Closing Arguments: Schaddenfreude, Reality TV, and No JUSTICE for Caylee Anthony

It's FINALLY over!  Both sides have been heard, the jury has decided, and Casey Anthony is a FREE woman forced into hiding to work out her demons, sort through offers, and plan the rest of her life which is once more her OWN.  But is she really FREE?  Can she go out for a cappuccino at Starbucks?  Can she shop for a new dress at the local mall?  Can she go into a public hair salon and get her hair styled?  In theory, she can, but in REALITY she would be risking her LIFE.  There is a very real and palatable HATRED of this woman the seeing her in public would likely generate and "Ox Bow Incident" mentality and end with her either being torn limb from limb, or at the very LEAST, lynched or beaten to death.   Sadly it was that way LONG before the jury made it's ruling, which is why this woman has spent most of her pre-trial incarceration in ISOLATION.  It was feared by the Sheriff's department (and RIGHTLY so) that she would not have survived in general population, especially since most of the women incarcerated with her were themselves MOTHERS or just women who had already concluded, like MOST of America, that she was  a child murderer long before the first piece of REAL evidence had been introduced.

Why do so many people HATE Casey Anthony?  It's only natural to want a guilty person to pay for his or her crime, but do we HATE everyone that's accused of murder in this country?  I hope not because there are so many, we wouldn't have time for anything else, nor would likely live very long as HATRED is a very self destructive thing to carry around.  It's physically, physiologically, and psychologically harmful to its host. Hatred is also highly irrational, esp when it's directed against a veritable STRANGER.  It is usually NOT organic in nature, but a result of external stimuli.  Germans didn't HATE Jews instinctively.  They were PROGRAMMED to do so by propaganda from the Nazis.  Anti-semitism results in PREJUDICE, bot not HATRED on it's own.  To get to HATRED, you need provocation and that usually comes from  media saturation.

That's what  has been driving this ENTIRE case.  Absent the media saturation, no one would know the names Caylee or Casey Anthony outside of the people who knew them on a personal basis before they achieved "realty TV star" stature and notoriety.  Had either Caylee or Casey not been so physically attractive, the story would have remained a blip in the local Orlando news and been long since forgotten.  So it's the MEDIA that jammed this story down our throats from day one.  It;s media pundits and commentators that have driven this story, and in a fashion reminiscent of Jean Paul Marat's "Friend of the People" tabloid newspaper, ginned up the lynch mob mentality that sent thousands to the guillotine in an orgy of blood lust during the french revolution.   Marat and Nancy Grace know how to gin up a lynch mob.  Who can forget  the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, or the total FICTION that was CALLED a rape case?  When emotion drives the bus, the logical and rational "rules of the road" go right out the window, and that is EXACTLY what happened in this case.  But where did the emotion come from and why did it get so intense?

At the heart of everything is a cherubic little two year old toddler named Caylee Marie Anthony.  Who  Gould see that little girl's pictures or videos and not just MELT?  You would have to be INHUMAN to not feel sadness at the thought of that little girl being taken from her family by person or persons unknown; and lest we forget, that is how  this case started.  When her picture first popped up the cable news program as a missing person, my first thought was that she had been abducted by a child  sex trafficker and, even after media pundits and legal analysts starting baying for her mother's blood, I maintained that the EVIDENCE supported that conclusion far more convincingly than it supported the premise that Caylee had been murdered, let alone that her own MOTHER was responsible for it.  It was far more likely that Caylee had been abducted using a long can paradigm that had led THOUSANDS of young women into white slavery, the disappearing modelling agency.  If your target was a CHILD however, the modelling agency wouldn't work, as a mother would tend to REMAIN with her child during the photo sessions.  Far more likely would be a NANNY or daycare scenario, as a mother would be more likely to leave a child there for a prolonged period of time, usually to go to work.

Whenever I argued or defended  this theory, I was ridiculed and attacked by people who had already made up their minds that Caylee was dead and Casey had killed her.  I was called a  dreamer, of thinking like a LAWYER (a pejorative in MY vocabulary) or of being interested in Casey or attracted to her, etc by people who ordinarily were liberal in their thinking and therefore open to possibilities outside the obvious, or at least imbued with the perception of having OPEN minds.  Not in this case, however.  With the EXCEPTION of a few lawyers who practiced criminal or defense law, nearly everyone I talked to regarding this case had concluded the worst and condemned Casey Anthony before there was even the slightest evidence that Caylee was anything but a missing person.  

