The Campaign For DA


Random Tuesday Morning Thoughts

  • Crazy weekend in the world of DWI: In addition to the 14 year old Intoxication Manslaughter case in Denton, we had a Fort Worth police officer arrested (they continue to be out of control), an allegedly intoxicated lady crashes with her four kids in the car, a cop is hit by an alleged drunk driver on Sunday afternoon on 820, and two died in a one car crash at 3:00 a.m. on Sunday morning on the George Bush Freeway (no mention of alcohol, but I'm guessing.)
  • News flash: Having a family is expensive. Sheesh.
  • And the amount of garbage and recyclables a family of four produces is astonishing.
  • Has ESPN's Chris Berman ever had a pop culture reference about anything after 1980?
  • Legal stuff: The Supreme Court granted review in a case yesterday regarding the scope of the Exclusionary Rule. Slowly but surely, it continues to chip away at the greatest constitutional protection we have.
  • A rodeo bull jumped into the stands at a Canadian rodeo -- Maybe the INXS song that was playing when he left the gate put him over the edge. 
  • I know none of you listen to Mike Huckabee's The Huckabee Report -- it's a five minute radio show that can be heard locally on WBAP at 7:30 a.m.   I dare you to listen to it twice and not come to the conclusion that his humor is about as current as 1965. It is painful. And it truly makes me question his judgment. 
  • After months of slowly moving out of it, recarpeting, and repainting it, we're finally getting around to putting Mrs. LL's house in the Lipsey Edition in Decatur on the market. We'll probably shop it here for a couple of weeks before listing it with a Realtor. Email me if interested. (blog2 [at]
  • And at the risk of sounding like a car salesman: I want to move that thing. 
  • It looks like there is a double funeral today at 10:00 a.m. for the two Alvord girls killed over the weekend. 
  • And someone wrote me and pointed out there have been four other deaths in that little town within the last week --- all natural causes. 
  • Theater of the Bizarre last night on MNF (Philly went up 35-0 after barely a quarter of the game):  Written Off Michael Vick never looked better (6 TDs) and Over Paid Donovan McNabb looked as awful as he really is.
  • Whatever happened to humorist Dave Barry?
  • iTunes is expected to announce today that it will finally carry the Beatles catalog.  Didn't Michael Jackson buy the rights to it several years ago? I know I heard that but I never hear anything about his Estate being involved in the iTunes negotiations. 
  • And I'm leading the courthouse Fantasy Football league at 8-2 and that's despite cutting Michael Vick when I gave up on him after being hurt this year. (Me = Sports Genius.)
  • Despite it being in every news story yesterday, a full body scan at the airport doesn't bother me at all. 
  • Women's Basketball Anyone? #2 Baylor plays #1 Connecticut today at 5:00 p.m. on ESPN2.  Connecticut brings in a 79 game winning streak.


Anonymous said...

On the Alvord funerals, Samantha's was yesterday & Delaney's is today.

David in Weatherford said...

BG ... I usually can't wrap my head around how a smart guy like you can be so liberal, but I gotta admit that "first-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle" even has me rolling my eyes at the police. Sounds like something you'd be charged with in Mayberry.

Anonymous said...

Barry, is this the Dave Barry you're referring to? There was a link to it on The Drudge Report.

The Secret Police

Anonymous said...

On Mike Huckabee: Not that I have anything against Baptist preachers, but most of them are about as current as 1965 in the humor department.That's one of the reasons I don't want him to run for president in 2012.

Additionally, he's not up for a take-no-prisoners street fight, either!

Anonymous said...

the exclusionary rule case is just another example of criminals manipulatng the legal system to justify their illegal activity. Maybe the reason he was stopped wasn't valid, but he was doing something illegal at the time of the stop.
Guilty as charged! next case

Anonymous said...

Barry, and David in W'ford:
"...not only was his license suspended, but it had also been suspended at least 10 times prior"
Would you want to be on the road with your family in the car while this guy was next to or behind you in his vehicle? You can joke about how it sounds like a made-up Mayberry charge, but it's "aggravated" because he won't stop doing it. What do the police have to do to get this person off the road?

Anonymous said...

Todays chick is pretty hot, but what's up with the two dudes on her left and right?!?!?!?

Anonymous said...

And at the risk of sounding like a car salesman: I want to move that thing.--Once you have someone interested just ask them "what it would take to get you in this house today?"!

