Laura Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again
The next time Michelle Obama tries to play the victim card and the Obamedia sheds tears over the supposed abuse of Democrat wives, hand them a copy of the Laura Bush-bashing novel, American Wife.
Pure, unadulterated hatred masquerading as literature.
SF’s resident Laura Bush-hater Mark Morford and the nutroots give it two thumbs up, I’m sure.
So does Maureen Dowd.
Posted in: Politics
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- What’s Next for the Left? How About A Degrading Porn, Manslaughter, and Abortion Book About A Fictional Character A Lot Like Laura Bush? | The Sundries Shack
- Michelle Malkin » Grow a pair, Obama
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Politics
Stop The ACLU
» Even The Washington Post Snears At Barry School Choice
Right Wing Nut House
» WILL NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE KILL CONSERVATISM?Redstate
» Obama: Billions for Pork Barrel EarmarksPajamas Media
» Must Conservatives Rally Round the Messiah?Marginal Revolution
» What are the lessons from the New Deal?Power Line
» Close Guantanamo Bay?protein wisdom
» Anxiety of Influence?
I just read Maureen Dowd’s article…
What a mean, hateful person she is. Shame, shame on her.
The thing about BDS — in either its original version or its Laura Bush variant — is that we can look forward to it continuing for at least another four years.
If McCain wins the election, he’ll be “the third term.”
And if Hopenchange wins, then every blunder, every catastrophe of his administration will be attributed to “the legacy of the Bush Administration.”
Just remember, though, that when they attack Laura Bush it’s “Free Speech,” and when anybody holds Michelle Obama accountable for her statements that’s “Hate Speech.”
Disgusting. Can you imagine what would happen if a similarly disgusting book was written about Michelle O?
One wonders how Maureen would feel about a novel fictionalizing Michelle Obama’s life…
oh, no, “wonders” is the opposite…
we know how she would feel… not good..
I call Dowd “drunk girl”. Saw her on some tribute program for Brokaw when he retired, and she was hammered.
She was probably cute once, before all that drinking got to her.
Why the preoccupation on the wife of a President who has six months left in office?
Laura Bush is the most elegant and nicest first Lady in my memory. This book is pure trash!
L
OT
Iran missile tests: Obama cites as proof we need to appease, McCain cites as proof of needing missile defense.
Now, imagine if someone wrote a book about Michelle Obama with such vitriol (not to mention the explicit sexual descriptions). They’d probably be thrown in jail.
Dowd is a miserable feminist. Par for the course, in my opinion. I have yet to meet a feminist that isn’t miserable, angry, and hateful.
Shame on all of them.
Dick Durbin to condemn this book in 3.. 2.. Never.
How is someone the ” subject of fiction “…..? That could only mean lying about someone, in my opinion.
Oh Michelle, you’re just being mean spirited. I think you need a dose of Dystopian Soma pills.
An “Iowa-trained author” — whatever that means…and a woman named “Curtis”.
Hmmm…
The left is trying to make another Bush out of McCain so that they can continue to feed their BDS. BDS is like a narcotic to them.
excerpt from “I’m Dreaming of a Whitey Christmas:the Michelle Obama Story”
My date with Biff was my first ever with a white man, and when I entered the all men’s Eating Club at Princeton for the annual White Christmas party (appropriately named!) I felt as though all their prying eyes were on my ebony skin.
“Get your hands off me Honkey!” I heard myself shouting the words just before I realized that it was just Biff’s fraternity brother Chaz, who was merely offering to help me remove my coat…
“Sorry,” I muttered, knowing that this group of future powerbrokers would have ceratinly noted my breach of white “etiquette.” To myself i thought, however, “Bastard was trying to cop a feel.”
It wasn’t easy being a Black girl at Prionceton, but I’d be damned if I wasn’t going to make ther best of it.
So I graced the boys with the most dazzling smile I could muster. “Oh, are those crab cakes?” I asked, “Why yes I’d love one — do you have Grey Poupon by any chance?”