How then did a local missing persons case get to be a national media event with the appeal of a network produced reality television show?  The simple answer is that it was turned into one by the 24-7 news media and non stop barrage of legal and media pundits and commentators that first created, then FED the addition to all things ANTHONY, much like the average heroin pusher will first create the dependence and then provide the supply of his TOXIC product.  The "reality" in modern America is that it's sometimes difficult, if not IMPOSSIBLE do discern the difference between real life and reality TV.  Some people used to believe anything they saw on TV.  However, since the advent of "reality TV" it's soemtimes hard to tell what's "real" and what's "contrived" to LOOK real.  Just as shows like "Survior" and "Jersey Shore" create "stars" of people who are talentless and mediocre at BEST, so too does a non stop media spotlight create another kind of "star" when it overdoses the public on a criminal defendant (ESPECIALLY and attractive one) like Scott Peterson (who to this DAY still gets love letters and marriage proposals even though he's been CONVICTED or murdering his wife and unborn child) and Casey Anthony, who's now free to PROFIT from being free to sell HER story to a publisher, go on media interviews for pay, and may even end up on a reality TV show, or the cover of HUSTLER.  She, too has recived money from her legions of horny males fans, and  a few marriage proposals as well.  That would NOT happen if she were netiher HOT< nor prospectively looking at getting RICH.  

Some of the hatred directed at Casey Anthony comes from the standard green eyed monster, JEALOUSY.  Women are jealous of her because she's young, attractive, soon to be RICH, and will have her pick of men, including (in thir irrational minds and their husband's wildest fantasies) THEIR husbands.  If you could treat the average couple on a couch watching Casey Anthony on the news like a comic strip and put a though bubble over their heads, you would see something like "She's HOT. I wouldn't kick HER out of bed for eating crackers) over the MAN'S head, and probably something like "BITCH.  I wanna scratch her eyes out" over the WOMAN'S head.  To be fair to the women, some of the hatred comes from the fact that these women are themselves MOTHERS and have natural maternal instincts when it comes to the welfare of children.  Like Sarah Palin and her "mama Grizzlies" implies, women WILL protect their children and attack anyone who tries to harm them.  The protective instinct is not limited to their OWN children, either.  However, these dame women, more likely than not, know EXACTLY what the man next to them is REALLY yhinking as he stares at Casey Anthony, so they HATE her for THAT.

The other explanation for both the popularity of the Anthony case, and the anger over the verdict is the psychological phenomenon of "schaddenfreude."  The term comes from the two german words meaning "damage" and "joy" and more simply put, it means that one takes pleasure in the suffering of another, esp another who ordinarily would have it much better than the person enjohing their suffering.  In one of my favorite episodes of the series "Boston Legal", Betty White uttered the line that describes it best.  She said "It's FUN to see PRETTY people fall."  She was referring to Heather Locker's character being on trial for murdering her older and richer husband.  That line has a missing subtext, however.  It should read: "It's FUN f (for UGLY people) to see PRETTY people fall."  It can also apply to the scenario in which it would be fun for POOR people to see RICHER people suffer.  That mentalilty gas us Madame DeFarge and the French Revolution!  But the conflict between the pretty people and the less than pretty people can be found everywhere as well.  Think of the passions aroused against Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton when THEY were facing jail.  It's the exact same thing with Casey Anthony.

If you look at the "angry mobs" outside the Orange County Courthouse and jail, you don't see many lookers in that crowd.  That may have something to do with the fact that a face contorted in anger is rarely an attractive one, but even putting THAT aside, most of the people baying Casey's blood are much more like the "hound" than the "fox."  This is not to say that everyone protesting outside the courthouse is only mad befcause they're jealous of Casey being young, HOT< and likely to make major bank, there are also MOTHERS and FATHERS out there as well as looks have nothing to do with THEIR anger and frustration at what they perceive is a system that failed to deliver JUSTICE for Caylee Marie Anthony and nay do the same for THEIR child some day,  Regardless of the driver, it's the EMOTION that's in charge of these people.

Any average person has to believe that Casey Anthony had something to do with what happened to Caylee Anthony.  She was the last person seen with her, she had motive, means, and opportunity, and there was a LOT of circumstantial evidence that could lead one to conclude she's involved.  But it's a far crown from being INVOLVED, to being a cold blooded murderer who actred with malice and deliberation.  Those are LEGAL standards, but such circumnstantial cases have sent many men and women to death rows who were later proved INNOCENT by advances in forensic technology such as DNA.  There was none of that here, but the ABSENCE of it ahs to give one pause and create doubt, and by legal standard, that "doubt" MUST innure to the benefit of the Defendant, like her or not.  Do I believe Casey is blameless in this case, not on your life.  But suspecting is a lot different form having it proven to the legal standard.  Like Johnny Cochran once said, "If the gove don't FIT, you MUST acquit."  In a jury trial, only TWELVE opinions matter, and OURS are NOT among them.

Looking at the facts presented from a DISPASSIONATE prospective, which iis what JURORS have to do, There is no way to overcome the presumption of innocence beyond a "reasonable" doubt  Courts exist to apply to LAW, and the legal standard for convinction is that the state must prove the DEFENDANT committed the crime charged "beyond a REASONABLE doubt."  The sticking point in many people's craws is that word "reasonable" which makes since, since it's a SUBJECTIVE standard.   To Adolph Hit;er. Josef Stalin, and Bill Ayers, GENOCIDE was "reasonable."  To a liberal, NOTHING is reasonable because they are driven purely by EMOTION which negates logic and reason,.  Either way, the only way to conclude the Casey Anthony wilfully MURDERED her child based on the evidence presented would be to let anger and hatred overrule logic and reason: and, fortunately for all FUTURE criminal defendants (of which ant of US can be one some day) that did NOT happen here.  LAW is the result of the thoughts and actions of MEN, and as such it is NOT prefect.  JUSTICE is the purvue of "god" or a "higher power" and is best left to him (or HER);

As for Casey Anthony, what SHE deserves at this time is to relegated back to ANONYMITY.  She should be devoutly IGNORED.  Do NOT buy her books, do NOT watch her on television or listen to any interview, close your wallets to anything Anthony, and justice will prevail because the only woman can PROFIT by her act or omission is iw WE buy anything form her.  If WE stand firm and turn her off, tune her out, and shut her down, she will be punished far greater by Universal Justice than anything the State of Florida could have done to her.  She's now a media junkie.  She CRAVES attention, positive OR negative, and she has to have it.  She's an attention junkie, and the best thing we can do is cut her off cold turkey.  Let her return to a life of anonymity and a the only career for which she's qualified, the STRIPPER POLE.  That  outcome would FINALLY deliver JUSTICE, even if it IS only POETIC,  for Caylee Anthony.

His-PANIC!

When Barak Obama was elected, I PRAYED that his term would pass without any of the nine Supreme Court Justices retiring or passing on.  I only asked for a four year moritorium because I believed then, as I believe even more NOW, that he will be a one-term President.  I also believed that he would, at some time, overreach his authority as President and perform some act that he was not constitutially empowered to do and, in this area, he did NOT disappoint me.  Thanks to his unprecendent seizures of banks and auto companies and, his forcing salary caps and bonus restrictions on private companies, as well as his firing of General Motors' CEO Rick Wagner; and, his strong-arming of a bankruptcy court judge to deprive Chrysler and General Motors' bondholders and shareholders of their rights under federal laws, he has opened himself and his administration up to legal and political drama.

 Clearly, there are numerous grounds for legal challanges against this administration.  In our entire history there has only been one attempt to nationalize a private enterprise and that occurred when Harry Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean war.  Now granted, this was about settling a strike that was hurting our war effort, but notwithstanding this, the courts struck this down as unconstitutional and that case is controlling to date.  A legal challenge against these actions is the only recourse we have to protect our private property rights.  As voters, we can do nothing against this administration before November, 2012. However, the bondholders and shareholders can take the administration to court to seek injunctive relief.  Due to the unprecendented nature of events, any such challenge would likely reach the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court.

Into this muddled morass of facts and circumstances comes the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor, the nominee for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court being vacated by the current Justice, the Hon. David Souter.  Justice Souter was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, and was believed to be a conservative leaning Judge at the time of his appointment.  Contrary to this belief, Justice Souter has ruled with the liberal justices more the sixty-five percent of his time on the bench.  Clearly, replacing him with an equally liberal justice does nothing to change the balance on the court at this time.  Still, every prospective justice should receive proper vetting by the United Sates Senate prior to his or her confirmation, and this is where we find outselves.

Sadly, there is more to this story because the liberal Democrats of the Senate, as well as the White House Press Secretary are playing traditional identity politics with this nomination.  They are doing the typical quota-filling tokenism with this nomination, and they are daring those on the right to "proceed at their peril" when it comes to the vetting process required by law.  They are betting that any challenge to this nominee will cost the Republican party any propect of support from the Hispanic community in upcoming elections.   Where was this concern for THEIR support from the Hispanic community when THEY were ripping into Alberto Gonzales? The simple answer is that is was nowhere to be found.  This is probably because it is all a load of BULL.

What the press may not want you to remember is that the senate democrats demonstrated the very bigotry then now warn the republicans not to display when it came to the nomination of the  Honorable Miguel Estrada, to the Court of Appeals.  Miguel Estrada is a judge with an American story every bit as impressive as Judge Sotomayor's is.  Why then, you may ask, is there not an Appellate Court Judge named Miguel Estrada?  The answer is a bit more complicated.  Liberal democrats have this "token" mentatlity when it comes to minorities.  They like to be the first to put a "first" in a position of authority or responsibility.  That would not have been a bar here as there were already Hispanic judges at the Appellate Court level, namely Judge Sonya Sotomayor.  And what was their excuse for the treatment shown to Alberto Gonzales when he was nominated for Attorney General.  He, too had a very compelling American story, but that didn't seem to matter to the senate democrats, including the self-righteous Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, and the junior Sentaor from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The actual reason there is no Justice Estrada on the Court of Appeals has nothing to do with his being an Hispanic, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he believes the role of a Judge is to take the laws written and enacted by the legistlature (i.e. the Constitution), and apply it, as written, to the fact pattern of the case at bar.  This is the mark of a CONSERVATIVE judge.  Now in contrast to this, the liberal democratis believe that it is the role of the judge to write new legistlation from the bench if the laws on the books do not comply with said judge's political ideology.  This is the mark of a LIBERAL judge, or judicial activist as they are sometimes called.  This is the contrast between what liberal democrats want in a Supreme Court Justice and what conservative republicans want in a Supreme Court Justice.  Clearlly there are maked differences between the two, and it is those differences that need to be fully exposed during the confirmation hearings. 

Barak Obama is a liberal democrat, and notwithstanding the fact that his is himself a constitutional scholar, clearly favors the liberal activist judge model.  He would not have nominated Judge Sotomayor if he did not belive she shares his belief that it is the role of the judge to make law from the bench, a function NOT intended for judges by our founding fathers when they penned the Constitution.   The founding fathers built in a system of checks and balances to keep any one branch of the government from becoming more powerful than any other.  The founding fathers intended for elected legistlators ALONE to write laws, and for the President alone to be able to approve or veto them.  This is because these officials are the only ones accountable to the voting public. 

 The role of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary is to safeguard the Constiution and ensure that neither legislators nor Presidents would enact laws that were contrary to the tenets of the Constitution.   They did this to ensure that neither political expedience or popular prejudices would upset the balance of power and emperil the rights of American citizens.  The founding fathers intended the rule of law to be sacrosanct and for the government to honor contracts and respect private property rights and individual freedoms of all citizens, except under such circumstances as conviction of a crime or enforcement of a civil judgment.  The conduct of this administration flys in the face of these protections and clearly warrants a judicial review.

In the hearing for Judge Sotomayor, you will not hear a peep from the democratic senators about the role of the judge, judicial activism, or anything else that could be perceived as a negative against this Judge.  Just like President Obama, the liberal democrats in the Senate believe this nominee is EXACTLY what they want, an activist judge who legislates from the bench, and they will do NOTHING to expose this and emperil their nominee.  It is left to the republicans in the senate to actually do their jobs and show the American people what kind of judge this nominee actually is, and to further illustrate to the American public the contrast between what democrats want in judges and what republicans want in judges so that the people can decide for themselves who best represents their interests in these and and other matters.

It is these distinctions between republicans and democrats that have been sorely lacking in the past eight years.  Ive often posed the question: "Are congressional republicans transvestite or transsexuals?"  Now before the gay rights types go nuts on me, it should be clearly understood that the vast majority of transvestites are HETEROSEXUALS, so there is no homophobic intent here.  I merely pose the metaphor because I can't decide if congressional republicans are merely dressing and acting like democrats, e.g. transvestite, or if they've had full gender reassignment surgery to become democrats, e.g. transsexuals.  In the case of Senator Arlen Specter, this is no longer a question.  He's CLEARLY a post-op democrat.  The jury's still out on Senators Susan Collins, and Olympia Snow.  I'm reasonably secure in declaring John McCain a transvestite in this metaphor.

While the republicans clearly must distinguish themselves from their democratic counterparts and actually DO their jobs vetting this candidate, they must also beware and avoid falling into the trap set for them by those very democrats.  To do this, they need to avoid the Rush Limbaugh example of comparing Judge Sotomayor to David Duke.  To be fair, Rush never actually did this, but the facts are irrelevant to the liberal media and he's been widely reported as having done this.  While Rush can defend himself, quite ably, the example is very real.  Republican Senators and political pundits alike must avoid the race issue altogether.  In the first place, it's irrelevant.  Nobody, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, thinks that Judge Sonya Sotomayor is anything like David Duke.  The comparison is ludicrous at best and to make it puts the republican party at real risk of coming off to the Hispanic voters as being either racist or xenophobic.   

The way to avoid this trap is simple.  Treat Judge Sotomayor first and foremost as a qualified judge with an inspirational American story and an equally impressive ciriculum vitae, as well as a seventeen year history that reveals how she interprets and applies existing laws to the fact patterns of her various cases.  Use the facts and judgments in these cases to show clearly how she interprets the role of a judge in constitutional questions and bring out facts that support her comment that it is actually the appellate court judge that makes law and sets policy.  Also, bring out the fact that she has been reversed three out of her six times on appeal to higher courts, including the Supreme Court to which she now apires to sit.  Lastly, show her the deference and respect you would show any woman in her position.  Do that and you will not antagonize or alienate the Hispanic community,  Most importantly, you must give people a choice if you wish them to make one so the differences between senate republicans and democrats must be clearly illustrated.

The worst thing republican senators can do is try to play to the media.  This is a losing proposition from the very start.  For a republican, you will be about as successful in appeasing the press as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was in trying to appease Adolf Hitler.  It's NOT gonna happen, because neither Hitler, nor the press, come to the table with honest intent.  No matter what republicans do, they're gonna be shredded in the press.  If they go soft on Judge Sotomayor, theyre going to be portrayed as weak and innefectual, a judgment that will be SHARED by their voting constituents.  If they do their jobs and bring out the truth about the judge, they will be portrayed as racist, sexist, and mean spirited for sure, but this is irrelevant because regardless of any spin applied by reporters or pundits, the viewing public will also see the tape of the hearings themselves and no one will doubt the evidence of their own eyes, especially if the press reports to the contrary.  No one trusts the media anymore, so don't worry about that audience.

As for the Hispanic community, if you don't disrespect the judge personally or make any derrogatory statements about her race or anything personal to her as a woman, you won't have a problem there, either.  Trust that our fellow Americans are not blind to liberal hypocrisy, which is about the only thing that is transparent about them.  In this, they are as transparent as Saran Wrap.  Contrary to the liberals world view, Hispanics are a proud and diverse group.  They do not see themselves as "victims" and will not forgive the liberals for their condescension and hypocrisy when it comes to their treatment of minorites.  It is pure hubris on the part of the liberal democrats to think that any minority group "needs" their largesse in this day and age.  No one, least of all Hispanic Americans, wants to dine on government cheese.   We tried that for the three decades between the 1960s and the 1990s.  It was called welfare and it was a liberal democrat named Bill Clinton that ended it.  

In summation, the gauntlet has been thrown down by the evil Sir Charles of Schumer. Republican senators must now do what medievil knights have always done in this situation.  They must pick up the gauntlet, slap the said Sir Charles of Schumer across the face, forcefully (figuratively speaking, of course), draw their swords, and engage the challanger in combat.  Retreat is not an option, because then as now, if you retreat, you will lose your honor, integrity, and in all likelihood, your jobs.  Accordingly, I say this to the senate republicans: "DO your jobs and vet this judicial nominee thoroughly and respectfully if you want to KEEP your jobs in the next elections; and, most of all, do not PANIC,