It Really Was Weiner’s Weiner

by Katherine Scardino

In May I wrote about the seemingly overload of male "pigs” - defined as men who had too much power and not enough common sense. I asked you at the end of that post in Women in Crime to “stay tuned. I’m sure there’s more!” And, sure enough, along comes this weirdo Congressman from New York, Anthony Weiner. I admit that I did look at the tweeted photo of his covered weiner and was totally unimpressed. But, what makes Mr. Weiner interesting to me now is that he was sexting, which I also wrote about last February, asking how did we, as a nation, get to the point that having sex via satellite was, well, sexy?

Early on, when the scandal first became news for almost all breathing Americans over the last several weeks, I felt that he should stick it out (no pun intended...) and keep his job. He was elected to Congress by the citizens of New York, and I did not see that anything he had done was really any of my business - taking into account that sexting has become somewhat routine for a large portion of the population of the United States. I believed that if the citizens of New York wanted him out of office, they should do so by their vote.

Then, things got a little more serious. As I understand there were several tweets to various women that were more than a little suggestive. I have not read them, but I would love to read the words and form my own judgment as to whether they are truly offensive to the general public, and really, whether the general public has any business reading them or, for that matter, looking at any private photograph that he has tweeted to “friends." Do these stupid, irresponsible, personal acts interfere with his job? Did we all think the tweets were so offensive because he is a married man? And, married less than a year to a very beautiful, successful woman. Does that fact change anything for us?

I noted that his wife was not “standing by her man” in any of his comments to the press, and especially during Mr. Weiner’s press conference when he officially resigned his position. I read in an article recently that women today are not like the women of ten years ago or longer. Women no longer feel the need to suffer embarrassment and ridicule just because they are the “loyal wife.” Strong, successful women today look at these men and can actually make individual judgments about the stupidity of their husbands and decide they do not wish to play the game. I give you Maria Schriver Schwarzenegger as a perfect example. Granted, her husband, the Governator, committed acts that were a bit more serious than Mr. Weiner and his weiner. But, nevertheless, she did not even make an attempt at excusing him or standing with him at any public announcement. I, personally, commend these women. Sometimes, spouses do such irresponsible, illogical and basically dumb things that it overcomes any thought of loyalty.

But, I want to talk a little more about sexting. Would someone out there please tell me why sexting is a happening thing now and especially why is it occurring among our young people? Can they not find a bed? Or the back seat of a car, as I recall... (no more about that!) But, at least my transgression with a high school football star was in person and not via satellite. Is it because the younger generation has grown up with social media: emails, text messaging, IM’s, Facebook, Twitter and now Skype, and that all emotions in any kind of relationship are relayed via these non-personal methods? Is there anyone out there who still believes that a personal conversation is better when  it is actually personal? That sex is really better when it is done in a prone position of some kind on some sort of flat surface - and in the privacy of someone’s home, car, kitchen, back yard, pool, hot tub, floor, etc...

If we are all involved in the computer relationships, how much do you learn about being social and about interacting in society with another student, teacher, parent, employer? Can these kids even talk? I know a young man, now age 25, who grew up in his room in front of a computer. And no, it is not one of my sons! For years, he could not speak in person except for an occasional grunt. We had to learn which sound was a positive sound and which was a negative sound. Over the last few years, he has matured and gotten a little better, but it is still definitely troublesome for him to speak aloud to another human.

But, back to Anthony Weiner. For people in public office, I would imagine that satellite communications of all kinds are a godsend to politicians. Think how many people they can reach via email and other methods of communication - all without leaving their desk. The idea of sending a photograph of a private part was not envisioned by the creators of these new methods of communication, but it became too easy.

So now, ex-Congressman Weiner, you have lost your job and perhaps your pregnant wife as well. But, why was he railed on so hard? Dare I even mention John Kennedy? He had sex with any person with the appropriate equipment, and some even in the White House, his home where Jackie and the children also lived. No one said anything about any of that activity until after his death. Or, Franklin Roosevelt, whose true love was not really Eleanor, but instead her one time social secretary Lucy Mercer, with whom he carried on a 30 plus year affair. The list goes on and on: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gengrich, Eliot Spitzer.  And, I have not heard any news reports for weeks now about Arnold Schwarzenegger. And, who - or where - is Mark Sanford these days? So, why the big deal about Anthony Weiner? What do you think?

Tweet

Candidates and Crime

by Diane Dimond

When you go into the voting booth today to cast your ballot for the next President of the United States, ask yourself why neither of the nominees is talking about crime in America.

Maybe I have a one track mind – crime – but why is it that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have made even the tiniest mention of what all of us worry about on a daily basis?

