Arrest-related deaths



From the Department of Justice (DOJ) website, between 2003 and 2009, there were a total of 4,813 deaths reported to the DOJ as arrest-related deaths. Of those, about 6 in 10 were classified as homicide by law enforcement personnel. During this time, the FBI estimated that nearly 98 million arrests were made in the United States. Of the number of deaths:

White non-Hispanic         2026

Black non-Hispanic           1529

Hispanic                              949

Other                                   150

Unknown                            159



Also, of reported arrest-related deaths, 45% of decedents allegedly engaged in assault either immediately prior to or during the process of arrest. No criminal charges were intended to be filed against 163 (3%) persons who died during the process of arrest. Among arrest-related deaths attributed to homicide, 75% of decedents allegedly engaged in violent offenses.


Below is the link to the stats.

I’ve found no stats on the race of the arresting officers.

You can make your own conclusions. One conclusion I’ve come to is that, like most people, I’ve been watching the news on this (Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC) haven’t heard a single arrest-related death statistic. Not that stats tell the whole story, but it’s a place to start.

Sometimes reality makes no sense.

It’s a rare day when parenting and election politics intersect so clearly. My friends we are in rare days. The governor’s race in Texas just waded uterus deep into the discussion over when life begins, when it’s ok to end it, and baby clothes.

Yeah that’s right, baby clothes. I could try and describe it to you but a picture in this case is worth well over a thousand words.

Ladies and gentlemen, the face of absolute evil.

Ladies and gentlemen, the face of absolute evil.


If you’re still a little unsure of what you’re looking at and why it’s important and at the same time evil and moronic, let me help.

^^^^ Smuggy McSmuggerpants there is Texas State Senator Wendy Davis. She is the Democratic nominee for Governor of Texas. Governor Rick Perry is term limited so the seat is open. Thank god she does have a challenger, Republican Greg Abbott, a wheel chair bound paraplegic. He has a sizable lead on Ms Davis.

Wendy became infamous for staging an 11 hour filibuster in the Texas Senate in an attempt to block Texas Senate Bill 5. The bill would, among other things, limit the murdering of unborn babies to less than 20 weeks, and force doctors who perform abortions to actually be doctors and have admitting rights at the closest hospital. That last part was an attempt to stop situations like what happened to innocent babies at the hands of the Philadelphia murderer Kermit Gosnell, who was found guilty of murdering over 20 babies 24 weeks or older by cutting their spinal cords in the neck in his Philadelphia abortion mill. Let that sink in, 24 weeks or older. My daughter was born at 25 weeks, 1lb 12oz, and survived.

Gosnell was killing live babies by any standard. Here’s the link but I caution you, it’s graphic and nightmarish. House of Horrors  So ghoulish was the trial, the assistant prosecutor cried openly when the jury found Gosnell guilty on all counts. Texas Bill 5 sought to prevent horror shows like Gosnell from happening in Texas. Wendy Davis took to the Senate floor in her now famous pink Nikes to block that bill, adamant that the women of Texas have the freedom to abort babies after 20 weeks in the womb. The main thrust of her argument, those fetuses can’t feel pain.

Right so because they might not feel pain, which is a load of crap anyway, the babies should be candidates for murder like any other person unable to feel pain. Uh….. Say Wendy…. your opponent in this here governor’s race, isn’t he unable to feel pain from the neck down? Is that how you are going to erase that 14pt lead he has on you? But lets leave that irony for another day. There’s a bigger irony filling the windshield at the moment.

I mean for starters, what would any of her constituents do with a onesie? Those are for babies that actually are, ya know, allowed to live. How could she expect to raise a generation of Wendy Davis Democrats when she wants the freedom to murder the next generation? Who approved that sale item on her page? Is some intern not paying attention? Has she been hacked? I asked Frank what he thought must have happened:

I got nothing bro.

I got nothing bro.

Thanks a ton Frank.

Yeah that’s it, her web site was hacked. Has to be. How else could she explain selling a onesie after she became famous for advocating the murder of unborn babies in the third trimester? Yeah folks, Wendy is ok with killing babies after 24 weeks. She would call it late term abortion. And she wants to sell you this onesie to commemorate the event

Anyone with a .1% brain function knows a baby who makes it to 24 weeks is alive. There is no argument there. Know why? There are neonatale intensive care units across the counrty full of living babies born at 24 weeks or later. In fact those NICUs proabably have several babies born weeks earlier than that; babies who will survive and live normal lives.