The leftists have to resort to fiction when writing about the first lady.
On the other hand, if someone were to write a novel about Michelle Obama, they’d have all the scandalous material required provided by the tasteless subject herself.
It sure seems that way. Its a strange mental disorder that is their irrational hatred of their political opponent mixed with a huge dose of hypocrisy. Once they get a little into their system, they need to keep feeding it.
Sorry you wasted your time.
This book was written for only one purpose - to destroy another human being.
It is an attack of the worst kind, a cowardly hit piece that masquerades as a work of what-if “fiction”. The author could find no skeletons in Mrs. Bush’s closet with which to smear her, so she creates an alternate universe where the line between fact and fiction becomes indistinguishible.
As for Maureen Dowd, her ship sailed long ago. Her self imposed exile from anything feminine has rendered her a bitter and lonely old maid. And her bitterness comes through very clearly in her work.
They can try all they like, but feminists will never rid me of my femininity. I see Mrs. Laura Bush is so hated because she stays feminine. Stay gold ladies!!
Or they could just ignore this for the POS book and author that they are.
I’m sure that Keith Olbermann is going to devote his entire show to licking this book cover to cover in delight. I really am tired of these demented pitiful (barely)human beings.
Having read some of the excerpts in the links, I have to say that this book is trash. But I also have to say that I never knew our First Lady committed vehicular manslaughter as a teen.
Huh.
I agree with taylork…
I don’t feel the need to make myself do any projectile vomitting right now.
That information was public years ago. She has never hidden it. In fact, whenever she was asked, it would pain her to think about it — even to this day. Pure class, even in a difficult circumstance. Just like her mother-in-law.
Laura Bush, formerly Laura Welch, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 1963 where a 17 year old boy’s life was lost, when she ran a stop sign at a two-way stop. But, she was never charged found guilty of “vehicular manslaughter”, because she was never charged with such.
It’s a matter of the author (let’s use that term loosely, okay?) of this book taking a tragedy and spinning it for their own enjoyment and benefit to sell books to a rabid crowd of consumers. Nothing more.
Exactly, AC.
Laura Bush does not attempt to inject herself into politics. She attempts to be a public servant in her capacity as First Lady, unlike some before her and other aspiring to come after her. She doesn’t strike me as someone that likes the limelight all that much and would jsut as soon be back on the ranch in Crawford, TX.
Good lord, 45 years later and some people want to make her pay. I am sure The LADY Bush beat herself up enough. Oh, crap, we are talking about liberals who embrace the WRONG rev wright and want to bash a great American.
NEVERMIND
ACH and Barry,
1. Never said she tried to hide it, just that I had never heard about the incident.
2. I made no comment on the taste or distaste of using this incident in the book.
3.
…is one way of saying it. Another would be that she illegally sped through a stop sign, striking another car and killing the driver. And for some reason was never charged with a crime. I have no doubt that she suffers greatly to this day for that incident, but that does not absolve the act.
Who is trying to cover this up? or absolve the act?
Sure. And anther way to say it is:
She was mad at him for dumping her and she hunted his arse down and killed him and was never charged with murder.
What is your point? It was an accident and she was young. It happens all of the time and - I would venture a guess - it happened more back then as the laws were a bit more relaxed back then. People understood what an accident was.
Can’t criticize Mrs. Obama for her wacky statements but you can do a hit job on the First Lady. These so-called enlightened, tolerant, peaceful people are indecent and evil.
Despicable rodents, all of them.
How I wish I could write, I would do a book on M Obama, B. Hussein, and the drunken communistic media in bed with those two marxists.
I guarantee there is so much more trash, real life trash, in the obamas short lives than all of Lauras and our current president, “W” Bush.
Damn this makes me mad.
