O.J. Simpson Vegas Trial Better Send in the Clowns

There's O.J. Simpson looking smug as a bug in a rug on the day of opening statements in his robbery and kidnapping trial. Simpson and co-defendant Charles "CJ" Stewart face a dozen charges that could theoretically send each to prison for life.

The case concerns a well-publicized Vegas hotel room scuffle wherein Simpson and friends allegedly held two memorabilia dealers captive using threats of bodily harm. Simpson claims he entered the room only to retrieve his own memorabilia and the situation quickly escalated out of control.

As expected, the trial offers soap opera drama writers can only dream about.

For one thing, Simpson entered the Vegas courtroom wearing the same cool and collected expression and beige suit as the days he waltzed into Los Angeles for the murder trial of ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman.

For another, three of Simpson's five accomplices are convicted felons. Four of them plead guilty and agreed to testify for the prosecution in exchange for lighter sentences. Of those, star witness Michael McClinton previously testified that Simpson asked him to bring guns to the hotel room and told him to look "menacing" during the confrontation.

One of the memorabilia dealers tape recorded the scuffle and sold it to TMZ, reportedly for more than $100K. Thomas Riccio's audio tape is expected as key evidence later in the trial. Riccio also profited from an autobiography revealing every "niggly detail" of the hotel scuffle and subsequent proceedings. No doubt a sequel is in the works following issuance of a verdict.

And then there's Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass, the little pistol who could. She initially kept Simpson locked up for arrogance and/or ignorance, later setting bail at $250K. Presiding over the selection of jurors, Glass chided each one saying, "If you think you are going to punish Mr Simpson for what happened in 1995, this is not the case for you."

But not according to Chief Deputy District Attorney Chris Owens. Over objections from defense attorney Yale Galanter, Owens referenced Simpson's infamous murder acquittal, positing,

Ladies and gentlemen, you are the jurors in this case and the final story is going to be told by you. You will be able to write that final chapter, the chapter of arrogance and hypocrisy and that will be the true verdict. The verdict you can feel good about. That's a different case and different facts, but the effect of the judgment is something you may consider.

Talk about impropriety. Thankfully, no request for mistrial ... yet.

Much fuss is being made over the composition of jurors. The nine-woman, three-man panel is composed solely of Caucasians, some with connections to law enforcement. Two African-Americans serve as alternates. Little wonder in a place like Clark County, one of the remaining bastions of good old boy justice.

To top things off, Bruce Fromong, the prosecution's opening witness, second memorabilia dealer, and former Simpson confidant, became unraveled on cross-examination, complained of lightheadedness, and was quickly escorted out of the courtroom. Paramedics examined the multiple heart attack survivor but found nothing amiss. Fromong took the witness stand again this morning, offering little to support the prosecution's case.

No one wants to see fulfillment of justice denied more than I, especially when it comes to O.J. But not an the expense of fundamental rights or principles of fairness and decency.

America prohibits double jeopardy, aka, retrial of the same crime following acquittal. Using subterfuge to circumvent constitutional safeguards makes our justice system look like a three-ring circus and even if somehow gratifying, the audience needs to realize they are the clowns.

All Aboard the 'Pineapple Express' for Highly Addictive Drug Legalization

At the Hollywood premiere of Judd Aptow's stoner flick, Pineapple Express, Hollyscoop dug up a motherload of dirt from the cast, as well as a few choice celebrities.

As the movie involves copious amounts of marijuana smoking, Hollyscoop couldn't resist asking the stars about their personal positions. Probing questions like "What do you think about smoking pot?" And, "Do you think we should legalize marijuana?"

And hoo-boy, did Adrianne Curry ever swallow the bait.

This was so funny because she practically shoved hubby Christopher Knight in the chest (yes, that Peter Brady) -- a "shut-up now honey" sign if ever one existed -- then mounted her soapbox to preach in favor of legalization. The daggers in Knight's eyes as he looked down and away, up in the air, then down again as if pleading for the earth to magically open up and swallow him whole. Easy to tell that embarrassing moments like this must happen to him a lot. An occupational hazard still ruffling feathers whenever Curry joins him for a night out on the town.

"I am the celebrity advisor for the marijuana policy project, so I think that speaks volumes," Curry responded to the reporter's question about legalization

Who knew weed aficionados could be organized enough to create a policy project, let alone influence a former Playboy bunny to be their celebrity advisor? Sounds like Curry found herself a new reality job only this time the stakes are quite high.

"We should legalize all drugs," chimed in Knight, "all drugs."

Come again? During the interview, the two of them acted like they were both on crack or at the very least a might buzzed. Does Florence Henderson know about this?

Our drug war is a failure,' sneered Curry. 'I can score heroin anywhere, cocaine, crystal meth, you name it, I can get it by the end of the night. Why are we wasting our money on this war that isn't working?'

Then she rattled on about some kind of paranoia and people looking at "the crazy b**ch from reality TV," but by then my mouth was hanging so far open I could barely swallow.

In the first place, just because brain fizzies can score crack, heroin, crystal meth, you name it from their local neighborhood drug dealer doesn't mean the stuff should be legalized. Do Curry and Knight have any idea what over-the-counter sales of highly addictive narcotics would do to this country? The only thing staunching the floodgates of people who would readily trade their bleak existences for fleeting highs of a crack pipe or syringe is the inability to score without the threat of getting busted.

I'm not a big fan of the war on drugs either, but don't throw away the baby with the bath water. Addicts deserve a fighting chance to clean up their acts and become productive members of society. Court ordered rehab is a much better alternative to mandatory jail sentencing.

Behind bars, addicts only learn the pain of withdrawal and where to score upon release.

FCC Fine Tossed for Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction

Oh great. A three-panel appellate court invalidated indecency fines levied against network powerhouse CBS and its affiliate stations, ruling the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in assessing the penalties.

Oh yeah? Well, five 12-year old boys were sitting on my couch watching that game, and not on MTV, I might add. I don't think their parents appreciated them getting a load of Janet Jackson's ridiculous sunburst on network TV.

That malfunction was so planned. Arbitrary and capricious my eye.

Susan Atkins and Her Manson Family Should Remain Imprisoned

Tell me, tell me, tell me your answer. You may be a lover, but you aint no dancer. Look out. Helter Skelter. She coming down fast.

-The Beatles, Helter Skelter.


By all accounts, 1969 was a year of tremendous upheaval.

Neil Armstrong made his famous moon landing. The gay rights movement officially took root. Ted Kennedy found himself embroiled in the infamous Chappaquiddick drowning scandal. First troops were withdrawn from Vietnam as protest marches became a regular occurrence in the nation's capital.

And sometime during the late hours of August 9th, in a picturesque L.A. rental property on Cielo Drive, five horrific murders took place, one of the most heinous and brutal crimes of the twentieth century. Hollywood was aghast.

Called to the scene the next morning by the maid's hysterical ramblings, police quickly discovered enchanting young actress Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant and awaiting the return of husband director Roman Polanski from abroad, savagely stabbed with evidence of hanging. Other victims included Folgers Coffee heiress Abigail Folger, her boyfriend Wojciech (Voyteck) Frykowski, and Sharon's ex fiance Jay Sebring (b. Thomas John Kummer), all house guests, as well as Steve Parent, an acquaintance of the property's caretaker William Garretson.

There was so much blood at the scene, police initially mistook Abigail's white nightgown for red. The killers took advantage of the ample supply, writing "PIG" in bold letters on the home's front door.

At the time, my limited comprehension of current events, pop culture, and the significance of that particular decade left me focusing on more mundane matters like the transition from grade school to junior high and whether boys were finding me attractive. Clueless about one of my all-time favorite bands, The Beatles, teetering on the brink of break-up, I had only vague inklings of distress in the State of California.