How do I know that? I spent 5 months in the NICU at the University of Tennessee and saw it for myself. Oh and one other reason, well maybe two:

"Hey Wendy, I got your late term abortion right here!" BOOM!

“Hey Wendy, I got your late term abortion right here!” BOOM!

Thank you Lord that Wendy Davis is not my state senator!

Thank you Lord that Wendy Davis is not my state senator!











Anne Marie Linardo 25 weeks, 1 pound 12 ounces. L to R: Flipping off Wendy Davis from her hospital room at what should have been 35 weeks in the womb and starting pre-school, or as she calls it spree school, this year at the ripe old age of two.

Wendy Davis onsies…Sometimes humanity just makes me cry.


Soccer Moms really don’t heart firemen



Everybody loves firemen. That’s what they say, anyway. I see the bumper stickers all the time. I’m not really sure I believe it, though. Or, at least I think there’s a certain time when some people don’t love firemen. It’s when the firemen are in their truck with the sirens on going to a fire. Lots of people don’t like to pull over anymore.

I’m driving down one of our main roads here in Knoxville the other day, yes, actually our main, main road, which any Knoxvillian would tell you is Kingston Pike, and coming from the opposite direction I hear the siren and see the fire truck. So, I do what I always have done, start to pull over. I always have this idea that fire trucks with their sirens on could be going someplace they need to get to fast, like a fire.

Now, the fire truck is fairly close at this point, it’s not a couple blocks away, it’s bearing down in front of us. Behind me, I notice a vehicle actually trying to get around me. I know people don’t pull over for fire trucks anymore. But, the vehicle behind me is actually angling to get around. Then I notice that it’s my vehicular nemesis, a soccer mom with a cell phone in a mini-van.

Hey, I know getting little Trevor to soccer practice is important, or if little Nichole is late to her dance lesson there will be hell to pay. I understand you’re doing the most important thing in the world, suburban soccer-mom shit, and you will not be denied. But it could be someone’s house burning down.

I’ll tell you, I’d rather be in a jail cell with Hannibal Lecter than see a soccer mom with a cell phone in a mini-van. I’ve nearly been run over, run into, pulled over on, I’ve waited through lights just to find out I’m behind a soccer mom not paying attention talking on the phone. Always with that damn cell phone pasted to their face. And they are mean.

This particular one must have been the Dick Cheney of soccer moms. People are slowing down or stopping in the left lane, I’m blocking her path to acceleration in the right lane. When she realized she couldn’t get around me because of cars in the other lane, she turned her hateful gaze my way. We locked eyes in the mirror, at which point I put up my hands and mouthed “Hey, it’s a FIRE TRUCK.” I wish I would have just avoided the confrontation. She, looking back at me, holding that cell phone tightly to her face, never broke a word in her conversation, never missed a beat, but I saw her eyes squint manically behind her gold-rimmed amber-lensed suburban mom frames, and sneer at me in such a way that gave me a chill of fear down my spine. If I’d have seen that door open, I’d have bolted like a frightened antelope in the Serengeti, because I know I’d be no match for her in a bitchy slap-fight.

So, how many oatmeal-raisin recipes can you swap before you run out of things to say? How much can you talk about little Caleb’s problems in first grade (that are the teachers fault) before there’s nothing left to say? How big of a hurry do you have to be in to not pull over the suburban “Millennium Falcon” when you hear a siren?

Well, we just don’t pull over for fire trucks anymore. Soccer moms may be the worst offenders, but they’re certainly not the only ones. It seems no one wants to stop. Sure, I know we are all busy with our first world problems. I guess it’s only an emergency if it’s you.

You don’t really heart firemen after all, do you?


Damn you Hobby Lobby, see what you could’ve done

Make a run to the border, Mr. President, you can get fourth meal after shooting pool


The border, that is.




Presidents visit disaster sites. It’s one of the things they do. Do they accomplish anything, physically? Of course not, that’s not why they’re there. They’re there for several reasons that all serve one purpose. Is it symbolic? Of course. Does it matter? Of course it does.