So who’s up for a bit of creative fiction writing? Not just on Mizz Obama, but on Mizz Dowd as well. A “well-researched book that imagines what lies behind that placid facade of the” drunken, bitter NY Times hack. Wonder how Mizz Dowd would view seeing herself portrayed as a self-destructive alcoholic who, in a delusional effort to connect with lost femininity, lives a double life of well known newspaper wretch during the day, but low class streetwalker at night? With a budding crack addiction. And a nasty ven… er, need for large doses of penicillin.
Think she would see it the same way? After all, as Mizz Dowd said herself, “It would be interesting to hear how that lover of fiction feels about being the subject of fiction.”
The obvious retort to that is so obvious I won’t waste my time explaining it.
Soap, it was an accident apparently directly attributable to her illegal activity. Not like she slipped on an ice patch and was sent careening into the car.
Hey I get accidents happen, people make bad decisions and that it was a long time ago. However, I find it peculiar the sympathy and benefit of the doubt that she is getting whereas every thread regarding a certain other well known figure in American politics who was “involved” in a motor vehicle accident where someone died is given neither. Not saying the two are exactly the same, and I am sure now that there will be a long list of posts distinguishing the two situations. But they are similar enough.
Well, this would make her 1) totally bada$$ and 2) the plot of a good B-movie.
EQ….
I get that she was never found guilty of vehicular manslaughter, if that is what you were getting at. Doesn’t mean she didn’t commit it.
WOW - just WOW!
Swimmer tried to cover it up and his victim was IN his car. His firat call was to his lawyer.
She made a mistake and ran a stop sign.
I see your point.
Again, … who … is making the claim that she didn’t commit it?
Michelle Obama is just a more demure version of Cynthia McKinney.
Really… how do they differ in their political beliefs other than in their styles of presentation?
Fat Teddy, the DWI Killer, was drunk off his ass when he wrecked. He then escaped from the car, walked home, slept off his drunk, then called his lawyer before calling the cops.
Miss Kopechne may have lived for over an hour in an air pocket.
To compare running a stop sign on a country road to a drunk driving accident, with failure to render aid or report the accident, just shows you’re a worthless moral equivocating POS.
How sweet of you. Thanks.
I concede that Teddy K.’s situation was more egregious, for a number of reasons, so maybe a poor comparison.
But she DID kill someone through her illegal actions. Let’s not forget that or the victim, whose young life was ended because Laura wanted to get to a party quickly.
For the LAST TIME, who is saying that she did not?
And because of this tragedy, do you think that this book is an appropriate response? Does she deserve this?
Chap,
Not to worry, it is people like you who will NEVER let her forget.
On July 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm, chapoutier said:
ACH and Barry,
3.
…is one way of saying it. Another would be that she illegally sped through a stop sign, striking another car and killing the driver. And for some reason was never charged with a crime. I have no doubt that she suffers greatly to this day for that incident, but that does not absolve the act.
Actually, that is the only legitimate way to say it, chap. She was not charged, so “vehicular manslaughter” was an out-and-out lie.
If you read the link I posted, it states that there was no indication in the police report that Laura Welch Bush was speeding. Implying that is simply an embellishment on one’s part. And, yes, she “never was charged,” “for some reason.”
How “well-researched” is this book if the author has to “imagine” who she’s writing about?? Sounds EXACTLY like gossip and smears to me!!
chapoutier #27 said:
What do you mean “for some reason”?? Obviously, the officials knew that she was going to marry GWB and, 37 years after that tragic night, would end up being the First Lady. Pressing charges may have jeopardized GWB’s campaign!!
It’s part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, don’t you know?!?
Let’s try this again. My block quotes weren’t cooperating…
On July 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm, chapoutier said:
Actually, that is the only legitimate way to say it, chap. She was not charged, so “vehicular manslaughter” was an out-and-out lie.
If you read the link I posted, it states that there was no indication in the police report that Laura Welch Bush was speeding. Implying that is simply an embellishment on one’s part. And, yes, she “never was charged,” “for some reason.”
Just because someone isn’t charged or convicted of a crime does not mean they did not commit it, does it? I am sure you would say that OJ is not a murderer because he got off, would you?
