we have idea which rapides parish sheriff candidate we are going to vote for in the 17 november 2007 run-off election or if we are even going to cast ballots in this particular race.
anyway, kalb broadcast a pretty good report (see link) at 6:00 this evening about some "allegations that some sheriff department employees are being forced to support one of the two candidates."
kalb's story centers around a list detective bobby sandoval and detective adrian lamkin is carrying around for everyone to sign. two sheriff department employees claim that their jobs are being threatened if they do not sign their name to the list and contribute $10.00 to mike slocum's campaign. this list of names is scheduled to be printed in local newspapers as a political ad show of sheriff department support for mike slocum. detectives sandoval and lamkin maintain that signing the list is voluntary.
detective sandoval you might remember was one of the guys who contrary to the law according to ninth judicial district court judge donald johnson and affirmed by the third circuit court of appeals, the rapides parish district attorney's office leaked secret grand jury testimony to in the amanda gutweiler hypes investigation. that case is scheduled to be heard by the louisiana supreme court on 27 november 2007.
meanwhile, yesterday the editorial ding-bats over at the town talk put in their two cents worth of bullshit regarding the rapides parish sheriff run-off. instead -- instead...of using their editorial pulpit to demand that the new sheriff focus on something worthwhile like oh say all the rampant political and governmental corruption not to mention all the white collar crime, the town talk predictably takes the low road and chooses to focus on the so called "drug war."
the reality is that every family in rapides parish has at least one person who uses drugs, whether its marijuana, meth, cocaine, crack, etc. the town talk is so backward thinking they would like to see about a third to a half or more of the parish locked up and the rest of us tasked with even more taxes to pay for it.
using drugs and being addicted to drugs is a disease its not a crime. thats not to say that an adult who gives a child drugs to hook them and to turn them into a customer just like an adult who buys alcohol for a minor isnt a criminal and shouldnt be prosecuted because they should. the so called war on some drugs is a fraud and a sham its been going on since at least the 1930's and theres more drugs available now than ever before. this kind of editorial tripe on the part of the town talk makes one wonder if they ever read their own paper and if so and this is still the best they can come up with -- just what kind of drugs they are on.
we dont know about you but no "dopehead" has ever done anything to harm us. while white collar criminals, governmental and political crooks who have always been given a pass a wink and free reign by our do-nothing district attorney, our sheriff department, the state police, attorney general and local police forces sure have.