  • Clinton visited Arkadelphia, Ark., after a tornado
  • Clinton visited Del City, Ok., after the horrific tornado in Moore Ok.
  • Bush visited New Orleans and Biloxi after hurricane Katrina.
  • Bush went t0 Americus, Georgia, after a tornado ripped through that town.
  • Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush visited Galveston, Texas after hurricane Ike.
  • President Obama visited fire-damaged homes in Mountain Shadow of Colorado Springs, Col. after wildfires there.
  • President Obama visited New Jersey after hurricane Sandy.
  • Of course, who can forget when George W. Bush visited Ground Zero after 9/11. Regardless about what you think of the rest of his presidency, those words spoken that day lifted us and gave us hope.

The list would go on and on. I know this is different, but it’s a crisis, and people are suffering.

I remember the picture of George W. Bush in the plane after hurricane Katrina, looking out the window, and how much grief he took for that picture. People said it showed him being disconnected and aloof. That mattered to people, and he even visited the place later.

They visit these places because they are the leaders of our country. It shows interest, engagement, involvement. It shows people that they are there, ready to lead and help the country work through the problems. To some, it provides solace, to others it shows the commitment of the government that the leader is there, interested and ready to play a part in the solution. No one thinks he’s going to start digging ditches or picking up boards.

Some of those in your own party have practically begged you to go.

Your speech about it basically amounted to “Tell Congress to approve the money and this goes away.” Really? You simply want 3.8 billion dollars, and you won’t take a few hours to even visit?  Well, I have no trust that you even have a clue how to go about it. Your administration has shown no administrative skill in problem solving to this point.

A huge humanitarian crisis, and he won’t go. In his comments about it, he says “it’s not about a photo op.” Well, Mr. President, yes it is, that’s a big part of it. And this is coming from a President who’s never, ever, shied away from a photo op. He appears on TV more than “Law and Order.” All this on top of the fact that You’re In the State Fundraising!! Yes, you’re right there, dude. A couple hours away. You know, playing pool, having fun. Take a couple of hours and show the rest of the country you give a damn. People are suffering.

His failure to go there is duplicitous. I don’t know how or why, but I know it when I see it.

It’s called leadership. Show some.

people crossing the river

Mr. President, this isn’t the community pool. It’s people in the middle of a humanitarian crisis. Maybe you could be interested.

On the other hand, why would you start now.


My Hobby in the Lobby


No SCOTUS decision ever stopped Barry White

Ok, I don’t think I’ve ever had sex in a lobby. And if I did once, it wasn’t a hobby.

I  don’t understand the outrage. I don’t understand all the dumb things I’ve read about it (actually, maybe I do).  “Keep the boss out of my bedroom.” Let’s see, I’ve read that a hundred times in various forms if I’ve read it once. How does this Supreme Court decision put the boss in your bedroom, unless you’ve decided to sleep with him yourself? (But that would still be your choice, not the SCOTUS). I would just like to hear someone from the left make a logical statement instead of yelling about how women’s rights are being stepped on, but they never really say how. You can still get laid. You can still get birth control. How are “women’s rights” being infringed? Because someone else is not paying for it? I just think people at the top are pissed at losing a SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, and the unwashed masses just parrot the phrases like its gospel.

Here’s what Barbara Boxer said:

“I view this as very much an anti-woman position to take,” Boxer said. “And it’s important to note that women take birth control, more than half of them, as a medication for other conditions, so it is an attack on women. I think it’s an attack on the religious freedom of the women who work there. Remember, no one is forced to take birth control. It’s an individual right, and this is America, and this is the 21st century, and this is shocking.” Read more:

So, Barbara says “Remember, no one is forced to take birth control, It’s an individual right, and this is America, and this is the 21st century, and this is shocking.” It’s “shocking?” Are you serious?  So if no one is forced to take it, why is it someone else’s responsibility to pay for it when you do? It’s just nonsensical. Attack on the religious freedom of the women who work there? Barbara, are you smoking a medicinal jay? An individual right? An attack on women? That’s just bullshit to stir up the masses. It’s a healthcare plan, and the left is reacting like they’re being denied the right to breathe.

Maybe I’m a little older, but when I was growing up, sex was my business. Actually, it still is. I, and my partner, decide when, where, how, what. And birth control was up to us. Still is. Honestly, I don’t think my boys storm the beach with the same enthusiasm they once did, but again, that’s my biz.

So why is it someone else’s job to pay for yours now?

And all of this is lost on the fact that Hobby Lobby objects to 4 options out of 20. Oh, the horror. The entitled denied? My, my.