Sped, was perhaps a poor choice of words to indicate that she did not stop at the stop sign (illegal, in case you did not know). Did not mean to imply that she was not obeying the posted speed limit at the time (though assuming one should have to eventually reach 0 mph at a stop sign, not such a stretch to say she was speeding).
I no longer subscribe to my local paper–because–it still promotes people like Dowd>>>
+++ I can get my news faster via the internet!
So glad I “discovered” it last Aug. 07
They, at least, had enough to charge him, genius, even if a slick lawyer was able to get him off.
“Sped” and “did not stop at the stop sign” aren’t exactly synomymous. So, yeah, it was a poor choice of words.
But, what you fail to be able to wrap your mind around is that failure to yield is a civil offense, much like a busted tail light on your car. Vehicule homicide is a felony, not even a misdemeanor. Geez!
A life was lost. But, she wasn’t charged with the latter, “for some reason,”, like they didn’t think they had enough malice on her part to make it stick, maybe?
What a disgusting piece of garbage. The hypocrisy here is absolutely appalling…the TN GOP gets in trouble for putting together a patriotic video of why Michelle Obama should be proud of her country, yet these people can attack Laura Bush with nary a word of protest. Disgusting…
(By the way, who writes drivel like that, anyway? Who imagines what Laura Bush is thinking during sex with her husband? Liberalism HAS to be a mental disorder…)
Let’s not equate an accident with an “illegal” act.
Did she run the stop sign? Yes, she did. how many of you haven’t?
Was it deliberate? No.
Was it an accident? Yes.
There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for someone to have committed Vehicular Homicide, regardless of whether or not they were charged or convicted.
If her actions that night did not meet those criteria, and there is absolutely NO evidence that they did, then she did not commit Vehicular Homicide - charged or not.
The Teddy comparison is totally off base. The only simalarity is the death of a young person. ALL OF THE DETAILS ARE DIFFERENT.
Face it, you’re wrong. You are slowly realizing it and back-pedaling on your statements. Just admit you were wrong and you’ll feel much better!!
So where does Dowd or anyone else call this book anything but a work of fiction?
fic•tion –noun
1.the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form.
2.works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3.something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We’ve all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4.the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5.an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6.Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.
In Dowd’s short column, she refers to the book as fiction no less than seven times:
1.The cover of this fantasy version
2.it’s not a salacious tell-all
3.imagines what lies behind that placid facade of the first lady
4.lover of fiction feels about being the subject of fiction
5.that’s fiction
6.creatively applied her crayons
7.fantasies about public figures
And she calls Laura Bush “lovely and gracious”. Much kinder than some of the comments posted here about another potential First Lady.
Its not like the book makes the First Lady out to be the cheerleader daughter of a convicted felon with Mob connections who, breaks up a former POW’s happy home, steals from a charity to feed her drug habit, campaigns against MADD*, and gets rich peddling alcohol to minors**. That would be an interesting read and better suited to a biography of one of the current candidate’s wives.
*Hensley has opposed groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in fighting proposed federal rules that would require alcohol-content information on every package of beer, wine and liquor.
**The company also has run afoul of health-advocacy groups that have tried to rein in appeals to young drinkers. Hensley, for example, distributes caffeinated alcohol drinks that public-health groups say put young and underage consumers at risk by disguising the effects of intoxication.
chap, I love ya man, but the Teddy comparison is a bad one.
I’m not really sure that Mrs. Bush gets particularly unfair treatment in the media. There’s some mean-spirited and petty stuff from commentators on the “other side” from time to time, but that’s always the case regardless of party affiliation. I remember some pretty nasty stuff on Hillary. Mrs. Bush has always impressed me as a sincere and genuine person. She’s been a much better First Lady than her husband has been a President, that’s for sure.
Query: wondering what the reaction here would be if Mrs. Bush’s husband was a Democrat.
Dowd is obviously bitter and feels that she has worked sooo hard to rise to the top and that a mere “librarian” has out distanced her… in both position and in class.
