Verdict: Carrillo not guilty (w/video)
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429569
I'm totally in shock...
Printable View
Verdict: Carrillo not guilty (w/video)
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429569
I'm totally in shock...
Proof that the system works!
:peepwall: :Thanks:
Proof that we have a system - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:
At first I was shocked, too, but I hate to say it, but I can see it being the correct answer to the legal question.
I believe Efren was telling the truth when he said he was going over to Jane Doe's for "a drink and sex with the woman", he wasn't going over there for peeking (nor to sexually assault her). Whether he actually peeked or not, is both hard to say/prove and besides the point.
Unfortunately there is not a legal statute against being an egotistical alcoholic with really really poor judgement and taste (his girlfriend had just dropped him off before going over to Jane Doe's! ). It's beyond a shadow of doubt that he's guilty of that, and I'm sure that he has already experienced much punishment for that.
There are at least two further bits of business for him to do to begin to put this unsavory mess behind him, apologize to the victim, and her friends and family (perhaps using restorative justice), and to step down as Supervisor.
Edit:
Apparently he is not planning on stepping down. See this video after his acquittal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4boE0AW5fc
There is a protest being organized for
Wednesday, April 30, 5-7pm in Courthouse Square
to demand his resignation.
Ha. As if.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
What's especially sad to me is that many voters would allow a legal court decision to decide for them as well.
Well, I'm sorry you and so many other so called "progressives" had their mind made up about this whole affair in advance and without the benefit of the facts. That is the kind of behavior I expect of small minded, perhaps bigoted, people.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:
The system did work, a jury composed of 10 women and 2 men unanimously found him NOT GUILTY. Efren did blow it here, there is no doubt, and Efren knows better than anyone what a hard lesson this has been. He was humble, painfully open about his state of being and his state of mind, acknowledged his mistake, and asked for forgiveness. That is the least we can give him.
He was guilty of being a young man with a big ego and a drinking problem, something that afflicts lots and lots of young men. That doesn't make him a rapist or a criminal. He deserves due process and he had his day in court. As I had suspected (but didn't know for sure) this was much ado about not very much. Now, can we just get over it and move on?
"Progressives", "small minded" and "bigoted"? Really jbox?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
Elected officials with big egos and (perhaps) a drinking problem should not be putting their hands through the bedroom window screens of their female neighbors.
I'm sorry you don't understand this.
Efren may as well have told the jurors that he believes in Sharia law, does NOT respect women, and will do whatever he wants because he is ABOVE the law.
Someone needs to knock his ego back down to reality.
For what it is worth, here is my take. I keep going back to what he did. If I had been the woman, in bed, likely sleeping, when a hand tore my screen and reached in--or even just reached in--I would have been beyond terrified. That is the exact moment we all dread, especially if we live alone. It is the equivalent of the "man at the door with the knife," that Joan Didion writes about so eloquently in The White Album.
Being attracted to someone, being a tad tipsy (he was not drunk), being arrogant and feeling entitled, none of this excuses causing that moment of terror in another person. Same with the way he entered her garage and came to the back door, where he found her, just out of the shower, vulnerable. Very scary.
This is not typical, normal, standard behavior. It is invasive. I don't need to know the name of the man who did it or what was behind it. It is that moment, those two moments, that I find truly terrifying. I am not rushing to judgement, I'm not calling for anyone's head to roll, I am, simply, putting myself in the position of the victim. Can she move on? I hope she can but I also know how much trouble I would have falling asleep at night.
I hope he gets help and I hope he pays close attention to the wisdom within the Press Democrat's editorial.
I totally agree, Oliviathunderkitty and Imagery. There has been entirely too much discussion about Efren and very little about the impact his noctournal visit had on his neighbor. His apologists seem to think that "boys will be boys" and that women should just suck it up, which is what usually happens when a man violates a woman's personal boundaries. It took me years to feel comfortable taking a shower after I saw "Psycho," and that was just a movie! I can only imagine what Jane Doe experienced that night and what her life is like now, but I seriously doubt she is "over it and moving on" and she may never be.
Those who are calling for compassion and forgiveness for Carrillo need to consider that his victim is more in need of compassion than he is. We can forgive him but that still leaves him accountable, and unfortunately, our "justice" system has failed both his victim and us women--and Efren for that matter.
Efren Carrillo is an adult male, not some kid in his teens or early twenties. His arrogance and irresponsibility go beyond "mere" alcoholism. They are character traits that will take many years and lots of therapy to change, if ever. By getting a "free pass" this time (and the last time in San Diego), he is getting the message that he can get away with it and that it wasn't that big a deal. (Same thing with O.J. Simpson, et al.) He is now free to continue colllecting his huge salary while performing his "service" to the public.
He may come from a "good, good family," but that doesn't make him a good, good man. It just means he may know better but he has chosen not to do it.
This is just one more instance of money and power triumphing over common decency, the corrupt state of our so-called representatives, and the ongoing prevalence of sexism in our society. I would have thought Sonoma County could do better than this.
Forgive, forget, and "move on"? I think not.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
All Carrillo's day in court told us, is that he was found not guilty of the least of possible charges: attempted peeking.
That doesn't mean he was blameless all along, but simply that the prosecution didn't come to court with an appropriate charge that they could prove.
The SRPD was little help. Faced at about 4am with a man in his boxers and socks, who had been an alcoholic since high school (some 15 years), and who had just closed a bar, they judged he was sober.
But they arrested him on suspicion of felony charges that the prosecution would determine couldn't be proven.
So what happens now? Carrillo's political career should be finished. If he doesn't resign, he will almost certainly be replaced at the next election. Meanwhile, he will face constant reminders of the event, and his testimony at the trial.
However, he should still be welcome in the business community. He may even be given a cushy appointed position, in return for his past service to various private interests.
Dishonored as he is, I hope he will soon disappear from public life, and just fade away.
Abraham Lincoln said that if you want to know a man's true character, give him some power, ignore what he says, and watch what he does. Mr. Carrillo has shown us all his true character. Please join me and many other Sonoma County residents in demanding his resignation.
If you can't make it to the demonstration tomorrow (Wednesday) at Court House Square from 5-7 PM, then please phone or email all the individual Supes (including Carrillo) demanding Carrillo's resignation. Go to https://supervisors.sonoma-county.org/. And please pass this on to your friends. Thanks.
I have just emailed all five Supervisors supporting Efren Carrillo in continuing his work as Supervisor.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
The system always works, just not always the way we'd like it to.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Victoria Street:
Not much shocks me these days, and I've had to "get over" a lot of injustice done to me, in my life time. If we hang on to traumas of any kind, it gives power to the perpetrator or event. If you allow your life to be controlled by abusive parents, you give them power over you, even after they're out of your life. Jane Doe has the ability to decide how much power she will continue to give to Carillo. We all have the power to choose a different way of feeling, after seeing a terrifying film that we've actually chosen to view, or choosing to watch the terrifying news so we "know what's happening in the world", or being attacked physically/emotionally. Yes, it's natural to be in shock from any number of things. But it's really in our best interests to "get beyond it", or to choose to continue the trauma for years. Sometimes a financial lawsuit can help us get over it. Maybe Jane Doe can initiate such a lawsuit? Or maybe Carillo will cough up some "restorative justice" in the form of cash? What other compensation could he offer? What does Jane Doe want? What would be helpful to her at this point?
Now, there's a way to "show up" besides with our words. And maybe even a way to get over the shock and disappoinment. How many of you plan to PROTEST tonight? How many will take action? This is something that can actually make a difference, and give a feeling of power where many may feel powerless at the decision handed down by the jury.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
I respectfully disagree, Shandi. I don't believe that the system always works. But it's a good system, and, over time, it evolves. I do agree that it doesn't always work the way we'd like it to. Hey! We're individuals! Debate is a good thing - even necessary! Laws and "The System" can only do so much as the moral fabric of society is constantly being tugged at and twisted.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Many laymen don't understand that "The System" operates according to a very detailed set of rules and procedures. What they think is "Common Sense" doesn't apply.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Victoria Street:
Old pros like Andrian know how the system works -- and at times, how to game it. In this case, it was easy:
"Andrian took the jury's decision as validation of his decision to go to trial.
Instead of being persuaded by salacious details, jurors followed the law, apparently agreeing with the defense that there was no evidence showing Carrillo looked into the apartment, Andrian said.
'It tells me my arguments resonated,' Andrian said. 'You can't be convicted on your own statement. They were lacking independent evidence.' " [my emphasis]
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...0429469#page=0
And now for a little humor on the subject. Have you heard that John Beck from the PD wrote a song about the case called A Couple of Pliny's (The Ballad of Efren Carrillo)? You can hear it online here:G C
I gotta couple of Plinys
G C
and you on my mind
G C
I'm here in my undies
D G
let's have a good time
so come to you window
I can't see through your blinds
I mighta put my hand through your screen
but is it a crime?
I saw you down at Space 25
I didn't want the night to end
You looked like you wanted some
and so did your friends
So put away your butcher knives
You can see I'm not armed
just a couple of Plinys
I mean you no harm
Remember me I'm your neighbor
I brought you that wine
oh wait are those sirens?
I'm gonna do time
But thanks to that jury
I'm gonna get another chance
Looking back in restrospect
I shoulda worn pants
Effren Carrillo
District 5 Sonoma County Supervisor
campaign headquarters down at the Russian River Brewing Company Santa Rosa
Thank you so much for posting! This is just great
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:
This post--I've deleted most of it, for brevity's sake--assumes that getting over traumatic events is an act of volition. I do not believe this is true and it is certainly not always true. Why do so many people struggle with PTSD? Why do certain criminals--pedophiles, for example, and domestic abusers--continue to act out? It is quite often because they have not gotten over early traumas.
We have more power over our behavior than we do our feelings and it is often possible to choose the right behavior despite how we feel. I'm not so sure that applies in this instance, as 1)I don't know Jane Doe and 2)it is still quite recent. But if Jane Doe is struggling emotionally, it is not because she has given power to Carrillo. That's simply more blaming of the victim.
We must all come to terms with our own traumas. If they were severe, if we find we can't resolve or reduce their emotional impact, then many of us have options: To seek an effective type of therapy, for example.
Simply choosing "not to give power" to an incident or a person suggests suppression of an experience as an effective approach. It isn't. Sometimes a lot more than direct volition is needed.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Jbox; " much ado about not very much"? Move on? Really? That kind of thinking is exactly the problem. I suspect you are a male and who is not aware of subconscious disregard for women. This is the kind of social and religious programing that created this behavior and has brought so much irreverence in the first place. We can never move on until men AND women hold each other in sacred regard and respect.
That starts with waking up and speaking up every time it is in front of each of us and to teach our children and grandchildren such awareness. The trick is to not do it with self righteousness but with honest compassion for the person(s) being oblivious to their own behavior. Sometimes it does take going to court. Even though Efren got off again maybe he will start to evolve but as he refuses to step down, I suspect that he will continue on as usual.
Listen: Santa Rosa police release 911 recordings in Efren Carrillo arrest
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429466
I certainly hope this doesn't get swept under the rug like the last events...
I'm sure everyone will simply forget and in two years, he'll run unopposed until the last two weeks, then happily hold onto his position as supervisor. Anyone remember the Dutra asphalt plant, his vote, and mysterious appearance at a victory party after it passed? Anyone remember the quarry west of the 101, around Penngrove? Does anyone remember Preservation (of the 1%) "Destroy the Environment" Ranch? How about Paul "Ecoterrorist" Hobbs and his destroying whatever he wants wherever he wants without permits in search of more money?
All of these happened BEFORE he ran UNOPPOSED for re-election.
I believe his very first vote, first term, was in support of retail development in Knights Valley that was opposed by virtually all residents there.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
Apparently you forget. Although his silence regarding Preservation Ranch was highly suspicious, it turned out Efren was instrumental in brokering a deal to preserve it that was well received by environmentalists.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...638#post163638
There is a petition for Carrillo to resign currently circulating at change.org:
https://www.change.org/petitions/sup...ase-resign-now
Pass it on.
Uh, check with Ernie Carpenter, I think he and another candidate ran a fairly spirited campaign against Efren, only to lose rather badly. I continue to think most of the so called progressives around here oppose Efren on political grounds and therefore call for his lynching over this personal fuck-up and have very short memories of what really happens.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
Thanks to Barry for jogging Imagery's memory about Preservation Ranch. You really need to check yer facts, dude.
Please, keep singing your awesome song, the jury couldn't get him out, maybe your song will. In fact let's all sing the song about this sicko. He should have worn pants, and a bag over his head. Sounds good to me.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:
Forwarded this to my group, The Real Santa Rosa.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
yes, indeed. It's the -least- you can do.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
("calling out stupid useless online petitions, that's my jihad")
you could go further. Most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and certainly people's feelings aren't. You don't have the energy (in an engineering sense) for that to be true. We're on autopilot. You can train it, and override it, in most circumstances. But (sorry, I'm indulging in pop psych which I've been known to ridicule in others) a lot of the credit people give themselves for thinking through their actions is misplaced, and is nothing more than an attempt to feel in control of themselves.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:
We're all really good at after-the-fact rationalization when trying to explain our own actions. I've seen convincing arguments that the speed at which your brain reaches decisions is incompatible with the time it takes to apply rational processes - your body has fired off a reaction or feeling already and your brain checks it slightly later against a more thoughtful analysis, hoping you haven't already done something stupid!
Getting pretty OT, sorry.
I read in the PD that around 40 people showed up at the Wednesday demonstration.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
If it's true what you're saying that "most of people's behaviors don't seem to be acts of volition, and that we're on "autopilot", then it would seem that none of us can be held responsible for our actions. This would have to include all actions. Even Carillo's. Obviously, he was on autopilot, acting out of lustful feelings, which of all feelings is one of the strongest feelings human beings have. Is this truly what you mean to say? So, if we aren't acting out of volition, and are truly at the mercy of our feelings, than our actions are really more or less out of our control.
I can only relate to decisions that I've made in my life that involved accepting that my abusive parents were really doing the only thing they knew how to do. And rather than prolong the agony I experienced as a child, I consciously decided to forgive them, and let go. When I received a returned Mother's Day card that said "Moved, no forwarding address", I was deeply wounded. I carried that wound, and every Mother's Day I relived it. Until one Mother's Day when I was about 20, I spoke to myself, and said "You don't have to do this anymore. It serves no purpose, and makes you feel bad." From that day forward, I no longer had those feelings that I had engaged so well for so many years. I see people doing it all the time, women especially. They allow these feelings of not being wanted as a baby (how many of us were actually planned?) to become their over-riding theme, and it sabatoges their efforts at everything they try to do. The refrain is "I wasn't wanted...." (therefore no one will want me)
Self talk is a powerful tool, and it can be used to keep us stuck, or to free us. I, personally, believe in it, because it worked for me, and continues to. There are many other methods to heal from abuses and traumas, but sometimes nothing seems to work, and the trauma is recyled over and over again. It's sad that these cases appear to be hopeless. Then I see a man with no arms and no legs, and he's smiling. How can this be? Is this just an attempt to feel in control of himself?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
admittedly, it makes the idea of responsibility more complex. But your observation sounds like a formulation you hear from many religious believers: if you don't believe in god, then you might as well murder, rape, and pillage. Somehow I don't follow that logic either.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Of course, despite many people's hope or belief that ethics and morals are completely black and white, based on incontrovertible principles, we live in a world with a lot of ambiguity. I'm pretty convinced from all evidence and experience that indeed people are on autopilot, and that most people aren't cognizant of their own motives, and aren't able to make themselves act solely with forethought based on rational analysis. I can't imagine anyone who's actually met people can dispute that. It's just that we seem to assume it's only insignificant things that are instinctive, and we expect any serious action to be the product of a person's rational analysis and an expression of their true nature. Really, though? and who but the most fundamentalist really doesn't believe that a person is to some greater or lesser degree a product of their environment and upbringing? so the question of what "holding someone responsible" even means, is far more subtle than it might seem at first thought. (if thought's involved :wink:)
Maybe the pop psych should go to a new thread, with EC just one example of whatever.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Should there be a new thread for the Supes' actions next Tuesday?
Recalls are expensive and it's questionable whether or not enough people would endorse such an action. There are many groups that would like to see Efren Carrillo resign. So, Efren will be confronted on a daily basis with those individuals who might respect his position but not him. He's going to be in for a rough ride. I can't help but feel sorry for him.
