Danielle Keeler

think about it.

Archive for the ‘Black humor’ Category

Foreshadowing of Casey Anthony:

with 3 comments

We’ve all heard about the recent Casey Anthony trial–if you haven’t, you obviously live under a rock.  For a quick summary: a woman was accused of killing her daughter and acquitted of the charges, served approximately a week in jail for lying to police and walked away.  There have been discussions about how, even if Casey Anthony went on Oprah and confessed to killing her daughter, she cannot be charged.  This is due to the 5th amendment, better known as “double jeopardy”.  This amendment summarily states that an individual cannot be tried twice for the same crime.  There must be a new offense or new evidence presented in order to call a case back to trial.

Recently, this exact event happened with another murder case.

In 2004, Isaac Turnbaugh of Vermont was acquitted of killing his coworker.  However, Turnbaugh recently contacted the police and confessed to the crime.  Why?  Who knows?  Maybe to clear his conscience.  Maybe to see what the reaction would be.  Maybe as a slap in the face to law enforcement.  Maybe he sat on his end, laughing, as the police searched for a loophole in the 5th amendment.

“He could have turned over a video tape of him committing the murder and it wouldn’t change the fact that double jeopardy is attached,” Vermont attorney general William Sorrel told The Huffington Post. “We had our chance. The jury acquitted him and, just in the same way OJ could confess today to his wife’s murder, it wouldn’t affect what could be done to him.” (www.huffingtonpost.com).

This is one of the biggest holes in the American justice system.  I mean, this isn’t even just a hole; this is a huge, gaping gash of stupidity.  Why, for Pete’s sake, couldn’t the fifth amendment allow a new trial in the case of a proven confession?  Obviously you cannot call a second trial for an offhand comment that could be taken as a confession, but when a murderer fucking calls the cops and confesses, why can’t the case return to trial?  I say this needs to go to legislature for revision, because there are any number of cases when it has failed to serve justice, which, after all, is the goal of the American government.  You would think it would have been fixed a long time ago, but maybe this time it will actually get noticed.  Let’s hope.




Written by Danielle Keeler

August 3, 2011 at 10:10 pm

California judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

with 9 comments

Recently in California, a group of human rights advocates requested a ballot that would present the option of banning circumcision in newborn males.  The measure would have banned male circumcision, with a potential punishment of a $1000 fine and jail time.  It would not have allowed for religious exemptions.  The bill faced strong resistance, and superior judge Loretta Giorgi had it struck from the ballot, stating that circumcision was “a widely practiced medical procedure”.

The advocates of this group declared circumcision to be a violation of basic human rights and a “mutilation of male genitalia”, and many believe that the judge’s decision to strike it from the ballot without a vote was undemocratic, regardless of what the obvious outcome would have been.  This is understandable, considering the fact that the public is supposed to play a major role in politics, but let’s get real.  That doesn’t always happen, and anyone with an education is well aware of that fact.

Several opposing groups declared that the ballot held a strong element of antisemitism, and argued that it violated the constitutional right to religious tolerance, as guaranteed in the first amendment.  In the aspect that the ballot would not have allowed for religious exceptions, the latter is true.  However, the ballot would apply to all religions, and though Judaism is particularly known for the requirement of circumcision, the ballot does not specify a religion.  Therefore, the ballot itself is not anti-Semitic; rather, only anti-circumcision. However, many advocates of the ballot have taken it to an extreme that includes blatant antisemitism.

Those in favor have even gone so far as to create comic books on the topic.  One such comic is titled “Foreskin Man”, written by Matthew Hess, one of the leaders behind the initiative to ban circumcision.  In the comic, the hero takes on “Monster Mohel,” a black haired, bearded man with bloody scissors, clad in the traditional Jewish Orthodox wide-brimmed hat with a tallis around his neck.  The hero is a retired corporate scientist who now heads the Museum of Genital Integrity, and his heroic deed is to kidnap the baby from Monster Mohel and bring him to a group on in-activists.  They then light a bonfire with all the instruments typically used for circumcision, and the battle is won. When asked if he considered the comic to be anti-Semitic, Hess replied with:

“A lot of people have said that, but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic.  We’re trying to be pro-human rights.”


The villain wears traditional Jewish Orthodox clothing.  On the table where the circumcision will take place, there is a book with traditional Hebrew writing, and the traditional wine and goblet beside it.  Hess claimed his group to be only liberal, but it is now undeniable that this is a viscous attack against Jews masked behind a liberal name.  See my source (newjewishmedia.com) for screenshots taken from the comic.

So much for religious tolerance.  I thought we got over antisemitism after the Holocaust, but apparently there are still many groups who hold a strong belief in it.  May I point out–and I am not trying to suggest this is what will happen, I am just noticing the similarities–that the Holocaust also began with anti-Jew propaganda?  Just something to think about.




Franken’s SNL moment in the senate

leave a comment »

We all know that politics has become a game of propaganda instead of focus on central issues, but the Democrats have reached a new level of desperation.  In what is being affectionately referred to as “Franken’s SNL moment in the Senate,” Al Franken, after explaining that there would be no money to pay for security and military personnel if congress does not pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling, proceeded to unveil a sign that read “Welcome Terrorists” aiming his point at those who believe that congress does not have to raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid an economic disaster (see my sources for pictures of the event).  I didn’t even know how to react, except to say…are you serious?

First of all, it was a low blow to pull a name so offensive as “terrorists”.  Franken referred to it as “black humor”, but it seemed more like a desperate attempt to monopolize the public into supporting his side.  Because of tragedies like 9/11, terrorists have become exceedingly real to American citizens; they’re not just scary men in masks on the other side of the world.  People know the disastrous effect of a terrorist attack, and anything associated with terrorists automatically becomes something people will avoid at all costs.  I have to give Franken credit for his creativity, but there are so many comparisons he could have used to get the same effect, it seems extremely calloused to pull a nickname all of America associates with Osama Bin Laden.

Secondly, I know his goal was to gain support, but all he did was make himself look like a jackass–and a stupid one at that.  It’s like trash talking within public society; the person you complain and bitch about doesn’t look bad because of it, you do.  Franken has achieved nothing other than to bring a negative image upon himself, as many articles say they expected the backdrop to fade and to hear “Welcome to Saturday Night Live!”

So finally, I give Mr. Franken my dearest regards, and ask him to go back to his high school debate team so they can teach him how to act in the world of politics.



Written by Danielle Keeler

July 28, 2011 at 10:13 am

Posted in Black humor, Politics