Wacko Jacko, Dumbo Durbin, and the “Amazing” Katie Holmes

A few years ago I was selected for jury duty. The accused was on trial for robbing a bank. In order to establish the perpetrator’s modus operandi, the prosecutor was able to introduce a previous criminal record. The accused had robbed a bank—the same bank—five times before, most recently just ten months prior to the jury I sat on having the pleasure of his company.

With overwhelming evidence of his guilt, our only question was how this guy was free to rob banks when his fifth offense had not even earned him a full year in the hoosegow. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times, and I have to wonder what the hell is going on? The way we looked at it was even if we were wrong, perhaps more so if we were wrong, justice would be being served. Obviously, we convicted.

As rarely as I’ve been posting my blogs, I cringe at the thought of even mentioning Michael Jackson in one. But waiting for the verdict, I will admit to hoping that maybe someone who had served jury duty with me in Atlanta might now be living in Santa Barbara. But apparently not.

Yeah, Wacko Jacko is almost certainly a pedophile, and one who was probably targeted by grifters. Yeah, he probably should have been locked away years ago, before being outed by Martin Bashir or perpetrating the sham of his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley—not that sham marriages are a crime. If they were, Tom Cruise would be marching to his own gulag. But I’ll have to get back to that.

The underlying question is, Can we incarcerate someone for what they want to do? Not when we can barely incarcerate people for what they do do.

There is something essentially American about being acquitted, especially if the accused is actually guilty. It affirms a belief that our nation of laws is stronger than any crime that can be committed against her or her people. It is the ability to manipulate the legal system that may be our second greatest exercise of freedom.

Our first, clearly, is the freedom of speech. And as the Democratic party currently exemplifies, there need not be any merit or logic or point to it, just a counterpoint. How else can we make sense of anything Howard Dean says? Or, more pointedly, how to comprehend Dick Durbin’s rationale in likening our troops to the Soviet gulags or Pol Pot?

Perhaps there is need for a debate about Guantanamo Bay. There are some unique and unconventional issues presented in this unconventional war. There is a real question about what to do with terrorists captured before they commit their atrocities. (I emphasize “before” since that would seem to be the preferred time to capture terrorists.) But what do we do with them after we have caught them?

We’re getting no help from the Democrats answering any these question. They only make calls for investigations, hoping to proffer the image of scandal that can used to persuade those who show only marginal interest in the future of our country or their role in our form of self-government. Theirs is not a search for solutions, but an exploitation of the ignorant.

Consider the reaction to Durbin’s comments. Now that he has finally seen it necessary to offer “heartfelt apologies,” I would hope we can all agree that what he said was clearly wrong. Though listening to Durbin’s choice of words, it is difficult to conclude that he thinks what he said was wrong.

Now consider Michael Jackson. Just because he was acquitted in a particular instance does not mean he is not guilty of the same crime in, I shutter to think, countless other instances. Is there any reason to believe that Wacko Jacko now thinks it is wrong to share a bed with a child? Is there any reason to believe that Dumbo Durbin does not still suspect our soldiers are committing atrocities in Guantanamo Bay?

It is interesting to note that in the week that followed, not one Democrat was willing to publicly renounce Durbin’s comments. The strongest objection came from Nancy Pelosi, who only characterized them as “not helpful.” My point exactly. In fact, I heard one person defend the comments, not as valid, but as necessary “to get the point across.”

And that point would be . . . ?

To be fair, I can see how there could be reasonable concern for innocent people who may have been captured alongside the terrorists. True, we have discharged several detainees from the detention camp, and it is, therefore, reasonable to assume they were innocent. (At least let’s hope so.) To acknowledge that fact is also to acknowledge the fact that these “cases” have been adjudicated. Still the likes of Durbin and Biden insist on making these detainees an issue.

How is it that Democrats believe that Mohamed Atta deserves an up-or-down vote, but John Bolton does not?

For those who do not remember, Mohamed Atta was the so-called “20th hijacker,” now being detained down in Guantanamo Bay. Gitmo, as it is informally known, ought to serve as a nice little reminder of the reason we’re at war, if not some small symbol of progress we are making in the war. Instead it has become a rallying point for a Loony Left so consumed with hatred for President Bush that they are willing to provide aid and comfort to the enemy in order to gain political advantage.

If that sounds overstated, I can find no other way to understand the calls to close the prison down. It would naturally follow that the prisoners would either be released, or they would have to be taken to another detention center. And would that detention center not draw the same kind of attacks being lodged at Gitmo? Of course it would, probably by the same people objecting to the existence of Gitmo.

So what’s the solution? Why Katie Holmes, of course.

Christian prison ministries have been quite effective in counseling good old-fashioned American criminals, helping them to transform their lives to the point where they can be released back into society with a greatly reduced rate of recidivism. It is doubtful that this would work with the Muslim extremists, and even more doubtful that the ACLU would permit such a thing.

So how about Scientology? That’s not technically a religion, is it? So no “separation” issues there. Look what it’s done for Tom Cruise. How else could a short, middle-aged man, widely rumored to be gay, land a tall, beautiful up-and-comer? Got to be the Scientology! I hear Katie’s converting. And unless Michael Jackson converted back to being a Jehovah’s Witness, I believe he still is a Scientologist. Maybe Neverland (after California passes a referendum prohibiting children from going there) could be converted to a Scientology/prison camp.

But seriously, I don’t know what I found most offensive. Tom and Katie's public displays of affection? The fact that they actually think they’re fooling anyone? Or the fact that they feel the need to try?

How can a guy who gets $25 million per movie be such a bad actor? When the only word Tom could use to describe Katie was “amazing [breath] amazing [pause then breath] amazing [smile]” we were to understand that he was love struck and at a loss for words. But what struck me was the reason he was at a loss for words was probably because he hardly knew her. Then again, to borrow a line from Cary Grant in The Philadelphia Story, “To hardly know her is to know her well."

Similarly, to hardly know what a Democrat stands for is to know a Democrat well.