Ok, let’s be honest. Do you think this decision is going to change anyone’s sexual practice?

Imagine a Friday night, some sexy couple like they’re right out of a beer commercial. Barry White coming out of the iTunes, candles lit. Things are getting hot. Neck nibbling. Zipper noises. And then the women says “Listen, we’d flat be getting it on if it wasn’t for that SCOTUS decision. But I’m going to have to ask you to leave. After all, my boss is in the bedroom.”

I don’t think so.

It’s not about rights, it’s a health care plan.

And still, no one cares that the IRS has been trampling on an actual right and covering it up.





Body image and our American work ethic

fat doll

I don’t think this will help


Well, I heard it again. On a slow news day, I’ll see the whole ‘body image’ subject in the news. Heard it again this morning, some news blip about dolls or models. You know, dolls are too skinny and present an unrealistic and unhealthy image for young ladies. Emaciated models are presenting a bad image for those young ladies in our society today and present an image that’s unachievable.

Well, I got some bad news. It isn’t working. That whole ‘you’re going to negatively impact our girl’s self-image’ thing isn’t taking hold. Either that or they’re not paying attention. If you follow any of the news stories, obesity and morbid obesity is at an all-time high. Worse, diabetes is nearly an epidemic. They kind of go hand in hand.  You really can’t miss it. I’ve been looking, and I haven’t seen many anorexics lately. And yea, you can tell. Fat little twelve year olds are not anorexic. And there are a lot of them. Maybe there are some anorexics underneath all that body weight screaming to get out, but they’re a long way off.

Approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents aged 2—19 years are obese. (CDC)

And fat kids grow up to be fat adults.

Don’t get me wrong, eating disorders are terrible. I don’t particularly care for too skinny. I got a few extra pounds myself. I had a crush on Queen Latifa. But the weight of our country is out of hand, about one-third of us are seriously overweight, and our desire to do something about seems non-existent.

So, actually, I’m going to take up for the super-models. I think maybe we should start looking up to them. They are working hard for a living, achieving a goal through discipline, sacrifice and perseverance. When did that become bad?

I’ll tell you when. When we decided as a society that we accepted that “you’re ok just the way you are” bullshit. That’s just nonsense. We all need some work. Since when did we decide that fat and lazy was “ok?” What’s wrong with striving for something and trying to improve yourself? I grew up with that ethic. My dad was a math guy. Great at math. I wasn’t. He didn’t coddle me. He said things like “Hey, sit down and figure the damn thing out, I’ve showed you twice already!” He also said things like “If you don’t get it, maybe you need to sit there and think it through.” Let me tell you something, take it or leave it; it didn’t take a village, it just took my Mom and Dad telling me the way things were going to be. What happened to parenting?

When did “Hey, just sit on the couch and forget about it, the world owes you something, have a donut” become our ethic?

Sure, call me callous. Call me a prick. But since so many of us are blowing the trumpet of socialized medicine, I don’t want to pay for your diabetes, heart disease or bad knees. According to the CDC:

Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death.

The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight.

More than one-third of U.S. adults (34.9%) are obese. (CDC)


So I don’t think the poisonous, skinny, super-model is such a problem, because she doesn’t seem to have much of an effect. I want dear old dad tell his 200 pound 12-year old, “See that girl on the screen? She eats a handful of rice and a piece of lettuce a day, and throws up anything else she eats. And she earns a million dollars a year for standing around being snooty. Now get in that bathroom and chuck up that box of Krispy Kremes you just ate.”

Hey, let’s all lose a couple of pounds. And leave the super-models alone.

If the Poor Earn More Money, We’ll Reduce Income Inequality


How can we reduce income inequality? Well, poor people could make more money. Sure, I know you lampoon that answer, but it’s true. It’s just the opposite side of the equation. No, it’s not the answer you’re looking for. I have those coming up later.

If you read this blog or listen to the Unfiltered Unfettered podcast, you know I’m a frequent and long-term media basher. Media is biased. Mainstream media has had a liberal bias for as long as I know. It’s not always obvious, and sometimes I believe it’s even unintentional. But it’s there, and a key question might be, does it matter? I believe it does, and this post relates to that question in addition to income inequality.

A recent Pew research poll about income inequality revealed some of the following answers.

More than a quarter (26%) of self-identified Democrats and those who lean Democratic cited the tax system as a main reason for the gap. Just 14% of self-identified Republicans and those who lean Republican said the same. Among self-identified liberal Democrats, roughly a third (32%) cited taxes. By contrast, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents were more likely (14%) to mention Congress or government policies than Democrats (8%).  (ref)

Taxes were the highest percentage answer. Somehow, the majority answer for solving income inequality has become the tax system. Sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense as a solution. It’s thinking of the situation backwards. Think of it this way, you’re getting your little girl dressed, and she wants to know why you can’t take her to Disney World. “Well, honey,” you might answer “Because rich people don’t pay more taxes.” No, that’s not really the answer, is it? Yet, that’s a political platform that’s become a stalwart of the Democrats. Democrats have advanced, as a political agenda in order to get votes, that taxing the rich will solve income inequality, and the media report it as if it’s a fact. As the media have reported it, people believe it. That’s the circle.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (Clinton administration 93-97) wrote an article for Salon titled “The four biggest right-wing lies about income inequality,” and then went on to talk about some of the biggest left-wing lies about income inequality. His concluding paragraph restates most of the Democratic platform:

The truth is, America’s lurch toward widening inequality can be reversed. But doing so will require bold political steps.

At the least, the rich must pay higher taxes in order to pay for better-quality education for kids from poor and middle-class families. Labor unions must be strengthened, especially in lower-wage occupations, in order to give workers the bargaining power they need to get better pay. And the minimum wage must be raised.

Don’t listen to the right-wing lies about inequality. Know the truth, and act on it. (ref)

All flawed thinking. First, you’d have to prove that more money automatically equals better education. Second, you’d have to prove that the increased tax money will go to the right places. Third, you’d have to prove that the increased tax money would actually go to the education system in a way that would result in a higher educational quality. Then, you have to make an argument that the burden falls strictly to the rich. And, finally, you’d have to prove that all of this would eventually result in reducing income inequality. You can make an argument, but at this point that’s all it is, and it’s a house of cards. I’m certainly not as smart as most that talk about this subject, but I know weak arguments when I hear them. And what I know is this, no one really knows how to reduce it, because no one has yet. Sure, Robert, the government’s going to fix it, right?

See, it’s not just about “the rich” paying more money. What about involved parents? What about parents working with their children? Is education simply up to the government? If you answered yes, just stop reading right now. Well, what’s the truth? As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and a combination of many factors. One of those factors is something you may not have read about in the mainstream media.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Ignoring an Inequality Culprit: Single-Parent Families: Intellectuals fretting about income disparity are oddly silent regarding the decline of the two-parent family.”

The article addresses what the authors call “The strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century.” They make the argument with the following figures:

The two-parent familiar had declined rapidly in recent decades. In 1960, more the 76% of African-Americans and nearly 90% of whites were born to married couples. Today the percentage is 30% for blacks and 70% for whites. The out-wedlock birthrate for Hispanics surpassed 50% in 2006. The trend, coupled with high divorce rates, means that roughly 25% of American children now live in single-parent homes, twice in the percentage in Europe (12%). Roughly a third of American children live apart from their fathers.


Abuse, behavioral problems and psychological issues of all kinds, such as developmental behavior problems or concentration issues, are less common for children of married couples that for cohabitating or single parents, according to a 2003 Centers for Disease Control study of children’s health.


More the 20% of children in single-parent families live in poverty long-term, compared with 2% of those raised in two-parent families, according to education policy analyst Mitch Pearlstein’s 2011 book “for Family Collapse to America’s Decline.” The poverty rate would be 25% lower if today’s family structure resembled that of 1970, according to the 2009 report “Creating an Opportunity Society” from Brookings Institute analysts Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. A 2006 article in the journal Demographic by Penn State sociologist Molly Martin estimates that 41%of the inequality created between 1976-2000 was the result of changed family structure.


Pretty heavy stuff, yea? Did you read that? “The strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States.” But, when’s the last time you heard anyone talk about this in politics or popular media? Outside of an occasional rant by Bill Cosby, you probably haven’t. What you hear is “tax the rich, bring back unions” and other such political nonsense.

Because talking about single-parent families is not going to get people to vote for you. This is one of the many places where politics and truth part company. It’s easy to demonize people with money, stir class warfare, say how they need to pay more, it will make things better, how you’ll make them, and get votes.

Because the media’s job is to get viewers. A politician’s job is to get elected. The truth gets lost there.