So is Teddy K, in your opinion, a murderer? He wasn’t charged so I guess not.
And to Barry F. and Indy, did I say vehicular homicide? No. No one is talking about vehicular homicide people. Vehicular manslaughter. Totally different mens rea required. Deliberate action or malice aforethought are not necessary components of manslaughter.
Yup, (apparently going by all indications 50mph, so not like she even slowed down) and that is the kind of illegal act and disregard for safety that fits exactly with the definition of vehicular manslaughter.
You can sugar coat it all you want by calling it an “accident”. It was an “accident” directly attributable to her reckless driving and illegal activity, which is not in dispute btw, for which she was never charged.
Interesting take les…the reaction here should be interesting to say the least. Curious to see what, if anything, the pocket protector wearing (albeit, with a Montblanc pen) body builder (and self-proclaimed internet bad ass) has to say on the subject.
a whole lot of words. And not much sense. Let me help you understand:
This is a direct attack on Bush and his wife for no other purpose than to make money and delight the unhinged left and attempt to further humiliate Laura Bush, while attempting to use the word “fiction” to give cretins like you the ability to defend this POS book and author. If some right wing author used :fiction” to mock and humiliate Michelle Obama, you’d pee your pants in horrified disbelief.
And Laura Bush wasn’t charged with ‘vehicular manslaughter’ so this never happened either.
wise_man, sometimes it’s okay to acknowledge that someone has made a valid point (see chap). A “wise man” should know that, yes?
and who, in your esteemed opinion has made a valid point, good sir dakine?
Go tell Obama that about his buddies.
I’m not sure about TX, chap, but TN doesn’t even list a “vehicular manslaughter” charge in statute. You have to pick from “Voluntary Manslaughter” or “Criminally Negligent Homicide” or “Vehicular Homicide”.
The first one requires it to be “the intentional of knowing killing of another in a state of passion.” I would suspect that there was no malice or forethought on her part to run the stop sign. But,, hey, I could be wrong.
The second requires “criminally negligent behavior.” Her civil offense of failure to yield the right of way at the stop sign doesn’t rise to that. Civil disobedience (likely unintentional then) is not criminal.
The last one requires “the proximate result of conduct creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to a person.” In all likelihood, it would require her to have been running stop signs on a regular basis with the knowledge that her odds are great of killing someone, like, say….drunk driving.
Now, again, TX may be different and even have statutes that specifically address “vehicular manslaughter” but we don’t here.
I have worked in several aspects of the criminal justice system and, based on my professional experience, you are stretching hard to try to make an non-issue and issue.
And, yes, given the circumstances of Teddy *Hiccup* Kennedy’s incident in Chappaquidick, I think his was criminal. He left Mary Jo Kopechne to die in that car in the water, while he went to collect his thoughts and contact his lawyer. But, maybe that was just another accident on his part.
Barry F.
You are all sorts of wrong on many of your legal assumptions and, as you admit not applying the correct law in any case.
I have looked at the Texas statute and basically what is required for manslaughter is “reckless” behavior. There is not one doubt in my mind that going through a stop sign at 50mph would constitute reckless in any jurisdiction.
And I am guessing that this wasn’t such a “non-issue” to the victim and family. Or for that matter to Laura and her family.
I direct your attention to chap’s last couple of posts wise_man in answer to your question.
Why is chapoopy so intent on getting this thread off the rails?
BDS afflicted loser, if I had to guess.
Hey, genius, that Texas statute you are citing (§ 19.04) was enacted in 1973. Math may not be your forte but 1963 was 10 years before the legislation was enacted. I don’t see anything about it being retroactive. Jus’ sayin’.
That’s quite the intelligent post there Eddy.
Really? You don’t say?
Trying to exercise non-existent statutes is a “valid point” for liberals? Duly noted.
Barry F, since you’re such the legal eagle, what was the law in Texas in 1963? Also, as a former criminal justice pro, what would be the appropriate charge, if any, for a person who ran a stop sign at 50 mph, t-boning another car in the process and killing an occupant of that car? Put the politics aside.
wise_man #57
I can control my bodily functions. I’d have no problem if someone wrote a “thinly veiled novel” based on Michelle Obama’s life. Some of us can understand the difference between fact and fiction.
But then don’t you agree that a book about a factory worker’s daughter who studies hard, gets an education at the best schools in America, embarks on a successful career and eventually goes on to become First Lady of the US, might be inspirational to some folks? Isn’t that what the American dream is all about?
You are delusional if you think that you are going to convince anyone here that this hateful book that slams the fist lady is anything other than that.
What does Chappaquidick have to do with any of this?
dakine, chapoutier,Mark Morford, and Maureen Dowd “are delusional
if you think“.Nevermind wise_man. Lunch meeting beckons.
I think you missed the subtext on that one.
Do you want me to sh*t you a law, dakine? There wasn’t one that I can see from what is available on the internet.
I have witnessed similar incidents in court here in TN where the driver that failed to yield the right of way was only able to be charged with just that “Failure to Yield Right of Way” (§55-8-197), even when the other person lost their life. The maximum they can get from it is court costs and a fine of up to $250, if there is a loss of life (Class A Misdemeanor). But, even that was not enacted here until 2007.
I can’t tell you what was on the books in Texas, before §19.04 was in Texas but you can tell from the footnotes below it in the chapter of Texas’ Penal Code that that particular charge was not in existence prior to 1973. Thus, Laura Welch could not have been charged with that.
By the way, I’m not a “legal eagle” but I can read and have worked in the criminal justice system for quite some time. But, thanks for thinking more highly of me.
Fortunately for the young Laura, people were not so rabid as to hand charges on her as they are today.
Across the street from where I live a baby drowned. It was deemed an accident. The sitter went to the bathroom. It was considered an accident. I suppose you can say her going to the bathroom was an illegal activity because she abandoned the baby and he died.
OR
It was an accident. The girl will have enough scars in her life over the babies death without people running her down about her “illegal activity”.
Oh. I did fail to mention another penalty for “Failure to Yield Right of Way”, when there is a loss of life. They can lose their license/permit for one (1) year.
And, the fine was $500 for the Class “A” misdemeanor, when their is loss of life. The $250 was for a Class “B” misdemeanor.
I can’t tell you what was on the books in Texas, before §19.04 was in Texas but you can tell from the footnotes below it in the chapter of Texas’ Penal Code that that particular charge was not in existence prior to 1973. Thus, Laura Welch could not have been charged with that.Not true at all. Just because they wrote (or rather rewrote) a certain version or provision of the penal code in a certain year does NOT mean that it wasn’t in the penal code prior.
For example, using your own link, the section regarding murder was written in 1963 as well. Do you think murder was not illegal before then in Texas?
But this is getting stupid and boring and too much like my real work. It is amazing the hoops some here are trying to jump through to justify and excuse the killing of another human by grossly reckless action.
Next time someone close to you gets struck and killed by a driver going through a stop sign at 50, come back and tell me how much sympathy and respect you have for them.
Oh, come on!!! And you have the never to compare this to what Kennedy did? THAT was a “grossly reckless action”.
Good lord chap, too much coffee?
Oh gosh, more disgusting filth from the left. Imagine that!
“Grossly reckless action?”
Where, pray tell, do you work that failing to see a stop sign and bring your motor vehicle to a stop constitutes “grossly reckless action?” I typically see that description reserved for some where a person knew their actions could likely lead to death or serious bodily injury, like…I don’t know, maybe…driving under the influence, drag racing, driving while impaired, etc. You intentionally do those things, whereas your inadvertently miss a stop sign.
Just for the record, statutes carry in the footnotes where they were enacted, if they replaced a prior portion of code, if they amended a portion of statute, etc.
But, if you happen to find “vehicular manslaughter” or “manslaughter” in Texas Penal Code, prior to 1973, let me know. Okay?