In June of that year, John Lennon and Yoko Ono staged their famous Canadian "bed in," a protest against the Vietnam War. The anthem of their political soiree, Give Peace A Chance, became a rallying cry against all wars to come. That was the first time any of the Fab Four had released a solo recording. In a way, that demonstration of peaceful activism was also an act of defiance and separation that heralded the beginning of the end.

In fact, many film makers symbolize that time period with The Doors song, The End, a nod to the end of life or relationships, depending upon what you believe. The end of a decade, The Beatles, and the Vietnam War symbolically all tied together, although in retrospect the latter two occurred some years later.

Right before it all unraveled, in the winter of 1968, The Beatles had released their legendary White Album, so dubbed because the front cover was completely blank with no writing other than the group's name. Rock and roll would never be the same.

The album was a cacophony of styles, genres, and sounds mixed together in such a way as to lull the unsuspecting into a state of complacency, then shake their very core with the next rendition. There was no rhyme or reason, no discernible theme. People played the album backwards, claiming to find hidden messages foretelling death and demise. Tales of the recording sessions include George running around with a flaming ashtray on top of his head and Ringo throwing drum sticks across the room. There's a cut of him complaining about bleeding fingers after numerous takes of a particular song.

Little did anyone know that song and another cut from the album, Revolution 9, would come to symbolize the chaos and horror of an insidious darkness unleashed on the City of Angels. In the summer of '69, the slaughter of Sharon Tate and friends weren't the only gruesome murders scaring the bejeebies out of locals. Only years later seeing the first release of the movie Helter Skelter did I come to realize the enormity of the atrocities that had taken place at Cielo Drive.

The Beatles' Helter Skelter is an emotionally raw juxtaposition of opposites. Do you/don't you. Get to the bottom/go back to the top. Coming down fast/I'm miles above. Charles Manson, the sociopathic ringleader of it all, believed these White Album lyrics spoke directly to him. Before exiting the related LaBianca murder scene, his devoted followers used their victims' blood to scrawl the misspelled song title across the kitchen refrigerator. Other blood references throughout the Tate/LaBianca properties appeared to refer to various songs from the album.

WARNING: The trailer of the re-enactment of those events is bloody, vile, and terrifying. Not suitable for children under age 13. Watch at your own risk.

In 1994, new owners demolished the Polanski/Tate rental property, replacing what remained with a towering modern structure overlooking Benedict Canyon. I can sympathize with their predicament. When an event that stands at the crossroads of history and pop takes place inside your residence, thrill seekers and ghost busters have a way of running ramrod.

Too much has been written, reported, and documented about the perpetrators of those crimes. Too much to go into detail here. Charles Manson and depraved members of the infamous "Manson Family" -- Tex Watson, Pat Krenwinkle, Susan Atkins, and Leslie Van Houten -- were tried, convicted and sentenced to die for their participation. Historians credit Linda Kasabian, another perpetrator acting as look-out during the Tate murders, for the eyewitness testimony she provided in exchange for immunity.

Significantly, it was Atkins who originally agreed to testify against Charlie and other Manson Family defendants. Prosecutors were only too happy to offer the deal to Kasabian when Atkins, who had previously admitted her involvement to a Grand Jury, declined to go forward at trial.

California's death penalty was subsequently ruled unconstitutional, commuting the sentences of one hundred seven death row inmates to "other than death." Manson Family inmates all got life with the possibility of parole, a spate of reprieve or living hell depending upon one's sense of justice.

Several months later, the California electorate amended their constitution to reinstate the death penalty; however, the new law could not be applied retroactively to any of those one hundred seven prisoners. That small window of time allowed Manson and his devotees of depravity to become subjects of fascination for generations to come. Had they been executed as originally sentenced, their story would not have been embellished with the insane byproducts of lengthy incarceration, nipping a bizarre developing cult following squarely in the bud.

Every three, five, or seven years, Manson Family parole hearings are the subject of tabloid fodder and wide speculation, i.e. will this be the year one of them rejoins society? This summer, Susan Atkins applied for a compassionate release, tearfully claiming she has done her time and has been rehabilitated. One of her legs has been amputated and she is reportedly dying of brain cancer. Her current husband whom she married in prison, also tearfully plead for her release. In 1993, her court appointed lawyer strongly advocated for parole, saying Susan had been rehabilitated over the years and deserved a second chance. Her current lawyer makes the same argument.

I've watched hours upon hours of interviews with Manson, Atkins, Kasabian, even a Maury Povich special where another man Atkins had married in prison claimed she had stabbed him in a possible fit of jealousy, allegedly on the fourth day of their jailhouse honeymoon. The same guy claims to have married forty-five different women so I have to take what he says with a grain of salt although, when he pulled up his shirt to reveal a long scar over a considerably large stomach, a wave of nausea rose in my throat.

In reflecting upon the summer of '69 for this article, I firmly believe all convicted Manson Family members should live out their days in captivity. It is only due to a fluke of justice that they remain alive today. Charles Manson functions with brain impulses so far removed from accepted societal norms, he could never be considered safe around the general populace.

As for Atkins and her fellow imprisoned "family" members, release would signal to a new generation of depraved devotees the possibility of committing the most heinous of crimes and living to see the outside of a prison cell. That, to me, would be incomprehensible, certainly not a message I would want to send to anyone with the slightest inclination of unleashing similar depths of evil again.

Thankfully, the California Parole Board agreed.

Florida Teens Violent Video Explained

Just in case skanks don't get the message.

Carnival of Maryland Highlights The Maryland Bloggers Alliance

Welcome to a special edition of The Spewker on behalf of The Carnival of Maryland. Today we present hot commentary from The Maryland Bloggers Alliance, a loosely knit but jovial group of attuned and outspoken Marylanders, as well as other bloggers from in and about the area.

Bloggers of the Alliance hail from the political spectrum, from Anarchists to Libertarians, although some are just as actively involved in other pursuits. For some reason, I've always envisioned Anarchy as an extreme of the left and Libertarianism as an extreme of the right, but now that I think about it, they both advocate pretty much the same thing. Which is exactly why the Alliance works so well. See, we really can all get along.

As far as the Carnival goes, just one common denominator: we all inhabit the Land of Pleasant Living. For a popular group of bloggers, it's nice to know that's the only requirement for a place at the table.


Lifestyle Report
I'm clueless when it comes to birds. Not so at The Greenbelt. A touching and informative tale about an afternoon hunt of an otherwise elusive creature of the wild.

Raymond from Money Blue Book ponders a question he heard on the radio. "Would You Give Up Your Right to Vote for a Million Dollars?" is a cynical yet comical article about the average American mindset and personal desire.

The author of Creating a Jubilee County blogs about the perils of TMJ and what everyone should know about it. Ouch UU Mom, my jaw hurts.


Senseless Crime
From Children & Chocolate comes an insider's perspective of the horrific Browning murders, a hometown tragedy that's been terrifying parents across the nation, nay the world. "Prayer Request for Nicholas Browning" by Laura Knight Beutler may hit a little too close to home for parents of some teenagers but is well worth the read.


Be A Sport
Soccer Dad fumes at Orioles management in "Bedard to seattle!?" I can relate. "I thought this would be done by now, given that it was first announced almost 2 weeks ago," David laments. "Chalk it up to having a passive aggressive front office. As Bill Ordine writes, 'Not since Generalissimo Franco died did anything so apparently inevitable take so long to happen.'" I couldn't have said it better myself.


Sorry State of Maryland
Maryland schools are rated top notch in the country, but some continue to fail. About a week ago, Annapolis police arrested students protesting Governor O'Malley's failure to adequately fund the public school systems. A lot of politics going on and not many solutions in "Baltimore Schools to Pay Students." Going to the Mat analyzes a problem solving proposal that's been relentlessly criticized in the media.

NRA advocates beware. Your rights are being endangered by none other than the very unpopular Martin O'Omalley, and according to blogger 1947, the embattled Maryland governor should rot in hell. Stan sternly warns, "Any Maryland gun owner who says s/he is not political had better damned soon BECOME political before it's too late." No problem, Stan, sure, just as soon as you lay down that gun. Thanks.


The National Scene
Michael Swartz adds his voice to the din of Republicans blasting local party politics. Incumbent Wayne Gilchrest is locked in a tight three-way race in the First Congressional District and in "Big Money on More than One Side," Monoblogue presents the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room with apologies to Democrats in the Fourth.

Not trying to be cruel, but the Maryland Chesapeake Blog may have opined too late in "It's Time Pastor, It's Time..." I understand Republicans are disillusioned, but there's only three presidential candidates left to choose from this Tuesday and one of them is not Mitt Romney. I say, choose Chester Peake, choose.

Last but not least, on the lighter side, an article from The Spewker continues to attract attention. Check out "Celebrity Presidential Endorsements on Parade" for a comical view of the original top presidential contenders and their Hollywood entourages.


That concludes this edition of the Carnival of Maryland. Submit your blog article to the next edition of Carnival of Maryland using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Tags: carnival of maryland, blog carnival.

Hillary Clinton Rouses Heiffer Sympathies and Other Undigested Blips

Undigested news items gleaned and overheard while out and about...

"We've had the freedom to do whatever we want, if we're fortunate enough to know what that is." Rush Limbaugh discussing the allure of socialism and communism to the current generation of Americans.

"Barring any imminent settlement of the WGA strike, the 2007 Golden Globes Awards will be held at my apartment on the Westside of Manhattan this year." Alec Baldwin reacting to rumblings of cancellation of the popular awards show.

"My husband paid for those tires, and there was no reason for that man to come and steal them." Tearful outcry of Baltimore City, Maryland resident, Daphne Brockington, after husband, Charles, received a five year prison sentence for killing a man who stole his $1,500.00 Mercedes-Benz tire rims.

"I know you're going to inspect me. You can look inside my mouth if you want." Hillary Clinton stumping from a livestock auction barn in Dunlap, Iowa.

"To think that I would just be in support of somebody because of the color of their skin would mean we hadn't moved very far from Dr. King's speech in 1963, saying that we want people to be judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin." Facing criticism of celebrity endorsement for Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey defends stirring support for black presidential candidate.

Happy birthday to all who share December 18th with these famous celebs: Keith Richards,64; Steven Spielberg, 61; Ray Liotta, 53; Brad Pitt, 44; Katie Holmes, 29; Christina Aguilera, 27.

Nebraskan Senator Ernie Chambers Mocks American Justice System

And I thought the Maryland General Assembly was a hunka bad. Compared to certain Nebraskan state legislators, however, our Annapolis representatives are a collective breath of fresh air.

I’m referring to none other than Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers. This noble champion of cornhuskers, entrusted to preserve the integrity and dignity of the powers bestowed upon him by our nation’s forefathers, is protesting the injustice of frivolous legal proceedings by filing his very own frivolous lawsuit in a Nebraskan state court. At issue is whether the court has the power to permanently enjoin “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants.”

Oh yeah. I left out one tiny detail. Senator Chambers filed this dilly of a lawsuit against none other than God.

Yeah. God. Anyone got a problem wit dat?

OMG!

A quick glance at this loony tune’s picture indicates he may very well be past his useful shelf life. Fuhgeddabout his ridiculous justification for filing the lawsuit and proclamation of proper jurisdiction over the defendant. Yes, God is everywhere. So what? That doesn’t mean anyone with an ax to grind can haul His holy rump into court.

I have a better one for the Honorable Senator Chambers (hey, that has a funny ring to it, like “Senate Chambers” and the like). How does the esteemed state senator intend to legally serve this little bundle of blather? Saint Peter?

Speaking of old Peter, I wonder if he has anything better to do than stand at the pearly gates greeting process servers. Who’s to say he has a direct link to God, I mean, do we mere mortals actually know? Taking a mighty big chance entrusting a lawsuit and summons to that wily old angel, if you ask me.

This story is too new, too fresh to pin down all the details. I have to believe there’s more brewing behind the scenes than meets the eye. Otherwise, I might be compelled to advocate Senator Chambers’ immediate ouster from public service. No matter how well intentioned, clogging the court system with blather so frivolous it borders on incendiary is not only irresponsible and foolhardy, but a mockery of our entire justice system. Even more so when the putative plaintiff is a state senator charged to uphold the laws of his home state and nation.

Dude. WTF?

Please do us all a favor. Next time you have a yen to make a point, hold a public protest rally instead. You’ll earn more brownie points with the media, as well as the undying admiration and respect of your colleagues.

Besides, doesn’t organizing a protest rally sound a lot easier than trying to serve God?


Update: On or about October 15, 2008, the trial judge threw out the case saying God could not be served. Wow! Sometimes my insight and analysis is scary.

Fundamental Parent Rights of the Mentally Disabled Can Be Terminated

Are we really having this debate? Mentally disabled parents. Healthy newborn. Concerned grandparents. Understaffed and overworked state agency employees. Political correctness. Is this a recipe for anything other than disaster?

Yes, the mentally disabled should and do have rights. I’m just not sure they include the right to toss a newborn baby around like a pigskin and shake him like a Polaroid picture. Perhaps if they’d had enough sense to equip tiny dancer with some protective gear, none of this would have happened. Then again, I don’t think they make football helmets and shoulder pads in size 0- 3 months.

Baby Seth Mosley is dead. His mentally disabled parents, Richard and Giovanna Mosley, and their houseguest, Daniel Reilly, are behind bars, charged with second-degree murder and first-degree child abuse resulting in death. Jesse Stacy, the child’s maternal grandfather, and Denise Joseph, his paternal grandmother -- the only characters who appear to possess a lick of sense in this horror story -- wanted social services to intervene from day one and continued to press that agency and Child Protective Services for more oversight. Problem is, social services claims their hands are tied in such situations because state agencies must respect "fundamental parent rights," even if the subject parents are mentally disabled.

Umm. Yah. Right. Does that mean the Free State must implicitly compromise the safety of helpless newborns and do no more than periodic oversight until a mentally disabled parent actually requests help or a concerned citizen lodges a complaint of abuse and neglect?

Did somebody forget to draw the line here?

According to Lauren Young, Director of Litigation for the Maryland Disability Law Center, yes. "It shouldn’t be assumed that having a disability and inability to parent are things that co-exist. There has to be a vigilant analysis, not focusing on disability but the parent’s conduct that needs to be examined. They have rights to have families, too."

Well, what about when the parent in question is mentally disabled, say mildly retarded, ADD, and schizoaffective? Wouldn’t one or two surprise home inspections reveal such a person’s inability to effectively parent? I mean, for crying out loud, we’re talking about a mother who has never held a job, is unable to do simple tasks like write a check, and didn’t even know she was pregnant until prodded by a relative. The father, a brain-damaged car accident victim prone to violent outbursts, is likely similarly disabled.

Assistant State’s Attorney Bruce M. Smith so much as admitted the deficiencies of the two state agencies charged with Seth’s care. They couldn’t obtain regular oversight of the situation precisely because of the father’s violent outbursts and, according to the local rag, "an inability to reach the family for four weeks."

Ohhhhkaaay. That about sums everything up for me.

As soon as state employees knew or should have known they did not have adequate oversight of little Seth Mosley, they should have filed court papers to determine whether he was a child in need of assistance. A court proceeding would have given the grandparents a chance to testify, and perhaps set the ball in motion to terminate parental rights.

A 2002 decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals,
In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 36, does not require automatic deference to fundamental parent rights of the mentally disabled. In that case, numerous instances of discrimination against Mr. F, the mentally disabled parent, were readily apparent. The court also discounted testimony from the State’s expert witness. Tests to measure intelligence quotient and adaptability levels were not conducted due to "serious intellectual impairment." A social worker observing the home testified Mr. F could learn necessary parenting skills. The "clear and convincing evidence" needed to terminate parental rights never materialized. Ultimately, the court reinstated Mr. F's parental rights because social services never provided programs tailored to his particular needs. The court did not, however, go so far as to reinstate his right to custody. Notably, Judges Harrell, Raker, and Wilner issued a scathing dissenting opinion.

Contrast this decision with the one issued by the same court in 2006, In re Adoption/Guardianship of Harold H. The boy’s mother, Mojisola A., was severely brain damaged by a medical condition leaving her with an IQ in the "mentally retarded range." She exhibited obvious cognitive impairment, inability to make judgments for her own care, and could not work. Coupled with her long-term diagnosis, these factors clearly justified termination of Ms. A.’s parental rights. So, too, might have been the outcome for Seth Mosley had anyone recognized the need for immediate court intervention.

It’s a shame, really, Seth’s grandparents were so ill informed. Ironically, his grandmother works in a division of the office of the public defender. Perhaps some advocacy group should make it their mission to disseminate information about third party rights in situations of suspected child abuse or parental mental impairment. Certainly, citizens armed with such helpful information would not rely solely upon government to gain control of an obvious train wreck.

Unfortunately for Baby Seth Mosley, this train has already left the station.

Lewis "Scooter" Libby Controversy Shakes Faith in American Justice

How can a man so publicly involved in the most recent presidential quagmire continue to use Scooter as his moniker? To me, the mere mention conjures up images of hazy country club poker rooms filled with blue bloods having a good 'ol boy time, or a crusty brown insect scurrying furiously across the kitchen floor to avoid a whack from the broomstick. Either way it isn't pretty.

Perhaps that's the point.

No, I don't mean if Libby hadn't bantered his juvenile sounding nickname about the White House all would be right with the world. I'm referring to how one's opinion of the controversy depends upon which side of the political apple cart one stands. It's particularly difficult to intelligently debate the issues when political affiliation so easily tips the equation. Consequently, in trying to remain objective, I have come to view the Libby controversy through a different set of colored glasses. Like I said, it isn't pretty.

Libby got a raw deal, a harsh sentence for way too much prison time. Two years after the story broke, I continue to question whether his actions rose to the level of criminality for which he was accused, or whether the real culprits were his superiors for whom he was forced to take a powder. I decided to put these questions to rest when a jury of his peers issued their verdict. In that I implicitly agreed with the process, it became inconsequential whether I agreed with the verdict.

And perhaps that's the real point.

The American justice system is by far one of the best in the world, if not THE best. If I didn't believe in the system, then I can't very well remain a good little American doobee now can I?

Do I like how our President waited until the final appeals court triggered a jail countdown before invoking executive power to commute Libby's 30-month sentence to probation and a fine? No. Does it matter that he disseminated his royal edict right before the 4th of July holiday, a week when most Americans are vacationing or too distracted to care? Yes. Do I care that our President continues to ponder the possibility of a full no-holds barred pardon? Most definitely.

Leave it be, Dubya, you've done enough.

The most distressing issue, the one Constitutional Fundamentalists and Liberal Democrats likely will shake until they're blue, namely Herr Bush's failure to consult Department of Justice guidelines before giving little Scooter a noogie and a pat, is the one I can't ignore. If Bush had even bothered to follow the process, he certainly would have known Libby's case lacked necessary key factors for a presidential pardon. Sadly, the American people will never know whether that would've made any difference in the outcome of this case. But then why bother with such formalities when it's so much easier to dictate what he in his infinite wisdom decides? The Decider is the anointed one answering to none. He practically said so himself.

Lewis Libby's crimes are as real as Bill Clinton's, yet the Conservative Right deceptively tries to play both sides. In their zeal to protect little Scooter, poster boy for the Bush administration, an administration so power cocky it's become reminiscent of the Nixon era, they've become oblivious to their own hypocrisy. There's a real danger in that; hoping the American public won't notice them trying to wolf down country club cake on the streets.

I'm here to say we've noticed. Proceed at your own peril. It's only the shining example, survived more than 225 years, well-crafted American justice system at stake.

Click for Spewed Videos du Jour