Will the kids get to and from school okay? Will that far-away parking space prove to be dangerous when you go back to your car late at night? Has your late-for-curfew teenager been the victim of some random criminal act? Is it safe for your spouse to work that overnight shift?

Yes, yes – I know, there are many pressing issues facing America like national defense, the economy, and health care. But this campaign has gone on forever and I haven't heard either candidate say what they plan to do to make me feel safer. Where's the anti-crime bill proposal to go along with their ideas to wrap up in Iraq or fix the housing market?

Earlier this year a stunning report from the Pew Center for the States concluded 1 in every 100 American adults is now behind bars. In total more than 2 million people are currently incarcerated in America costing states and the federal government (read that: you and me) combined billions – yes, BILLIONS - of dollars every year.

How bad does it have to get, how much higher will those numbers go before our leaders start addressing this thing that plagues and drains us all?

The mainstream media, of which I was a part for many years including coverage of several presidential campaigns, has lost its way somehow. They've forgotten to pepper the candidates with questions about issues that cause voters daily distress. They've forgotten to dig hard for substantive answers. They've forgotten to ask either McCain or Obama what they plan to do about those among us who prey on others – from hardened criminals to corporate bad guys.

Think of the way we're forced to live our lives now. We're consumed with working enough hours to pay our mounting bills, including ever-rising burdensome tax bills. We fret about the possibility of violent crime, white-collar crime, auto theft, child molesting, home invasion, elder abuse, identity theft – the list is long. Among the items we think we must buy are home security systems, car alarms, insurance policies, and cell phones for each of our children, just in case something awful happens and they need to call us. We design our daily routines around regular calls to the vulnerable senior citizens in our lives, we shell out money for expensive security for our small businesses, and we pay more in school tuition to make sure the children are safer.

It's as though there's a built in anti-crime tax to everything we do.

Is this OK with you? Is this the way you want to spend your money? Well, steel yourself because things could get worse.

A recent report by Third Way, a liberal think tank based in Washington DC, concludes there is an upcoming convergence of events that will make our modern day worries about crime seem miniscule. Among the dangerous trends ahead?

First, a huge number of baby boomer convicts are set to be released from prison in the next five years. Let's hope their rehabilitation and re-training sticks - but don't count on it.

In addition, as our economy tanks, there is a bloated group of young people entering their so-called "high crime years."

The report also states that organized criminal gangs are recruiting illegal aliens like there's no tomorrow.

Finally, the Internet is increasingly being used for criminal enterprise and the Third Way report concludes more criminals will certainly be using it in the future.

Yet the candidates don't seem to see the road ahead. The reporters who dog the candidates all day long never shout out any questions about crime. This is strange to me.

About a year ago, the firm Cooper & Secrest Associates released a study that asked Americans which threat they took more seriously: international terrorism or home-grown violent crime. Sixty-nine percent said they worry more about what's directly outside their front door. Only 19% worried about another terrorist attack.

Yeah, I guess I have a one-track mind. I've written about this in the past and I will continue to write about why our leaders don't put crime prevention on the front burner. Criminals have reached their slimy tentacles into nearly all aspects of our lives. I want to know how the occupant of the White House plans to address the national security situation right here at home.

Tweet

Economy and Crime Go Together Like Peas and Carrots

by Robin Sax

November 4 is creeping up on us, and in 47 days voters will elect the next leader of the United States. Who will it be? Barack Obama or John McCain?

Both candidates say they offer change, both tickets recognize our country is need of a serious overhaul, both think they are the one to run our country. When you look through elections past, crime, abortion, gun control was a key issue, along with the economy. Now according to the latest Gallup Poll (September 17), the “Top voter issue this year is the economy, gas prices, Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism.” So, what does this have to do with crime?

As I mentioned in my previous post, neither candidate is going to say he is soft on crime. And the true differences that we can glean from voting records may be minor in the grand scheme of things, with the major differences (based on their prior voting records) between the candidates being:

Gun Laws

John McCain: No gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens

Barack Obama: Some restrictions on certain guns

Death Penalty

John McCain: Keep death penalty as it exists

Barack Obama: Supports death penalty in certain circumstances

Drug Laws

John McCain: Tough drug sentencing, except for first-time offenders; no medical marijuana

Barack Obama: Ease some drug sentencing requirements; undecided on medical marijuana

National Security

John McCain: Increase border security before other reforms

Barack Obama: Increase border security, including fencing

Punishment

John McCain: Increased penalties and stiffer sentencing

Barack Obama: No extra punishment for gang association

The bigger difference, however, the bigger unknown and potentially the most significant way crime can be affected is in how the candidates will “change” the economy. Face it, people, the economy is in trouble! It’s been a gloomy week here in the United States and it’s only going to get gloomier until one of our change-minded future leaders can actually do something about it!

Crime is affected by the economy. In 2002, according to a report in USA TODAY, “major crimes increased slightly in the first half of 2002, with modest spikes in murder, burglary and car theft.” At the time, the numbers represented the second consecutive year in which crime rose. Analysts believe the trend is being driven primarily by a faltering economy.

So how does a faltering economy contribute to crime?

1. Financial desperation and unemployment lead people to turn to illegal ways to make money, including burglary, robbery, and other theft-related crimes.

2. Unemployed people have more time to commit crime.

3. People have less means to purchase medications (like anti-psychotics or anti-depressants) that may help control behavior.

4. People who lose their homes and are already being supervised by courts or similar government agencies are less likely to stay in touch with probation, police departments, and social services departments to ensure that they are maintaining their responsibilities and obligations. Less supervision = less accountability.

5. City and county budgets are affected, as there are increased layoffs and hiring freezes of law enforcement personnel.

6. Drug use increases in tough economic times, thus leading to more violent crimes as people become more desperate to get drugs and money.

7. Poor economic times lead to more family strife, thus increasing incidents of domestic abuse and child abuse.

8. Neighborhoods decline, and with lack of upkeep fewer people take pride in where they live, thus bringing crime into their own neighborhoods.

9. Teen pregnancies increase when the economy is weak. This leads to more children growing up in poverty.

Though economists and social scientists may take issue as to what effect the economy truly has on crime, the statistics are very telling. The bottom line is that a sustained weak economy leads to unemployment, loss of homes, and greater crime. And if you don’t believe me, look at the decreased crime that occurred during the economic surge that occurred for almost a decade in the 1990’s—the Clinton years.

So in order to really evaluate the nominees on crime, you need to take a peek at their stances on the economy. There’s no better time to see what the candidates have in store for us than this week when the financial markets have wrought havoc, caused chaos, and have many people wondering if their money is really safe.

So what did the candidates say? Both said that we are in crisis. We need to do something. We need change. And what exactly is that I ask, Senators? I have been trying to figure that out all week, as neither White House hopeful offered any fresh ideas for turning things around. Instead each relied on the same vague, though vastly different, pitches they have offered over the past few months for fixing what ails the country.

Probably the best summary of their positions was written by Liz Sodti of the Associated Press in noting the key differences between the candidates: “In line with historical positions of Democrats and Republicans, Obama generally supports stronger consumer protections, better regulatory oversight and more government intervention, while McCain broadly prefers a market system of less federal involvement and red tape."

Both advocate tax cuts, though to different degrees and toward different ends. Obama seeks to cut into inequality between rich and poor by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and giving breaks to the middle class and lower-income people. McCain wants to spur the economy and create jobs by keeping tax rates low for higher-income taxpayers and slashing rates for corporations.

Which approach do you prefer? That’s one thing to ask yourself when you’re contemplating who you want to see in the White House.

POSTS BY ROBIN SAX DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THIS POST AND OTHERS ARE THE PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE OF ROBIN SAX AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

Tweet

CLINTON v. OBAMA and McCAIN, TOO: Where Do They Stand On Crime?

by Robin Sax

Decision 2008 consumes television 24/7. From CNN to FOX to Comedy Central, it’s all election all the time. It is not the typical Republican vs. Democrat or Democrat vs. Republican mudslinging (at least not yet). For now it is all about who is going to take the Democratic party. Will it be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Who will take on the Republicans? Who can beat John McCain?

Who knew that the primaries could be so exciting? It’s no wonder that the talking heads are talking their heads off. This is big stuff. It’s bigger than political parties. It’s bigger than gender, it’s bigger than race. It’s all of it in one election and then some. Will our country continue to break new ground in creating political history?

For most Americans, crime is a key issue. And no wonder. This is the day of missing (and dead) co-eds, cops who kill girlfriends and wives, students who shoot on college campuses, moms who drown their kids, and Internet sex scandals to name just a few. And if it were not for these elections these crime stories are what the pundits would be pontificating about.

So, what is Barack’s stance on crime? What is Hillary’s platform? Just how conservative is John McCain? I, myself, had no clue until I began writing this article. I could tell you their differences on the economy, health care, the war, and immigration, but have not heard a thing about crime.

Granted, crime is not usually the defining issue in the primaries. But with the election in only 223 days wouldn’t you like to know what your candidate thinks about gun control, sex offenders, Three Strikes, juvenile crimes, drugs, defendant’s rights, and gangs? I certainly would. For now we are supposed to be satiated with a few throwaway sound bites. And why do we have to wait until it’s McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Clinton, to know which candidate wants to take a bite out of crime?

Clinton has been described as more prosecution oriented and leans toward more law and order than her counterpart Obama. According to Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle, “The two differ on crime-related issues that have a lower profile but affect many thousands of prisoners, most of them minorities - the disparity between sentences for offenses involving crack and powder cocaine, and the merits of federal mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. On both, Clinton lines up with the prosecution, Obama with the defense.” Interestingly, both favor capital punishment, in certain circumstances.

So here’s where they stand on crime:

ISSUE	CLINTON	OBAMA	MCCAIN
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT	Supports death penalty but has tilted her campaign to focus on Innocence Protection Act to divert attention away from her support of capital punishment by legislating that all people executed would participate in DNA testing.	Believes death penalty does little to deter crime, but there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--that warrant it. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated.	Supports the most broadened use of the death penalty. Has voted “YES” to limit death penalty appeals.
GUN CONTROL	Supports sensible gun control legislation. In her words: “We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.”	Respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. In 2000, co-sponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.	Believes that the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. “We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens," he said. "Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law- abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.”
DRUGS	Favors a distinction between crack and powder cocaine in order to minimize racist impact of current laws. No retroactive application.	Favors a lower sentencing guideline for crack-related crimes, and bring them closer to sentences for powder cocaine. Favors applying the new terms retroactively to current prisoners. Wants to establish a DEA office in New Orleans to stop drugs along that region.	Wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said the Clinton administration was “AWOL on the war on drugs” and he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.
REPEAT OFFENDER SENTENCING	Believes mandatory sentencing is too widely used. Thinks we need more diversion programs. But supports "Three Strikes" laws, particularly for violent offenders.	Seeks to promote fairness in the criminal justice system. Wants to ban racial profiling, eliminate disparities in criminal sentencing.	Stricter sentencing for repeat and violent offenders.
GANGS	Hillary was one of 44 Democrats who voted for the anti-gang bill—increased penalty for gang association.	Voted against anti-gang bill due to concern about racist effects of its use. Therefore, no extra penalty for gang association.	Supports programs that provide job training and placement services for at-risk youth.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS	Spend more money on programs to help identify and work with “at risk” kids. Need more hotlines and workers to identify early warning signs for homicidal or suicidal kids.	Wants to provide funding for military-style "boot camps" for first-time juvenile felons.	Supports prosecuting more children as adults who commit violent crimes. Believes in increased penalties for crimes committed on school grounds. Believes in prosecuting youths accused (unless extremely young) of a felony as adults.
HATE CRIMES	Clinton sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Under this act the government would provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any violent crime that is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of hate crime laws.	Wants to strengthen the enforcement of hate crimes legislation.	McCain agrees that funding should be increased for community policing programs. “Increases should be implemented with state and local government commitments,” he says. With regard to “hate crimes”: “All but 13 states have hate crimes statutes. Federalizing all such crimes will simply obstruct justice by forcing them into clogged federal courts.”
SEX CRIMES	Favors a national coordinated effort of the Amber Alert. Supports stricter sentences for sex offenders.	Supported bills with greater restrictions on sex offenders.	McCain sponsored the Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act Establish a national database at the FBI to track each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor or a sexually violent offense; or is a sexually violent predator.
DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS	Mandatory sentencing has been too widely used. Clinton says: “We have to do all of these things:  We do have to go after racial profiling. I've supported legislation to try to tackle that.  We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.  We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system.”	Believes in legislation to videotape defendant interrogations and confessions. Wants to recruit more and better public defenders by initiating loan forgiveness programs	Supports programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills and job-placement assistance when released. Supports programs to provide prison inmates with drug and alcohol addiction treatment.

So, what does this mean? If crime is YOUR one and only issue, then McCain is your man, but not by much. Neither Clinton nor Obama are soft on crime. But in the end, as a fellow blogger Jeralyn on Talk Left said, “To say Obama is more progressive on crime issues or that he takes the defense line while Hillary toes the prosecution line, is not accurate. Neither one is particularly progressive or defense oriented. Their minor differences are just that, minor.” The ultimate question is, will any of the nominees turn into a president that will pave the way as a leader in crime and punishment? That, ladies and gentleman, remains to be seen.

*Update: See Cynthia Hunt's post on Republican V.P. nominee Sarah Palin's stance on crime: http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2008/09/republicans-rock-star-barracuda-cut-her.html

Tweet