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows having a family is expensive. When I had kids at home I NEVER spent money on myself...all went to them.

Not sure about your comment about 4 folks dying in Alvord of "natural causes". So????? People die. Rule of life. Natural means NATURAL, so what's the surprise here?

Ernie said...

Wow, I thought I had shakey hand when video taping something. I had to hold on to my chair during that BULL video. BTW was that Sarah Palin doing to talking? You Betcha

Tom said...

I think Dave Barry is "retired," but he was on NPR talking about TSA pat-downs.

Anonymous said...

CSPAN is on in the background - a bunch of Tea Party people yelling into a microphone. Sounds just like Democrats or Republicans. Nothing but buzz words. This country is in trouble.

skitshivins said...

The exclusionary rule is supposed to protect us from constitutional incursions. The way it is currently employed; however, it has become an obstruction to justice and, as a protection for ordinary American citizens, a hoax perpetrated by the bar. The objective of trial by jury is to determine the facts. The exclusionary rule is not about finding facts. It is about excluding them. It is a moving target to law enforcement. You can follow the law to the letter and then, post facto, a judge decides to reinterpret and the criminal goes free. Most evidence excluded now days is due to an honest mistake by law enforcement. In the rare case when evidence is deliberately obtained in violation of the rule, the officer doesn’t get punished. We do. Please tell me why this benefits anyone other than the defense bar and the criminal element. It is time for chipping away.

Goober said...

I don't understand...polls (Rasmussen, ABC/WP, etc) say that Americans want the government out of their lives. But weakening or diminishing the exclusionary rule only INVITES government, be it local, state or federal, abuse and intrusion to a greater degree. Historically, the SCOTUS exclusionary rule precidents were due to abuses perpetrated against minorities and the poor. Those who sat on the Warren court recognized the injustice and the need to prevent those injustices, particularlly in the South. And it was a societal attitude of "they were caught, cops don't lie, they must be guilty, don't let them weasel out" that encouraged these abuses. Thurgood Marshall understood, if you give "authority" an inch, they will try to take the mile. Look at the number of wrongly convicted criminals coming out of Dallas County. Turn a dozen guilty loose before convicting and sentencing an innocent man.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that this is an exclusionary rule case. It should end up being like a warrant case. If an officer stops someone without reasonable suspicion but the person stopped turns out to have outstanding warrants then the person is going to jail on those warrants. The defendant in the SCOTUS case had a driving record replete with suspensions and was not entitled to be driving. He wasn't charged with the offense he was stopped for. He was charged with a really butch version of DWLI (aggravated?--wow). This case should have no effect upon the liberty of all of those unlicensed pharmaceutical manufacturers up in Wise County.

DF BG's True Inner Self

skitshivins said...

The exclusionary rule does not lessen government intrusion nor does it protect us from real abuse. Most of the expansion hasn’t protected anyone except the likes of Danny Escobedo and Ernesto Miranda. It lets the guilty go free and penalizes society. If you think government excess and abuse is a problem, then prosecute it. Don’t punish the rest of us by letting criminals go free. Escobedo killed someone and escaped to Mexico after he was released. Miranda was re-prosecuted, convicted, paroled, arrested for a number of crimes including possession of a firearm and then killed in a knife fight all within ten years after the Miranda decision. Most of the overturned convictions in Dallas County were 1980’s cases long after the huge expansion of the rule in the sixties and seventies and they had nothing to do with illegally obtained evidence. I'm not saying we should abolish it, but narrowing it's application is a good thing. The courts have been doing that for at least the last ten years, as well they should.

Mountain Tummler said...

...his humor is about as current as 1965. It is painful. And it truly makes me question his judgment.

Huh? 60's comedy isn't relevant today? Where do you think Howard Stern gets his shtick from? And the people you love like the lame Ticket dorks rip off Stern. It's scary how uninformed you are.

And sure Huckabee is old fashioned, but don't blame the 60s.

Anonymous said...

its only funny if every other word starts with f and has to do with hos. at least to a lib.

if conan told the same joke about conservatives you would laugh

Anonymous said...

My former boss thinks "Hucklebee" should be president. I would bite my tongue to keep from laughing whenever he talked about him. It's difficult to listen to someone's favorite candidate when he can't even pronounce the man's name!