Soap,
What would you call running a red at 50 mph?
If you were driving along and someone barely missed hitting you because they did that, I’ll bet you would have some very choice words and/or gestures. “Crazy son of a –!” or “Where did that [blankety blank] learn to drive!?!” would spring to mind.
And I have already conceded that what Kennedy did was worse.
Being an idiot and getting a good cursing for your idiocy does not make one a criminal.
Barry,
Where is there any indication that she did not see the stop sign? And as I am sure you are aware, that would not be a valid defense in any case. People are presumed to be paying attention when they drive.
And I am well aware of how to read a statute, thank you. But go pull out you latest copy of the Tax Code and see what year it references. What? What’s that you say? 1986? You mean there were no taxes before 1986? No. It means that that particular version of the tax code was drafted in 1986. Before then, it referenced the 1954 tax code. And before 1954, well I don’t recall, but you see my point. It is actually kind of a pain, as is sometimes necessary, to cross reference where a particular tax law was contained in the old code. But doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Again I wonder if you think murder was okay before 1963 in Texas.
And as a further lesson, in any case most of our codified law derives its source from common law, so in all likelihood, even before the definition and concept of manslaughter was put on the books, courts were recognizing it and defining it in the same way.
And being an idiot sure can make you a criminal when that act kills someone.
Chap,
A kid backed into my car by accident. He scared _less. I calmed him down and told him it was an accident. He violated the law which caused damage. He was not reckless, he made a mistake.
Steve Curtis Chapman’s daughter was run over by his son. He did not see her. She died. He was not - NOT - being reckless. He is NO criminal. It was an accident. I suppose you would feel better if the young man was in jail. He is a fine young man who made a mistake and will not be charged but will suffer more than you will ever know.
I can only pray your own child does not make the same mistake. I am sure you would be quick to say he/she was being “grossly reckless” and make sure they are punished to the extent of the law (being a lawyer and all).
As for cussing someone out for driving like an idiot, yes, I have giving them a piece of my mind (human here!). I have run a stop light at full speed and was lucky I did not cause an accident. I was not being “grossly reckless”. I just missed the stupid thing. It happens to people who, unlike you apparently, are not perfect.
Thanks for the excerpt on this foul book. I love reading but I’ll give it a miss. If I had any doubts about reading it, after reading Dowd’s comments, my mind was completely made up.
“In all likelihood?” Your speculating, again.
You still haven’t defined how failing to stop at a stop sign makes it “grossly reckless action” on hers or anyone else’s part, chap.
Murder has been on the books for quite sometime in the states, chap, even when they were just territories, instead of states. But, if you can show me where “manslaughter” or “vehicular manslaughter” was on the books, prior to 1973, I wouldn’t mind it at all. But, murder or homicide or however it gets termed implies some malice.
Where would the malice have been in 1963 in failing to stop at a stop sign? You speculate that she was just brazen and ran the stop sign for some strange reason. I tend to suspect that the 17 year old Laura Welch in 1963 was not paying attention on her way to the party and did not see the stop sign.
I would frame it in a different way, and say that people (everyone, including me) are all reckless at some point or another. Please note that I am not ascribing ill intent to any of this. What you did was not on purpose, but that does not make it not reckless. But the fact that one person is “lucky” in his recklessness and another is not isn’t really the point, and is certainly not the basis of our criminal system.
Now, should punishment be put in context? Of course. But punishment and guilt are two separate issues.
If my kid did the same thing, you would bet I would try to make sure they got off with as little punishment as possible, I think that is just human nature. But that does not make it just.
FYI, I am childless and plan on remaining so for some time, which I am sure comes to a great relief to some here.
soap, we’re obviously missing some of the facts surrounding the circumstances of the case, so it’s difficult to determine whether her running the stop sign was reckless, grossly negligent or just plain negligent. Somebody in authority obviously made the call not to charge. I would say, however, that where there is negligence or recklessness involved there needs to be accountability for one’s actions, accident or otherwise. Not every crime requires specific intent, and rightly so. I’ll give you a real hypo from my neighborhood. Kid is texting on his phone, loses control of his car and swerves onto the shoulder, striking and killing a bicyclist. That’s vehicular homicide in my state. What do you think? I’d also point out that appropriate punishment is a different matter, and most cases in this category do not warrant jail time.
One more question: would your opinion be the same if the driver had been Hillary? An illegal alien? A Muslim guy?
Barry,
I refuse to believe murder was on the books prior to 1963 unless you show me where.
Do you really think manslaughter is a new concept? Actually, I did a bit of work for ya and found at least 141 cases in Texas prior to 1963 where they cite manslaughter, which again I reiterate does not require malice, so please stop bringing that up.
And whether she ran the sign on purpose or missed it because she was not paying attention while driving 50 mph is irrelevant to me, both are reckless. One should reasonably know that failing to pay attention while you are driving can lead to fatal consequences. That is the standard.
a great relief to
someall here (plus one).You libtards are sure hard on people for accidents. To bad you aren’t as hard on people that kill and rape our children instead of trying to find some irrational excuse for them.
I hate to stir the pot and run but I have to go pick up my kids and try not to commit any “grossly reckless actions” on the road.
Later, all!
Chap,
I guess we have two different ideas on reckless.
I think reckless has something to do with willful intent.
I am getting from you any accident has to reckless on someone’s part (which I would expect from a lawyer).
So, McDonalds was reckless in making their coffee hot and the woman who dumped it on her lap deserved the 6 figure settlement.
In the real world, it was an accident. In today’s world, someone has to be blamed and every action causing damage has to have an element of “reckless” behind it in order to satisfy a claim.
Do I get it now?
I hope you have lots of kids and they all grow up to be Vast Right Wing Conspirators (or conservatives way to the right at the very least!).
Who would’ve know soap was such a softy. Soap, say you run a red light while talking on your cell. You t-bone my car. My car is totaled and you put me in the hospital for a couple of weeks with broken bones and internal injuries. Do I have a claim against you, or should I simply accept your heartfelt apology, shake hands and chalk the whole thing up to bad luck? Did you commit a crime?
Leader of the Pack! Vroom vroom vroom…
Actually, McDonalds in that case was willfully making their coffee far hotter than what was safe and standard, even though they had lots of evidence that people were getting burned and deserved to be punished accordingly. But let’s not stir that pot.
That is almost the exact opposite of what reckless means. And our criminal law system (and tort system) as well as just about any other you will find in the world, punishes careless behavior when someone is hurt. Is it fair to punish the careless, especially when we all are at some point and the consequences of such is really a matter of luck? That is a far more philosophical question than I want to get into. Should the punishment be commensurate with the intent? Sure and in almost all cases, it is.
Mark Moford made a horrible reference to Catholics in an article I read in the SF Chronicle a while ago. I called them and invited all them to join my Church.
Haven’t heard back yet…
This isn’t the first time he’s taken cracks at the First Lady either.
Hey, does anyone which reporter it was who looking at Rudy Guiliani’s daughter’s facebook?
Some of that stuff is really weird, like you’d expect to find in the Sun.
It’s like Rush and Bill O’Reilly have been saying: most of the newspapers in this country have had trouble and are losing subscribers. I don’t subscribe to any newspaper, and if I ever did, it would only be for coupons.
The MSM newspapers are becoming like a game of “Paper Boy” gone bad. They’re like that kid on the bike who keeps crashing into stuff.
Sigh…
What some of you are missing is that this, just like that stupid cartoon Little Bush, is a direct attack on a sitting President and his family.
That it is to be released during the Rep convention tells me all I need to know about their intentions.
In my view? TREASON, pure and simple. Dragging down the President for no other reason than pique, or money, makes his job HARDER.
I don’t like Bush… but I will NOT attack the character of a sitting President… or his family. He’s got a hard enough job to do without the snipeing attacks from our own country.