I belong to a spiritual community on LinkedIn, and quite often involve myself in the discussions that ensue from various questions. The one I'm going to quote from is a response by someone to this question: "We are in stressful times. What do you do to calm yourself?....Do you think these are the End Times?" The response from someone I consider a very wise woman seems very relevant to the discussion here, so I thought I'd post it:
Marie Pokora
Owner, Mystic Marks: Bookmarks for the Soul
Feeling Peace
mysticmarks.blogspot.com
Our often unpredictable and mysterious subconscious drives 96% of our behavior. It is birthed from a myriad of experiences many of which have been troubling and painful and remain unreleased and unresolved.
And so we carry this enormous residue with us and, whenever it is triggered by an uncomfortable circumstance, our emotions are flooded with a download of the unhealed hurt we have been harboring in our bodies.
And it's WHAT we do with that download that is so very important.
IF we choose to do nothing with the download but endure the obstruction, we will catapult into the leaden state of depression...perhaps into anxiety and fear and, for sure, into the roadblock of numb and icebound inaction.
But what IS the antidote to being stuck in what feels like an overwhelming and sometimes paralyzing situation?
The antidote to this difficult situation is to consciously CHOOSE to go to a different place.
Consider what emotion you would LIKE to feel...and I mean feel all-of-the-time. What emotion would you choose to replace the fear or frustration or anxiety?
Let's say, for example, it's PEACE. You would like to feel PEACE ALL OF THE TIME.
So take a moment and consider what PEACE would look like to you.
Perhaps PEACE to you means a sojourn in a lovely meadow where you can inhale the fresh, dew-laden grass and hear God's woodland creatures in the forest nearby. Squirrels scampering everywhere, playing hide and seek among the leafy oaks. Gentle birds chirping in the branches overhead as they track the squirrels' frolicking about. Bouquets of lilacs blossoming brilliantly in great profusion from several nearby bushes, delicately scenting the air with their dulcet fragrance.
You are observing and listening to this pastoral scene from a grassy knoll with the sun shining boldly overhead while you sip a mimosa of pristine water and floating slices of succulent strawberries.
That's my take today...in this moment...of what peace would viscerally look like in my imagination. But what really counts is what would it look like in yours.
The place that you paint as peaceful...the description of THAT beautiful scene is what YOU need to bring fully into your consciousness so you can evoke it whenever the need arises.
And when would that moment be? It would be whenever an upsetting download appears from your subconscious.
But first, BEFORE you replace the default that is playing with a NEW setting...there is something that is very important to do. And that is to ACKNOWLEDGE the download (upsetting reaction) and THANK IT for showing up because that download represents your subconscious protecting you from fully feeling a flash of pain because you did not have the tools you needed to deal with the hurt at that time.
This thoughtful and conscious rewiring of your subconscious that you are about to undertake represents your readiness to release the issues you have been holding.
Now you have developed a SOUL VIEW of this truly loving process and you recognize the beauty of the protection you received during a time of great difficulty and are ready to input your new default setting of choice.
Your new "setting" in this scenario is a visualization of the concept of Peace.
You have greeted the subconscious "visitor" and thanked it for the protection it has provided and now you choose to place yourself right in the middle of your image of PEACE and you visit the beautiful place in your imagination that represents PEACE to you.[*]In so doing you are honoring your commitment to BE PEACE at ALL TIMES. This means you are choosing PEACE no matter what is going on. Regardless of what circumstances are occurring in your life and regardless of what you are feeling, you honor your commitment to choose PEACE.
When you freely and fully make a commitment to BE PEACE and to call up in your imagination whatever scene or choice of action would bring you the feeling of PEACE, you have set a course for yourself to flip the 96% of your subconscious out of anxiety and suffering into the Land of Peace (or whatever beautiful place you choose for yourself).
And when you are at peace and in peace, your body and emotions work in perfect harmony and serve you well and bring you joy.
YOU are now THE SOURCE...the conscious chooser of your thoughts, feelings and actions...and you have empowered yourself with the ability to live freely and fully the life you have chosen for yourself."
Her words remind me that we can only do this kind of inner work when we're "ready". I do realize that sometimes it takes a lifetime to become ready, and sometimes not ever. I apologize to anyone who has been offended by my words about conscious choice, and accept you wherever you are on your journey. I support you in your journey, whether led by
instinct, auto-pilot, or choice. It is, after all, your journey, whether painful or joyful, and it's not up to anyone to tell you what's "right". I've always said "The best way is your way".
And yes, we are all products of our environment and upbringing, but notice how differently that plays out, even with children raised in the same conditions. What causes this difference? I believe it has to do with whatever each child came in with, and of course, their choices. But, if you think you don't have a choice......it's true!
I know people who have told me that they don't want to have to choose, but would rather have someone else do that for them. One person at 18, even said that she wanted someone to "control" her. She ended up marrying a very controlling man, who gave her 3 children to keep her busy, and curtailed her friendships and kept her in the house. She got exactly what she asked for.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Once upon a time I viewed woman as Oasis and I a camel of the desert I was fated to as my existence. I could live long in that desert but there came a time that she was needed, no other solution.
It seemed to me a lovely thought to speak and a great recognition to them, the women, how important it was that they were, as water in that desert, but the difference between romantic thinking and reality was a long process in discovering.
In another day when people lived as tribe and there were so many more intimacies as just daily fair, not clothes off, just people who new you and you them and life was fuller, but then the desert grew and many became wanderers and lost in that desert.
Why is it so difficult to understand the desperation that men can come to just to be with a woman in the clinch.
Observing nature, just for instance, the Bowerbird, or all the other gymnastics required to gain the females acceptance leaves this little question of why something so demanding by biology requires someone else's permission to resolve?
How can you not forgive someone for going haywire?
I don't see lack of "forgiveness" as the problem. I believe the problem is lack of acceptance for "intrusion into one's private space" to satisfy one's desires. When we compare ourselves to animals, we're forgetting the most important thing that makes a difference.....rational thinking. However, I do realize that some or many people don't believe/think that we engage in "rational thinking", but instead act on "instinct" or "auto-pilot" most of the time. If this is true, as mentioned previously, can we be held liable/responsible for our actions? It seems that we are held liable, if we acknowledge the many laws that are broken, and the resulting punishments for those acts.
In this country, we are entitled to privacy, and if that's breached, we have recourse. We must accept the decisions made by judge or jury, or proceed to a higher court.
Whether we "forgive" or not is a personal thing, and most conscious beings know that lack of forgiveness means that we do ourselves harm. First on the mental level as in " I know that this person meant to harm me, and I will NEVER forgive him/her", then on the emotional level "I've been emotionally injured by this act, and am full of anger, and I will never be the same. I will NEVER forgive him/her", and ultimately on the physical level "I am depressed, sick, and now have a serious illness or disease that is robbing me of a joyful life, but I refuse to let go, and I will NEVER forgive him/her."
I am 4 months out of a roommate situation that lasted 10 months, and threatened to take away my sanity, my peace, and my physical well-being. It took two months for me to climb out of the pit of depression and despair, and get back on level ground. Forgiveness was the rope I used to pull myself up; it's a powerful tool to have in one's toolkit. I can't recommend it enough!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
Forgiveness is solely for the benefit of the injured party, as in "Resentment is like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to die."
It by no means absolves the transgressor of responsibility and accountability.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Right on!
Accept that something is bugging you, and avoid dwelling on it, by distracting yourself -- in this example,
by creating a pleasant place to go to, in your mind. The same effect can be achieved by reciting a mantra,
praying the rosary, or some other ritual distraction.
Wtf?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
He testified that he doesn't have your problem, Thad. He thinks every woman wants to make it with him.
The other sups don't want to work with him.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...cles/140429531
Personally, I feel badly for what these other supervisors have been put through by this "distraction" esp when there is all of this highly demanding, important stuff on the table. County was at a well-defined crossroads of self-definition/vision for the future before all of this personal nonsense surfaced. As hard-working elected officials, they care about other people, they work hard and they deserve better, whether or not I myself have always agreed with how they have handled stuff, or w/what they say or do. There has been competence and a well-intended, appropriately directed passion. How does the 5th district feel about being ostracized. Maybe you could have your own county.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by dominus:
good post; I wasn't intending to imply we were trapped by our instinctive reactions - but it may have sounded like that. People who might not share Marie's tactical approach still need to find a way to shape their behavior to match their own moral standards.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
One woman juror who was interviewed said it made sense to her that Carrillo would go looking for love from a neighbor he hardly knew, in his shorts and socks, at 3:-something in the morning. That raised an issue that I haven't seen addressed in the many comments at the PD:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
As Freud said, "What do women want?" And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?
I would only welcome someone I knew very well, in the wee hours of the morning, and have actually had this experience many years ago, in Hawaii. Although the second time he came to the door, he noticed a pair of men's shoes on the porch, so he went away quietly....knowing someone had beat him to it. Ahh...those were my wild days....long gone.
And as for the question of "What do women want?" Any itelligent, sensitive man knows that there are many thousands of answers to that question, depending on who you ask, and how they're feeling at the moment. Most men are much less complex, and seem to operate from different brain centers, "below the waist". I say "most", because there are exceptions.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Jeeze, Geoff, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I would never call Efren Carrillo "a handsome stud." IMO, he's not even attractive. He would not be welcome at my front door, let alone my bedroom window.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
I would say Chris Andrian was very careful in choosing the jury, and that the juror in question is either pretty stupid or living in a different dimension from most of the rest of us.
As for what women want, every woman is different, and Freud was foolish to pose the question. But I would venture that most females want to be free to choose what happens in their lives and to be respected, particularly by men.
excuse me, "What do women want?" is totally beside the point. Handsome stud or not, he trespassed on private property in the wee hours wearing inappropriate attire and committed offensive act of peeping. I believe that is against the law. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he were a dirty, smelly, skinny man of different socio-economic status?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
if he'd appeared at my window? (if I had a gun,) I might have exercised my legal right to defend myself by shooting him ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Too bad that would have gotten YOU in some trouble. Legally defending yourself in this state isn't like Florida, where you can go hunting him down and killing him. He might actually need to be inside your house to shoot.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:
I raised a new point, that may call for a new thread, if there is interest.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:
To the previous point, EC was not charged with trespassing; and the 10 women and two men found him "not guilty" of even "attempted" peeking.
"What do women want?" is precisely the point of this new direction/thread. It may well be that the ten women who found him "not guilty" have a very different view of male/female relations than do the women here, and the few women who commented at the PD.
As I wrote, the subject may be too hot to handle ...
Please, do not make the assumption that we all see EC as a handsome young stud. As has been noted by another poster, we do not. I met him before he was in office and before I knew his name and was later surprised when I kept reading references to his "handsome" attributes.
And, personally, I would not welcome anyone at my window at any time. If you know me really really well and we have an ongoing relationship of any kind, you are welcome at my door. But if it is at 3 a.m., you better have a good reason for being there.
[QUOTE=And if the subject isn't too hot to handle, What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?[/QUOTE]
If I had found men's shoes on your porch, I would have tried them on; and if they fit, and were of good quality, taken them.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
But seriously, these first replies say two things: "I certainly wouldn't welcome him"; and, "He's not good looking".
And that's not what I asked. See other replies below.
My question goes to the heart of the jury selection process. I didn't witness it, but Andrian said he preferred women jurors; and I imagine he preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
The last thing Carrillo needed was a jury of intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women, such as the few who left comments at the PD, and those here.
Answering your question as you originally pose it would imply agreement with its premise. Since I--and apparently several others--don't agree with that premise, I commented instead. But to get a little closer to an answer, I do not know one woman, not a single one, who welcome such a visit. I have friends of all ages, from pre-teens to 90s.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
True! Even if someone breaks into your house, you may still have to show that he/she was an imminent danger to you, and you feared for your own life. And then, there's the possibility of a wrongful death civil suit by the burglar's family.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Imagery:
My question was, "What percentage of women would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC at their window in the wee hours?"Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:
You replied that "I--and apparently several others--don't agree with that premise" -- the premise being that some women "would actually welcome a handsome stud like EC" -- and you personally "do not know one woman, not a single one, who welcome such a visit."
I think these first replies somewhat confirm what I was curious about: that the women I described as "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women, such as the few who left comments at the PD, and those here" don't know, understand, or empathize, with what may be the majority of American women.
As I wrote previously, that goes to the heart of the jury selection process in this case.
"The 10-woman jury helped Carrillo's case, Andrian said. Women jurors are more reflective while men are more judgmental, he said."
And:
"Barbara, 63, a west county resident who spoke on condition her last name not be used, ... said she didn't like Carrillo's behavior or his testimony but was persuaded he was innocent of peeking by evidence he was going to the woman's house to drink beer and 'see what would happen after that.'
'That just made sense to me,' she said. 'Why would he bring beers over?' "
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...0429469#page=0
There's an unspoken premise, as well, i.e., "a handsome stud like EC," that makes it impossible to answer your question without agreeing to this premise. That's the primary point I was trying to make. Setting that part aside, I still know of no women who would welcome such a visit, whether or not the visitor is perceived as handsome, which is a big SO WHAT? in this context.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Premises, premises ...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by oliviathunderkitty:
Feel free to disregard them.
I think he's a weird looking dude; but others have called him handsome, and he certainly thinks so.
No doubt he gets a little better looking in his own mind, with every drink he takes.
it's always interesting to shine a mirror... what do you want early in the morn? a built powerful political climber into your space? we write from our own perspective, consciously or not. i experience you as playing all sides, perhaps a bit of control and insider development is what you desire? just trying to figure out you ;)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
It may help to know that I've been studying Santa Rosa and Sonoma County politics, economics, and society since 1988, when a proposed project in my own neighborhood demanded my attention.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Personally, I take issue with the premise that none of the women on the jury were, " intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women".
Smacks of condescension because they don't agree with you. Perhaps age isn't the only variant in female diversity..
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Here's a link to the Board of Supes meeting today:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...meeting#page=2
I think EC's refusal to resign is simply further evidence of his narcissism, denial, and arrogance. In his mind it's still all about him, not about whether people want him as a representative or whether his fellow Supes want to work with him. It's his position as a Supe--money and power--that played a big part in his actions, and he doesn't want to let go of them. I don't see how he can change if he doesn't.
I'm also having difficulty comprehending his statement that there wouldn't be all this hue and cry now if he hadn't come clean on the witness stand, implying that nobody seemed to be particularly bothered by him before he did, and that now all of a sudden no one wants to work with him or have him in office when everything was fine before. His level of denial is breathtaking.
The other thing that really gets to me is that he is so typical of the general run of sleazebags we are seeing at all levels of government, regardless of party affiliation. Very disheartening. I imagine that's why there are so few good candidates anymore: any body with any integrity and maturity wants no part of it.
same here, thats when i moved from sf with small kids. i voted for ernie last time around, e-tard for that. do you think he needs to resign for the health of county politics? seems like only vested interests still enable creeper carrillo.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
yet they locked on the greater charge and acquitted on the lesser, something hinky with that jury... whats your explaination?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
In the modern United States (or at least in the more expensive areas of it, like here), there is no such thing as a lower middle class housewife. in the lower middle class, both parties of a marriage usually need to work. Also, class and intelligence are not the same thing, nor does houswifery reflect on intelligence or liberation.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
That was not my premise.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
I speculated that in selecting the jury, Andrian probably "preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives" over "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women"; and quoted the one juror who spoke to the PD.
I wrote that I didn't see the jury selection process; so I don't know whether any of the other nine women in fact were more enlightened.
I don't understand your second paragraph: Who doesn't agree with me? What does age have to do with it?
His Supe salary has to be a factor: Andrian doesn't work cheap.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Today's PD story quotes Carrillo as saying, “Ironically, it seems that my own testimony, my own honesty and candor, has largely provoked the recent firestorm that occasions this hearing today”.
He apparently can't admit that his apologia didn't convince the public; and that most of us think he was guilty of worse crimes, which the prosecution couldn't prove, and therefore didn't charge.
Another reason "why there are so few good candidates anymore" is that the fat-cats who recruit and finance them want officials who will stay bought -- not honest men and women of character
Absolutely.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
"Class" is relevant; I haven't written anything about "intelligence".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sierrarose2:
Let's try it this way: I have speculated that Andrian would prefer a jury of women like the one who spoke to the PD, whose social and cultural background led her to find that Carrillo's behavior -- as described in his own testimony -- was not unreasonable.
Another way to look at this, is in terms of a "jury of one's peers", speaking literally. For example, a Latino gangbanger would stand a better chance of acquittal by a jury of other gangbangers, than a jury of rednecks.
Andrian said he preferred women as jurors; and Carrillo needed women who would not be surprised and offended by his testimony. [Not to mention that there were no witnesses outside Jane Doe's apartment, therefore no charges could be proven.]
Actually, I was surprised to learn that the majority of jurors were women. In my thinking, women would empathize with Jane Doe. Obviously, that wasn't a factor in their decision to acquit him on the grounds of insufficient evidence, which is the way the system is set up. I was just curious as to the reason why the majority chosen were women. They must have given the desired responses to the attorneys.
The other surprise was that Jane Doe's 2 guests were not called to be witnesses. It must have been thought that it would be of no interest, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I didn't read any of the testimony, or watch the trial. I've got too many other priorities. I leave that up to the interested Wacco community to keep us all informed of who's who, and what's what....and maybe who's going to be judged next. Watch out, it could be you, or me~:wink2:
That's what my recent posts have been about, Shandi. I quoted Andrian's statement that he preferred women jurors.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Neither Jane Doe or her two guests, who were inside her apartment, witnessed Carrillo's actions outside; nor did the officers who responded to her 911 call.
An attorney once told me that since violence against women brings up a woman's vulnerability and fear, they are more likely to see the woman as having a cause in her own victimization, which makes them feel less vulnerable, and thus women jurors are statistically less likely to indict the alleged perp. Male jurors are more likely to view the woman as fragile and in need of protection and thus more likely to indict.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
This is highly relevant, not just pop psych; and it goes a little further than Andrian's similar statement.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Fillie:
No, actually, you stated very clearly that you believed that intelligent women would not have come to that conclusion, and that this had to do with the women being lower middle class housewives.
I agree that there may have been something wonky with the jury decision. Jury decisions are often kind-of strange. I also agree that it would have been in Carillo's best interest to have a jury of people who are not particularly strong critical thinkers, or are prone to making excuses for men's behavior, or are alcoholic partiers. What I do not agree with is your blanket assumption that lower middle class women are less intelligent than wealthier ones,and that housewives are less likely to make reliable jurors.
As for a jury of his peers, my experience with jury duty has been that unless you are a retiree or a teacher, with their generous jury duty benefits, you are unlikely to face one, particularly if your trial is expected to last more than a few days, and that the lower classes are strongly selected against due to the economic hardship of jury duty. The jury duty selection process pushes hard for higher economic groups. We need to pay jurors for their time, and stop subsidizing the process out of our education budgets, to fix this, but it is something of a tangent from this post.
I've been rather surprised by how common subtle, and not so subtle, misogyny is on waccobb, whether it comes in the form of remarks about nipple piercings and motherhood, stalking and craigslist posts, Carillo's motives, or jury selection.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Please review my recent posts. I have never written that I "believed that intelligent women would not have come to that conclusion, and that this had to do with the women being lower middle class housewives."Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sierrarose2:
I just replied to photolite,
"I speculated that in selecting the jury, Andrian probably 'preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives' over 'intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women'; and quoted the one juror who spoke to the PD.
I wrote that I didn't see the jury selection process; so I don't know whether any of the other nine women in fact were more enlightened."
I described the women who comment here, and a few who commented at the PD, as "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women". I have no idea how intelligent the ten women jurors are; and I haven't commented on their intelligence.
I don't believe that. Sure each attorney gets to throw some one out bu.,t it's based on a long questionaire to weed out bigots, probably people who have been raped, have a bias toward Latinos. I think the jurors are getting short schrift here. What I hear is those jurors don't know what they're doing but we are smarter and have it down. You know poor people have hearts too and minds and may come to a verdict by a diferent route. By the way, I thought the defendant has a right to face his acuser.in court. Did that happen? Hey, Magick, how did you sneak a camera into the courtroom?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
I have heard and read that there is a whole science and business now to jury selection. In fact, Dr. Phil of all people used to consult with attorneys about the optimal choice of jurors and observe trial runs (no pun intended) of court procedures to adjust legal approaches and advise on how best to win over jurors. That was in the days berfore he met Oprah. So, yes, jury selection is very much manipulated these days, especially for high profile cases.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
By the way, in case anyone doesn't know this -the onus is on the prosecutor to prove his case beyond a shadow of a doubt.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Gaaag!!!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Well, yeah. But what Carrillo is modeling now is how to be publicly humiliated WITHOUT acquiring any humility in the process. He has a long road ahead of him and many people want him to do it out of the public eye. That's where he needs to be because being in the public eye seems to feed his various neuroses/delusions of grandeur.
Some people just fail to make the distinction between compassion/forgiveness and accountability/responsibility. The real time for the former is AFTER the latter have been effected.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Perfect words ~ thank you
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
I commented on Fillie's message,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
"An attorney once told me that since violence against women brings up a woman's vulnerability and fear, they are more likely to see the woman as having a cause in her own victimization, which makes them feel less vulnerable, and thus women jurors are statistically less likely to indict the alleged perp. Male jurors are more likely to view the woman as fragile and in need of protection and thus more likely to indict."
Is that what you don't believe?
"What I hear is those jurors don't know what they're doing but we are smarter and have it down." Your paraphrase is pretty close to my original point. I find it curious that while most of the comments at the PD and here condemned the charges and subsequent verdict, a few here have defended the jurors and their judgment.
"may come to a verdict by a diferent route." That's one of the things I was looking for, but have only the one juror's statement.
The term is: Beyond a reasonable doubt.
From The Free Dictionary:
Reasonable Doubt A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.
Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.
The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.
"The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
Beautifully written...compassionate, understanding...looking deeply at the whole situation and the positive aspects that can be gained from falling from grace. May we all practice forgiveness and support each other in our humanness, our efforts to atone for the mistakes we've made. Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Hmm. how much paper does it take to admit we are all human beings and have the same human rights?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
A great deal, I'm afraid. People have been arguing for centuries over the definitions of "human beings" and "human rights".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
150 years ago, black Africans were considered subhuman in America, justifying enslaving them. That thinking still prevails in other parts of the world, among various racial, ethnic, and religious groups.
"Human rights" are a far more arguable concept. As a rule, people have only whatever rights their leaders allow them -- or that they can seize and hold.
Perhaps his refusal to resign is because so many people are asking him NOT TO RESIGN. He can overcome his problems and become a better person... if he chooses to, and I think that he has. Now, we shall see.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Carrillo has stated a couple of times that he was elected to represent the 5th District and that he would continue to do so until his constituents told him otherwise. I'm sure what he has in mind is waiting for 2 years until the next election, figuring things will have died down by then or he can move on to some other position. He knows a recall vote would be too expensive, and he has chosen to disregard all the calls from regular people to resign. But maybe all the people in his district who want him to go should flood him with emails demanding his resignation and cc his colleagues on the Board. I'm also wondering what happened to that online petition I signed that demanded his resignation. I'll have to look into that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
At the Supes' meeting, people wanting him to resign outnumbered his supporters 2 to 1. Not sure where you got the idea of "so many people asking him not to resign?" Also, the other Supes got a great deal of input from people wanting him out before that meeting.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
Yea, and then there was that HUGE demonstration... of only 40 people, some of whom were probably not even from his district.
If the average person in his district really wanted him to resign, there would have been Thousands at that demonstration.
I know that there are those who really really really want him to resign, but they must be a very small minority.
Since he was not convicted of any crime, there is nothing the other Supervisors can do anyway. They need to get busy and do their Jobs. They have wasted enough time, He's not leaving.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
The Supes have wasted hardly any of their time on Carrillo -- except for their public display of righteous wrath, followed by their hypocritical decision not to censure him formally. Perhaps you're thinking of his arrest and trial, as a result of his own bizarre behavior.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
An independent poll of registered voters in the 5th District might be the best way to determine his constituents' opinions re resignation -- and much cheaper than a recall election.
Meanwhile, many who have commented on the PD stories expect him to act out again; and his hubris ultimately to bring him down.
You don't think that relatively small turnout for the demo might have had something to do with the temperature in the 90s, the hour (people coming home from work, having dinner) and the fact that many people had already voiced their desire for him to resign and didn't feel motivated to attend?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
i haven't followed this thread but just stopped here to comment...
carillo's behaviour as a [human and] public figure was reprehensible...and he should resign on that alone...of course, not to mention that his city council colleagues are embarrassed and want him gone too...
thanks so much for the clarification of the legalese of our sonoma county judicial system...an often righteously flawed system, where the difference between what's right and what is wrong depends on the savvy, pit bull-dogged-ness and the abject cruelty of the slimebag attorney defending the slimebag defendant--as is the case of efren's very own star attorney, whose pride lies in getting rapists (korbel 2006), violent and sexual predators and wine brats (all, whose mummys and daddys have this guys's number on speedial) off for their various crimes...and if you are guilty as hell and/or need the best that money can buy in order to avoid jailtime or worse, this guy's record is stellar. if you can afford his services, he is your man...the guy who will publicly go the extra mile to humiliate, repeatedly violate and publicly destroy the victims that are attempting to get justice for the crimes committed against them.
this entire efren fiasco sickens me...i am tired of Sonoma County Justice depending on the local politics of this little world of this county that we live in...where justice depends on who can pay to top dollar to get off and who the Untouchables around us are....aside from that, i have no opinion, barry....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:
I just want to interject something about defense attorneys. A few times recently in the national news there has been a backlash against lawyers who defend those we deem to be undesireables. While there are some pretty awful people out there who are lawyers, defending someone who is charged with a crime is a good thing. Like it or not its a positive feature of our system of justice that people who are charged with crimes are supposed to be able to get good representation, so they aren't standing in front of a judge and jury alone. While it might be nice to bash those who defend, it hurts our justice system, such as it is, in many ways. We NEED people who can defend. As painting those who defend as being as bad or worse than those they defend is really not appropriate. We need lawyers who will defend those changed with crimes. Especially if you happen to be one of those who are charged with a crime you didn't do. Too often public defenders have very little funding. Just my two cents...:2cents: JessicaQuote:
Posted in reply to the post by lindasw:
Where can we go to avoid all this? Anyone have suggestions about where honest politicians rule? It seeems to filter down from the top government officials, who get away with very serious criminal offenses, on a regular basis.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by lindasw:
There are a lot of honest politicians - it's the dishonest ones who get the attention, as well it should be. At that point, it is up to us to rattle the cage - call them on their sh*t and do whatever it takes to get them the hell out. Corruption - of any sort - not only breeds corruption within a system, but breeds complacency among the constituency. The corruption becomes the norm in the eyes of the people. Bribes and back door dirty deals are expected. Sexual harassment is part of the game. Breaking into a woman's apartment in your socks and underwear at 3 am becomes a boyish folly...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Al Franken is the first one who comes to mind............
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
How about Elizabeth Warren?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:
In the past: JFK, FDR; it seems that the most honest pols were those who already had their own money, so they didn't need to hustle for more.....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn: