Save Tookie Williams from the Slobbering Austrian

Navigation

User login

Online users

Arts From The Heart
The Fire Inside

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

bobschwenkler
talltrees
Toni Holm
wehrland
reggie.ventura

Save Tookie Williams from the Slobbering Austrian

Submitted by jackson on Sat, 11/26/2005 - 10:47pm.

On December 13, that slobbering Austrian arm of the neocon cabal, Arnie Schwarzenwhatever will be killing or sparing the life of Tookie Williams. Williams cofounded the Crips in 1971 and has served time since 1981. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize four times for his literary contributions to ending gang violence. His contributions come in the form of various books, public advocacy of gang cease-fires, and a movie. "Redemption" is a Hollywood movie starring Jamie Fox that tells Tookie's story. His contributions to society are not limitted to the above, and can be researched at the forthcoming website link. The other issue is that of the trial he was given. There is much evidence of an extremely racist and circumstantial proceeding. The prosecutor, for instance, removed the only two black jurors, has been censured by the supremem court of california for racist conduct in the courtroom, has had various convictions overturned by appeals courts on the same basis, and argued for Tookies conviction using testimony of gangsters who recieved commuted or shortened sentences in exchange. Tookie could have recieved a more lenient treatment by the court, had he written a confession of his crimes. He did not. He has maintained his innocence to this day, and even the 9th circuit appeals court has made the overt suggestion that Arnie exercise his ill-begotten powers of clemency. Please check it out and pass it on. There is a petition to sign, too. www.savetookie.org

jackson's blog
Login or register to post comments

Stan "Tookie" Williams has on

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 11/26/2005 - 11:37pm.

Stan "Tookie" Williams has only professed innocence to three of the four murders.

From Los Angeles' NBC4:

"Williams, 51, faces death by lethal injection on Dec. 13 for the 1979 slayings of four people -- a Whittier convenience store clerk and three people at a Pico Rivera motel a few days later. He maintains his innocence and has asked the California Supreme Court to reopen his case, alleging shoddy forensics wrongly connected him to three of the murders."

On the pro-"Tookie" side there is this from The Seattle Times:

"'No one is disputing there [are] four tragic deaths there. It is very, very sad ... There is enormous sympathy here,' said Verna Wefald, one of Williams' attorneys. But, she said, 'the evidence against Mr. Williams is essentially weak and was coming from witnesses with sordid backgrounds who have incentive to lie to save themselves.'"

Unfortunately, when it comes to dealing with cases involving a whole lot of shady people, there are going to be a lot of people testifying to save themselves.

The Supreme Court, at least according to NPR, hasn't ruled on the case. From what I could find it looked like the 9th Circuit upheld the conviction. After 24 years and I'm sure many appeals, it's time for the justice system to work.

I am a firm proponent of capital punishment. Do I think we've executed innocent people? Yes, I do. I would be willing to bet, however, that the overwhelming majority of those executed were guilty. It's a far-cry from a perfect system but perfection is impossible.

The only alternative I would consider is if we opened up a hard labor camp in Alaska and made it living hell for those convicted.

Pretty sick. I guess it make

Submitted by jackson on Sun, 11/27/2005 - 2:31am.

Pretty sick. I guess it makes sense to unleash terror in the middle east as a punishment for terror, too. Hey, if we gotta kill a few innocent citizens to uphold the wonderful death penalty, so be it, right? Man, I hope you gain an appreciation for life sometime prior to the end of your own.

The system, whether it's upho

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 11/27/2005 - 2:46am.

The system, whether it's upholding overall justice or executing warfare in order to preserve/further the Union, is bigger than any one person.

And based upon a document tha

Submitted by jackson on Sun, 11/27/2005 - 12:05pm.

And based upon a document that gives this 'union' the ability to evolve or, as in the present, devolve. Neither the system nor the union is autonomous, possessed of cognitive powers, or its own morality. That it is bigger than one person is simply a necessary evil, not a quality of exaltation. We have the technology and the experience in this society to create the closest thing imaginable to true world peace. That it hasn't been accomplished already is the will of the few who will only hold power in an iniquitous system. And the only way they are able to maintain this control, is by the complacency of people who view the system as a somewhat dented and rusty old Chevy that looks and sounds terrible but never breaks down by the grace of God. Sure, the system is bigger than any one person, but so is a steam roller. One ought never marvel at that which it is his/her duty to control. Reverence makes me want to barf. Those of a reverent ethos are usually guilty of neglecting more than their civic duty to question and evolve the maleable 'system'. And, usually, the basis for all further neglect is their neochristonian religion. You can see them late at night on television, nodding in unison as some diamond ring wearing wordsmith tells them what to think. Most of these people have found a deliverence -the deliverence of the lazy minded- to a state wherein they feel it is abhorrent to personally interperate the scriptures upon which their demigods preach, as though interpretation is somehow off-limits to the common soul. It is in this state of lazy reverence that pigs like Pat Robertson are able to call, in the name of God, for the execution of Chavez, for the wrath to be aimed at communities teaching science instead of myth, and to make the case for war. As one who has read the scriptures, various printings and various times, I cannot fathom how these ideals could manifest from therein. But, of course, I do not hold any 'reverence' for a system of demigods simply because it is greater than any one person.

Hey, nice rant!

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 11/27/2005 - 3:03pm.

Hey, nice rant!

Jackson: We have the technolo

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 2:53pm.

Jackson: We have the technology and experience in this society to create the closest thing imaginable to true world peace.

The Fire: Could you elaborate on this point a little? I'd like to hear specifics on how "true world peace" is obtainable.

Jackson: And, usually, the basis for all further neglect is their enochristonian religion.

The Fire: We're really making a lot of broad assumptions, aren't we? You're assuming that, because one belives this is the best system, one is "nodding in unison" with the preacher or content with the system out of "lazy reverence."

Jackson: teaching science instead of myth

The Fire: We're going to end up covering a lot of ground but, why is it that intelligent design is so closely associated with the Christian religion and, in your definition, a "myth?" Beside the fact that nobody REALLY knows how this whole thing got started, many great minds (outside of Christianity in particular and organized religion in general) have believed there to be a higher power of SOME sort. Why is that such a far-fetched concept? To me it doesn't seem like myth, it seems like a plausible possibility.

Here's Richard Dawkins with t

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 3:59pm.

Here's Richard Dawkins with the answer to what's wrong with ID:

The scientific principle that I wish everyone understood is Darwinian natural selection, and its enormous explanatory power, as the only known explanation of 'design'.

The world is divided into things that look designed, like birds and airliners; and things that do not look designed, like rocks and mountains. Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed, like submarines and tin openers; and those that are not really designed, like sharks and hedgehogs. The diagnostic feature of things that look designed is that they are statistically improbable in the functional direction. They do something useful - for instance, they fly. Darwinian natural selection, although it involves no true design at all, can produce an uncanny simulacrum of true design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant.

Not only can natural selection mimic design; it is the only known natural process that can mimic design. And now, here is the most difficult thing that I wish people understood. True design can never be an ultimate explanation for anything, because the designer himself is left unexplained. Designers are statistically improbable things, and trying to explain them as made by prior designers is ultimately futile, because it leads to an infinite regress.

Natural selection escapes the infinite regress, because it starts simple, and works up gradually - step by step - to statistical improbability, and the illusion of design. Engineers and other designers are ultimately made, like all living things, by natural selection.

So distant are many people from understanding this, they seriously believe that the existence of functional improbability is evidence in favour of intelligent design - the greater the improbability, the stronger the evidence. Truly, the precise opposite is the case. I wish that more people understood this.

He's basing this on statistic

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 6:13pm.

He's basing this on statistical probability, which is fine. How can I argue with that?

Like I said, nobody REALLY knows what the deal is. We could all argue 'til we're blue in the face about where we came from but nobody is going to be able to prove it, especially on a blog.

I don't even try to explain, actually. I know what I believe and go with it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We will all meet our demise one day and, only then, are we going to find out what happens.

Dear Torment Inside, I will a

Submitted by jackson on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 5:24pm.

Dear Torment Inside, I will attempt to answer your questions in order. I believe your first question pertains to my assertion that we have the means by which to create the "closest thing ever imaginable to world peace." You seem to want to know, 'how is this so?' First, to keep this whole mess in context, the world peace assertion was a juxtaposition to -and foil for- a system wherein a nobel peace prize nominee can be executed. Think of world peace, then think of two wrongs making a right. That's the contrast I was looking for. World Peace, or as I put it, 'the closest thing imaginable', can be achieved through the correct distribution of the world's abundant resources. As an American, and one who belives in extracting the plank from my own societal eye prior to washing the sawdust from the eyes of others, it seems necessary to first surmount the even easier task of American peace. As a young man recently plunged into political consciousness by the necessity of seeing his beloved country on her knees, I cannot dissertate the intricacies of achieving such a utopian vision. I can only say that human kind, evolutionary in nature (thank God!), strives to better its condition. We are living in the present. All technological and philosphical evolution has lead to this point in time. Were the world's (and more importantly, America's)resources distributed on the basis of need, (a sort of reversion to embryonic capitalism -tempered, of course, the second time around by socialistic tweakings), there would be plenty for all, and no need for suffering. That is as close to world peace as I can imagine, and as far from the agenda of the capitalism by-products who run this country now. Further, it would be a place in which lifted socioeconomic pressure could preclude multi-billion dollar corporate and state run prisons, by undercutting the culture of stealing and murdering that invariably arises in an uneven distribution of resources. Then, there would be so much prison space that those who "the system", in its REALLY BIG benevolence, chooses to kill as punishment, could be locked away until god (or the 'great what-tha-fuck' as I call it) desides to do so. From there, you segued the head-nodding reverence question into an Intelligent Design thing. I'll start with -hey look, cut and paste works on this thing!: You:You're assuming that, because one belives this is the best system, one is "nodding in unison" with the preacher or content with the system out of "lazy reverence." Well, I was saying that the anti-utopian tendencies this country is exhibiting, and which prevent the abolition of capital punishment, are the result of the complacency of the masses in the face of tyranny. You are one such person. You are a reverent head-nodder, becaue you "believe(there's that wonderful word again!) this is the best system." It seems everyone just wants to find something and believe it. Unfortunately, as one of the few societies on Earth where the power to improve lies (erstwhile?)in the hands of its citizens, we haven't the luxury of 'believing' we are the best. We have, instead, the urgency of keeping our society on a course toward true benevolence, toward the hope that, when the sun finally swallows the solar system, we will then -at that last moment- trully BE the best. In math, a graph that always approaches, but never touches an axis, is called, an asymptote. The best goals in life, for an individual and for a society, are asymptotical. With respect to the ID, discussion, a tangent from this thread, I will only say that science class is first period, english class is second period, and theology is third period. I don't see any scientists trying to infiltrate anyone else's classroom!

See, you're losing me here.

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 6:10pm.

See, you're losing me here. You are hardly the first to proclaim that peace is within grasp and that if we all only gave up for the Greater Good, poverty would be eliminated, hate would disappear, and everyone would have able to live in peace and harmony.

I imagine the world would end up looking like Cuba, home to some of the best medicine in the world (and I'm not being sarcastic). Sure, everyone would be taken care of by the State, children on the street are nowhere to be found (since they are the responsibility of the State), and everyone is on pretty equal footing.

Of course, that equal footing is garbage. Outside of the very bottom, which does benefit from redistribution, everyone else is expected to suffer. At least in the capitalist the middle and upper classes can thrive and there is mobility between the classes. Yes, even the bottom class can move up through hardwork/a little luck. By the same token, the upper and middle classes can easily find themselves at the bottom. This is the beauty of the system.

Been reading the paper lately? The consumer has confidence and the consumer is spending. Think the Average Joe, putting in overtime at the mill, watching his recently purchased 52" HD-Plasma TV, is going to want to give that up? Not a chance. And he shouldn't, either.

This grand Utopia, a project tried by many but met with extremely limited success, offers none of this.

I believe I characterised the

Submitted by jackson on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 6:52pm.

I believe I characterised the utopian vision as analagous to that of the mathematical asymptote. Therein lies the need to strive for a utopia. We know what capitalsm can do, the good and bad tendencies. We have examples of communism and socialism to study as well. It seems to me that 'isms' are a terrible thing, but evilly-necessary insofar as they lock-in a memory of a social experiment from which we wish to remember the data collected. Personally, I wish no word in any language had an ism ending. (There I go utopian again!) But I suspect the social isms arose when most of the informed world looked at the most hardline, homogenized, 'summarizeable' part of the world, and stamped an ism on it. I think the asymptote I call world peace exists on its own right without any possibility of destruction. I think each time one society gets farther from that asymptote than the majority of others, isms get ascribed. Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Jacksonism (the night I got arrested naked, except for an empty fifth of tequila and an eagle feather). These assignations of isms serve to warn our progeny not to make the same mistakes we made or witnessed. The trouble is, these labels weather with age. Society begins to percieve them through an opaque lense, as scarry, fuzzy, monster images. A forthright person confronts his/her demons, and society must confront the demons that lurk behind the opacity of time. That world you speak of -the whole end of the USSR experiment- is just one such demon we must confront. When we do, we will see it in its true light -a failed experiment. Then we will be able to extract the good parts and assimilate them as comlementary to our own already existing 'good parts'. This has been a bazillion word way of saying, don't be afraid of the isms. We're Fuckin Americans!!!!!

if we all only gave up for t

Submitted by jackson on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 7:01pm.

if we all only gave up for the Greater Good, poverty would be eliminated -Fire Inside. Sorry, I'm bored at the computer again. I just wanted to address this part of your post. What you said here is the asymptote. It is the holy grail. Striving for this goal means NOT giving tax breaks to the rich, NOT offering corporate wellfare, NOT oppressing other nations, NOT allowing private armies to run amok in territories under our occupation, besmirching our name while earning five times what our troops earn. Givin these times, a utopian vision is far from radical. When life improves -when the other nations no longer see us so far astray from the asymptote- the utopian vision becomes less necessary. Could John Lennon have been the one we all know, had he not lived when he did? I wonder what ism the American experiment will leave for posterity!

Jackson: NOT giving tax break

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 7:15pm.

Jackson: NOT giving tax breaks to the rich

The Fire: It's definition time. Who are "the rich?" Why aren't "the rich" entitled to the same tax break someone else would receive?

I'm not looking to give a benefit to one person over the next. I do believe, however, that is a benefit is going to be given (in this case, a tax break), you shouldn't be punished simply because you made some wealth in your lifetime.

Jackson: NOT offering corporate wellfare

The Fire: We agree on this front, though you would hate to know I also oppose welfare given to the individual.

Jackson: NOT oppressing other nations

The Fire: Again, I agree with you here (to an extent). If we adopted an isolationalist policy this would be largely averted, at least any overt oppression. I don't think the U.S., not in a long time, has set out to intentionally "oppress" any people. Because of various policies, however, this has been the consequence of some decison-making.

Jackson: while earning five times what our troops earn

The Fire: Judging by your commentary, you wouldn't want the military to be a financially viable option. The current model of the U.S. military is intended to support the soldier for a brief period of time, which is why the vast majority of people only enlist for a 3-4 year stint. I think this model, one which is by and large absent of the professional, career solider, has kept the U.S. in good shape as far as having to fear the military. If everyone in the military were to be there for extended periods of time in which the government were to offer financial packages comparable to or even exceeding institutions outside of the military, who do you think they are going to be loyal to? They certainly wouldn't want to see any adjustment in their way of life, that much is certain.

Jackson: a utopian visiion is far from radical

The Fire: I don't necessarily think it's radical, it's just not viable.

I got a feeling this thread i

Submitted by jackson on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 7:28pm.

I got a feeling this thread is going to be the longest in history. But first, I gotta go eat. Touche...I shall return.

Man, we are apples and tennis

Submitted by jackson on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 8:21pm.

Man, we are apples and tennis rackets. A tax break is 'relief'. He who doesn't believe that relief for the rich is exactly the same as an encumberance on the poor, will never empathize with me. Its the same with paramilitaries doing exactly what the troops are doing, only without a code of conduct or the jurisdiction of the Geneva conventions, making hundreds of thousands a year. I'm not arguing for a raise of military salary (yet. The pizza dude who brought us our dinner yesterday was a full-time soldier!). I'm arguing AGAINST the validation of transworld corporate, profit making mercenary squads, in the name of remaining somewhat in check with a utopian vision. Now, that is like trying to climb back into the hot air balloon up the piece of whicker dangling from the basket, but its the only thing I can do. We are all brothers and sisters whether we like it or not, and believe me, I would prefer it was not that way.

I simply don't think it's fai

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 6:22pm.

I simply don't think it's fair to punish people simply because they have attained wealth.

Here's a snippet from an AP article on "Tookie" Williams:

"The California Supreme Court, federal trial and appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court have already ruled against him in earlier appeals."

So is this just a mass conspiracy?

Go to the website. Read the

Submitted by jackson on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 10:20pm.

Go to the website. Read the court documents, the actual court documents. Go back to your clip. This exercise will reveal to you the entire fallacy with 'beleiving' in the news media. This exercise, like the bible, can be your friend in times of confusion.

I assume you're talking about

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 12/01/2005 - 8:50am.

I assume you're talking about Judge Rawlinson's dissenting opinion.

Now, I was basically skimmed through the opinion but nowhere did I see evidence that "Tookie" didn't do it or that evidence had been mishandled.

Instead, I saw an opinion which stated he should have been awarded a new trail based on alleged racial discrimination of the jury pool, since the only three blacks eligible were pre-empted.

Like I said, he might not be guilty. If he's not we're executing an innocent man and for that I apologize. I do not apologize, however, for the mechanisms in our justice system sentencing him to death.

After twenty-five years and numerous advances in forensic studies I have a difficult time believing those in Mr. Williams' corner couldn't come up with concrete evidence overturning the decision. It is time for justice to take place, whether it is being correctly or incorrectly applied.

The link to institutional misconduct in "Tookie's original trial" is broken. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but how many trials has Tookie had? If the word "original" is being used, wouldn't this be an indication that there have subsequently been at least one other trial? Or did Tookie only have one trial?

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: