
I have no problems with short term unemployment but like the 25 year old son who won't move out, enough is enough. The U.S. government shouldn't carry the unemployed forever.
Lopping off two percent from Social Security taxes for a one year period is another bad idea. While it sounds nice in theory, it benefits higher wager earners more than lower earners. The article "High-income Households To Benefit More..." explains what I'm referring to. We all know Social Security will eventually be insolvent. Already the funds paid out exceed the incoming funds. Slashing off two percent only adds to an ballooning deficit.
Finally, who is going to pay for the tax cuts. The government doles out unemployment, cuts Social Security taxes and does nothing to offset the spending. Eventually the bill will come due. My generation and the next might not get the full brunt of it but someone will and that won't be pretty. Asks the Greeks and the Irish.
Recently President Obama and the GOP leadership agreed to extend the Bush regime's tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits for 13 more months for 7 million people and cut 2% off the Social Security payroll tax.
I agree with extending the Bush tax cuts to all levels of income. Included on that cut are dividends taxed at reduced rate instead of ordinary income. I like the lower dividend tax rate for many reasons. First, retirees fund part of their retirement income with dividend paying stocks. Others use dividends payouts to build their nest egg for retirement. The lower tax rate encourages people to invest and save for the future. It also encourages companies to reward investors with cash versus stock buy backs. Money goes directly into the accounts of shareholders or reinvested. The capital gains tax also falls under this category of tax cuts that I like.
I disagree with the continuous unemployment extensions. By constantly extending the payments, the government creates a dependency and gives the unemployed no motivation to find jobs. One of Obama's battle cries is that small business are the engine behind the growth of the economy. He backs this talk up with trying to create incentives for small business to hire.
However, the unemployment extensions kill a major source of small business ideas. Who goes into business for him or herself? Usually those that either struggle financially. They get creative and look for innovative ways to make a living. With the government hand outs, that innovation and motivation is eliminated.
Another problem unemployment creates is that jobs out there aren't getting filled. Many people turn down jobs because they would earn less than unemployment pay. Shortening the length of payments again gives people a reason to take jobs versus taking a free ride.
I have no problems with short term unemployment but like the 25 year old son who won't move out, enough is enough. The U.S. government shouldn't carry the unemployed forever.
Lopping off two percent from Social Security taxes for a one year period is another bad idea. While it sounds nice in theory, it benefits higher wager earners more than lower earners. The article "High-income Households To Benefit More..." explains what I'm referring to. We all know Social Security will eventually be insolvent. Already the funds paid out exceed the incoming funds. Slashing off two percent only adds to an ballooning deficit.
Finally, who is going to pay for the tax cuts. The government doles out unemployment, cuts Social Security taxes and does nothing to offset the spending. Eventually the bill will come due. My generation and the next might not get the full brunt of it but someone will and that won't be pretty. Asks the Greeks and the Irish.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wikileaks, Assange, National Security
I'm a staunch support of First Amendment rights. I'm against any government interference or censorship of writers, musicians, artist or any other artist endeavor. Blogs, journalism and academic writings also warrant First Amendment protections.
I'm also a supporter of whistle blowers in private industry or public service. I feel just as strongly about investigative journalism. The fourth estate is an essential pillar of a free and open democracy.
So where does Wikileaks fit into my beliefs of First Amendment rights?
It's delicate balancing act but there are somethings that must remain classified, state secrets and privileged information with in a government. State secrets are a fact of life in any government. Military and national security secrets are vital to a government's survival.
So when should the press, an organization or individual publish or reveal government classified information? I believe that only when government corruption, waste or gross ineffectiveness exist then the public has a right to know.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks rightfully published information that the public needed to know. Wikileaks in the past published government and private industry documents that revealed corruption. Abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed. Other organizations also exposed abuse in both military theaters. The Abu Ghraib abuses stand as an example of such abuse.
So where does Assange and Wikileaks cross the line? When the show no discretion in releasing documents. Sometimes they release documents for the sake of releasing them with no care of the dangers posed to individuals or with regard to state secrets. Just because a document is in government files doesn't mean the public has a right to know.
From what I can tell, Wikileaks operates under a policy of shear volume dumps without vetting or redacting damaging information. Instead of studying the information, Wikileaks throws everything out there without analysis or conclusions. In the past, there has been solid reasons why someone released information. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were genuine cases of government lies and corruption. In some cases, Wikileaks makes no such case. They just merely put the documents out there because it is a government document and therefore the public must know.
On the other hand, some of the reaction by the press has been overboard. Many are reacting with shock that the U.S. wrote up psychological profiles on world leaders. There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do that or assemble some kind of dossier on a foreign leader. In all likelihood, most governments not only have profiles on world leaders but also on minsters, generals and other civic and military leaders. The outrage is overblown.
If nothing else, Wikileaks stirred the pot. Right or wrong, the information is now out there. At some point, if not now, Wikileaks will expose something they have no right to.
I wonder, if they obtained nuclear, military or national security secrets, would they publish them?
I'm also a supporter of whistle blowers in private industry or public service. I feel just as strongly about investigative journalism. The fourth estate is an essential pillar of a free and open democracy.
So where does Wikileaks fit into my beliefs of First Amendment rights?
It's delicate balancing act but there are somethings that must remain classified, state secrets and privileged information with in a government. State secrets are a fact of life in any government. Military and national security secrets are vital to a government's survival.
So when should the press, an organization or individual publish or reveal government classified information? I believe that only when government corruption, waste or gross ineffectiveness exist then the public has a right to know.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks rightfully published information that the public needed to know. Wikileaks in the past published government and private industry documents that revealed corruption. Abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed. Other organizations also exposed abuse in both military theaters. The Abu Ghraib abuses stand as an example of such abuse.
So where does Assange and Wikileaks cross the line? When the show no discretion in releasing documents. Sometimes they release documents for the sake of releasing them with no care of the dangers posed to individuals or with regard to state secrets. Just because a document is in government files doesn't mean the public has a right to know.
From what I can tell, Wikileaks operates under a policy of shear volume dumps without vetting or redacting damaging information. Instead of studying the information, Wikileaks throws everything out there without analysis or conclusions. In the past, there has been solid reasons why someone released information. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were genuine cases of government lies and corruption. In some cases, Wikileaks makes no such case. They just merely put the documents out there because it is a government document and therefore the public must know.
On the other hand, some of the reaction by the press has been overboard. Many are reacting with shock that the U.S. wrote up psychological profiles on world leaders. There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do that or assemble some kind of dossier on a foreign leader. In all likelihood, most governments not only have profiles on world leaders but also on minsters, generals and other civic and military leaders. The outrage is overblown.
If nothing else, Wikileaks stirred the pot. Right or wrong, the information is now out there. At some point, if not now, Wikileaks will expose something they have no right to.
I wonder, if they obtained nuclear, military or national security secrets, would they publish them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
