Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Regressing to the Middle Ages Mentality

The US Supreme Court ruled a prisoner has no right to a painless death nor a right to have religious counsel of his choice present in the execution chamber.  The latter applies only to non-Christian religious prisoners since most prisons always have a Christian religious leader on staff.  The 5/4 decision split along party lines, the recent Trump appointee, Kavanaugh, penning the majority opinion.

Yet another example of our leaders taking us down the dark path towards a prison state governed with brutality.

Posted by A Drunk Redneck

Sunday, March 3, 2019

Saying Goodbye to WXDE 105.9

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Dear Ms. Monday:

I started writing a letter to you Thursday night.  I got this far:
I'm having trouble fitting into the New World Order as defined by Trump and the Trumplings, his devoted followers.  I noticed your station has changed from a local talk radio that doesn't take political sides to the unofficial propaganda machine for everything Trump.  I really want to fit into the New World Order and hope you can help me.  I want to become a card carrying member of the Trump Liturgical Cult.  I'm having trouble reaching my goal of earning my red hat, so maybe you could help me with the following tenets I can't figure out:
Friday morning, I listened to your show while thinking about how I would arrange the five or six points I had in mind to continue the letter, a letter that was supposed to be humorous and thought provoking.  That's when I heard an advertisement announcing The Ben Shapiro Show was coming to your station.

I checked the WXDE website to verify I heard correctly.  I did.  I turned off the radio and will not be listening to your radio station until Ben Shapiro is gone.  If you care to know why, please read on.

When I first stumbled onto WXDE 105.9 Talk Radio some five or six years ago, the station's claim that they weren't like any other talk radio station caught my ear.  I don't remember verbatim the ad, but in effect the station claimed that, unlike other talk radio stations that tackle national news in a partisan and divisive manner, 105.9 tackled the local issues and occasionally national issues without the partisan biases and divisive rhetoric.  I liked what I heard.

Dan Gaffney has always been the anchor bigot on the station.  He is very adept at labeling a box, shoving anyone who fit the label into the box, then proceed to verbally shred the box.  Massage parlors weren't running a prostitution ring out of their businesses.  The Asian parlors were.  Religious people didn't break the law by not following established protocols to request use of the Rehoboth Beach pavilion.  The atheists and Godless left wanted to deprive religious people of their rights.  When he dragged the name of a 30-year public servant about to retire through the mud over the issue because the religious people didn't follow proper procedure to request use of the pavilion, I stopped listening to Dan Gaffney. 

The rest of 105.9's programming was as advertised - unbiased (I doubt there's anything as truly unbiased programming) and focused more on local news than national news. 

When the station let Jared Morris go, the station's new philosophy began to emerge.  It took a couple of years, but now two bigot clowns follow your show and, of course, Dan Gaffney is still the bigot anchor to the weekday programming.

Did I say bigot?

Yes.  Whenever one sticks a label on a box, starts stuffing people into the box, and then debates as if the box is one person, you either have an intellectually lazy idiot or a bigot talking.  Yes, I listened to both Tyll and Sussman at various times.  Sussman fascinated me because he sounded like Jared Morris, but after sampling his show for a couple of weeks, I had enough of his intellectual laziness.  Tyll I could stomach for about twenty minutes and had to shut him off.  I haven't listened to him since. 

I'm sure if Tyll were to read this, he'd get on his soap box and rant about how the station so graciously offers us a platform to be heard and how dare I ridicule what the station is doing.  At least that's the gist of his argument to a caller who disagreed with his viewpoints.  Someone should tell Tyll that public airwaves are the public's, not the radio station's.  He should also be told the public affords him the platform to be heard and the station and hosts should be gracious for the ad dollars the public draws in for the station (and the hosts' salaries).

Anyway, I could handle all these changes in the station lineup and philosophy, Ms. Monday, because at least your show mostly stayed true to form of the old philosophy - local first, and no partisan vitriol.  Ok, you changed a little bit, probably to fit in with the new philosophy of the station, but you are the last shining light in 105.9's program lineup.

Are my observations off?  I don't know.  Have you noticed your station doesn't advertise "shop local" any more?  WXDE was never a local station, being owned by people out of Pennsylvania, but at least the station strove to keep a "local feeling" and the talk hosts strove to "keep it local."  Local has been erased from the station's vernacular.  Maybe the shift is because divisive, bigoted programming drives ad revenue, not local ambiance.

How can you say a cute face with dimples is racist?
Now racist Shapiro comes along. 

What?  We went from nice local  to bigots and now racists?


I know most of Ben Shapiro fans point out that he's Jewish so how could he be racist? 

Ahh, the thinking of a bigot.  The very people who argue that a Jewish person can't be racist are the same people who ask why the racism of Black people isn't reported on and criticized.

Racism is color blind and no one is immune from it.

Shapiro is a racist, period.  He has a whole body of work out there to prove it.  Take a look at his blog, The Daily Wire.  Yes, The Daily Wire is a blog not much different than Five Drunk Rednecks.  The only difference is the rich kid from California has the money and connections to make his blog "more news like" and generate enough money to hire other writers to contribute posts.  Five Drunk Rednecks can barely afford the time to write consistently every week much less hire a team of writers.

If one reads enough of Shapiro's work, a theme in his writings emerges.  White, European influence good, anything else bad.  One of his most controversial postings (that wasn't authored by him) was a video depicting Native Americans as cannibalistic savages that Europeans came over to save.  He apologized for the posting long after it made its impact by saying he was on vacation when the video was posted.  After reviewing it, he thought it was good satire so he let it stand, but a few days and lots of backlash later, he decided maybe it was in bad taste after all.

And therein lies the problem.  If one reads what Shapiro actually writes himself, it's wish-washy gibberish that uses a lot of ten dollar words when words off of Walmart's clearance rack would work just as well.  Despite the ten dollar words and the "sitting on the fence" literal interpretation of his work, the underlying tone is, at minimum, bigoted, if not racist. That's why Shapiro inspired one of my characters in my recently developed satire, "Conservative Cacophony."  If you're not sure what that is, look to your right for the label, "Conservative Cacophony" (complete with a disclaimer) or look at the top of the page for the tab, "Conservative Cacophony." 

Shapiro's other problem is his blog, The Daily Wire.  Shapiro doesn't author every post, but he is responsible for the content. 

Ok, let's back up here.

Many media outlets air a disclaimer  along the lines that the views and opinions expressed are not those of the station (or whatever outlet airing or publishing the views), but are solely the opinions of the hosts and guests.  I can't find such a disclaimer on The Daily Wire and even if such a disclaimer exists, does it absolve Shapiro, the owner and chief editor, of responsibility for the site's content?  Honestly, I don't know if that question has ever been answered in court so I don't know.  As far as the casual reader is concerned, though, no, the disclaimer is merely a liability protection and an excuse to make money at any cost. 

For most people, the content of a site is a reflection of the owner and chief editor.  The Daily Wire, if read as blogs are meant to be read (as a book in its entirety) is a racist blog.  Shapiro hires the writers, publishes and shares their work, and let's it stand as chief editor.  Either he's a racist because he agrees with the content of his blog or he's greedy and wants all the ad revenue the blog generates regardless of the content he's promoting to make his monthly paycheck.

I'm sure, Ms. Monday, you remember a character named Matt Walsh, originally a local morning show host on WZBH, The Beach at 93.5 on the FM dial.  He was fired from that station; ended up on WGMD at 92.7 on the FM dial for a year before being let go; ended up on an AM talk radio station in Kentucky and was fired before his year contract was up.  That character (who made it clear that Blacks were crack addicted freeloaders living off of welfare and food stamps, gays were mentally ill perverts, and women could work as long as they were home to make their husband dinner - all paraphrased from his one particularly offensive three hour show on August 19, 2010) writes for The Daily Wire today.

So here's the tricky question.  Is Shapiro a racist trying to spread White supremacy messages or is he an astute businessman who knows extreme rhetoric sells and he can maintain his wealthy lifestyle selling extreme rhetoric?  He doesn't write the stuff Matt Walsh writes, but he does promote it.

The answer doesn't matter to me.  Delmarva has enough of its own bigots and racists.  We don't need a rich kid racist from California polluting our airwaves whether he's writing the words or his flunkie writer wannabes are writing the words for him.

So sad to see WXDE 105.9 adopting the divisive bigoted and racist rhetoric to drive ad revenue and up their profits.  If I were rich, I'd buy the station and kick those foreigners from Pennsylvania who own the station to the curb.  But I'm not rich so the most I can do is keep the station silent on my radio.  Somewhere a long time ago, I read that ratings companies set up listening devices along major highways to "hear" what stations are being listened to as the cars pass and the information gathered is combined with other data sources to estimate how many listeners a station has.  If there are monitoring stations along the roadways, I don't want my listening to you to be counted as a plus for the station as a whole.  I feel that strongly about your station purchasing a racist's show from California as if bigots and racists make for quality talk radio.

Anyway, thank you for a few years of quality talk radio programming.You inspired quite a few articles on Five Drunk Rednecks and, yes, you remain an honorary drunk redneck. If you ever leave WXDE, please let me know so I can tune into your new home. If you remain put, please let me know the moment Shapiro is dropped from the station's lineup. I'll start listening to you again.

TL;DR folks:

WXDE 105.9 hired a racist as a talk show host.  Ok, they subscribed to a racist's program to air to you.  They did it for money, I'm sure, but it's time to kick the foreign owned station (the owners live in Pennsylvania) to the curb...or at least into the old coal mines where they grow mushrooms now.  Talk show hosts are dime a dozen.  Find another station to listen to.  I'm so serious about what I wrote, notice I didn't link to the racist websites - The Daily Wire nor WXDE. 

For your listening pleasure:

Posted by A Drunk Redneck

Sunday, February 17, 2019

When Those in Power Reduce You to a Pattern of Dots

Estimated reading time: 17 minutes


In our slow, but continual march towards a police state, Delaware has introduced a bill mandating DNA collection of accused sex offenders.  Currently, Delaware law only allows for the collection from convicted sex offenders.  The new law also extends collection to any convicted violent felon.

So here we go.  Introduce a law everyone can get behind, namely collect DNA of convicted sex offenders since sex offenders are more likely to commit their crime again.  Yeah, yeah!  Good law.  Now comes the slow evolution to requiring DNA collection of those accused of sex offenses and those convicted of any violent felony.  What group will the law be extended to tomorrow?  How about ten years from now?  How long will it be before every citizen is subjected to DNA collection for any infraction of the law?

The proposed law states "Additional safeguards and protections have been included in the law to balance the state’s interest in solving crimes against the rights of the arrested individuals...."  What about the rights of family members of the arrested?  Collection of the accused DNA sample means law enforcement (and anyone with access to the database, including hackers) not only has the accused's DNA profile, but also his/her family's DNA profile.

The proposed law mentions Maryland's case, U.S. Supreme Court v. King.  By a narrow margin (5-4), the US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of King for a rape in which he was never a suspect, stating that the DNA collection was a "valuable crime fighting tool" and could be used as evidence in another case King wasn't a suspect in.

Anthony Scalia issued a scathing rebuke of the majority opinion.  In effect, he said the Fourth Amendment made it clear that the government couldn't engage in a "fishing expedition" to find a criminal.

Unlike fingerprints, DNA defines the whole person and links the whole person to family members.  A DNA database is ripe for abuse and "fishing expeditions."  Maryland and DC are the only two jurisdictions that disallow "familial searches."  At least eleven other states allow it.  In short, familial searches are conducted when the DNA found at a scene of a crime comes up as a no match in the local and federal databases.  Law enforcement then expands the search to "close matches."  Usually, familial searches means entire families - often without their knowledge of the crime, much less the possibility of being a suspect - come under scrutiny.

The Golden State Killer example 

Between 1975 and 1986, the serial killer dubbed "The Golden State Killer" eluded police for decades. DNA led to his capture, but not in the direct way we would hope.  A family member submitted their DNA to one of those genealogy websites.  The relative then voluntarily uploaded their results to GEDmatch (registration required), a social forum where people hope to find long lost relatives through their DNA results.

The police investigating the Golden State Killer searched the voluntarily uploaded DNA profiles and came up with a close match.  DeAngelo and a couple of other relatives came under scrutiny.  Information past this point becomes scant as the unsealed arrest warrant was heavily redacted.

At this point, it should be noted the police did nothing illegal.  The redactions on the arrest warrant were probably to protect the identities of investigators and possibly to protect some "sensitive" information of police procedures.  Without further investigation, one can't suppose that some of the redacted information was to cover up unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical doings.

What we do know is the police retrieved some discarded clothing from DeAngelo's garbage and found a DNA match pinning him as the Golden State Killer.  Investigators then followed him to a Hobby Lobby and swabbed a DNA sample from his car door handle while he shopped inside.  That DNA sample confirmed him as the Golden State Killer.

If the police followed all the laws and proper procedures in collecting the evidence, why should we be concerned?  After all, a serial killer and rapist was finally caught and brought to justice.

Let's not forget the couple of family members who also came under suspicion.  What we don't know is what happened with them.  Were they tailed and had their DNA collected without their knowledge?  If so, what happened to their DNA sample once they were cleared as suspects?  Were the samples destroyed or do they sit in a database somewhere labeled "serial killer and rapist suspect?"  Would the DNA sample come back to haunt them ten years later when they are refused a government job because a background check found their DNA in the database?

Right now, only convicted sex offenders - and if Delaware has its way - convicted violent felons and accused (keyword, accused, not convicted) sex offenders - have a DNA sample in the database.  What employer would believe the person with a sample in the database when they answer, "I have no idea why it's there.  I've never been charged with a crime?"

How Accurate Are DNA Tests?


Over a hundred years ago when we first began to learn about genetics, a program called eugenics was adopted as a valuable crime fighting tool.  Genetics was infallible science so who could deny the results and conclusions?  The program led to many innocent people being jailed and some states implementing forced sterilization programs to stop more infirm and criminals from being born in the first place.  Hitler took the American eugenics program to its logical conclusion.

We understand a lot more about genetics than we did over a hundred years ago.  Every person shares 99.9% of the same DNA.  It's that extremely small margin of difference that makes each of us unique.  And when those small genetic differences translates into the physical differences between us, those differences aren't an indication of one's criminal or antisocial tendencies.  It does mean, however, that if you sample enough of the differences, you can uniquely identify an individual based on nothing more than the DNA sample.

In the world of DNA, this is you.
The genetic differences are termed "markers."  Given two DNA samples, look for one marker and you get lots of people matching the sample.  Look for more than one marker, and you start whittling down the pool of matches.  In simple terms, the forensics expert samples a mathematically significant number of markers on the DNA found at a crime scene with the same markers taken from a suspect.  If the dots (or color bars) match perfectly, the suspect moves from "suspect" to "accused."  If the dots aren't a perfect match, but a statistically significant match, then investigators know they're looking for a relative of the suspect of the crime.

DNA analysis, if done correctly, identifies an individual with an accuracy of 1 in 1.1 billion chance another individual might match the analysis.  Another valuable crime fighting tool - fingerprints - identifies an individual, if done correctly, with an accuracy of 1 in 5.5 billion chance another individual might match the analysis.  Apparently, fingerprints offer much higher variability to compare than DNA does, which results in a higher accuracy for identification purposes, but either analysis (fingerprint or DNA) is a highly reliable method for identifying an individual if the analysis is done properly.

Fingerprint analysis has been used for well over a hundred years.  How accurate is it?  Using experienced fingerprint analysts, a study in 2011 calculated the accuracy of fingerprint analysis at about ninety-three percent.  Fingerprints are highly unique to individuals (even identical twins don't have the same fingerprints), but people make mistakes.  The mistakes being made can be in how the fingerprints are collected to which whorls and arches in the print the analyst chooses as a reference point to how the analysts interpret the results.  A seven percent error rate may not sound like a lot, but in real terms of our criminal justice system, it translates to seven innocent people being wrongfully convicted out of every hundred crime scene prints one analyst looks at.  It is because of this margin of error that most criminal cases need more evidence other than fingerprints for a conviction.  (There are other factors, such as a fingerprint only tells investigators who was at the scene of the crime, but not when they were there, that forces prosecutors to produce more evidence than just the fingerprint to get a conviction.)

The logical question, then, is DNA analysis subject to the same scrutiny and standards as fingerprints?  The simple answer is no.

Just like we misunderstood the power of genetics over a hundred years ago when we developed our eugenics program, we misunderstand what DNA analysis tells us today.  Like fingerprints, DNA, if properly analyzed, only tells us who was at the scene of the crime, but not when they were there.  If the DNA is not collected properly, there can be cross contamination.  If the person was only in the area of the crime scene, wind could blow hair or skin cells to a crime scene before the investigators got there.  Yes, there's a dead body on the ground, people gather around, and they all leave DNA evidence behind.

And then there's that human error element, even if it's a low seven percent like in fingerprint analysis.  Since DNA analysis is a relatively new forensic tool, studies showing its accuracy rates aren't readily available.  But we know mistakes are made.  A seventeen-year-old-boy and his friend were sentenced to 25 years in prison for rape based solely on DNA evidence.  A persistent mother, who knew her son was innocent, successfully persuaded lawyers to look into her son's case.

For years, no one wanted to take the case because just as DNA evidence can free the wrongfully convicted, the generally accepted belief in the legal community is that DNA rightfully convicts the guilty.  Turned out, the DNA evidence convicted the wrong person.  The seventeen-year-old kid and his friend spent four-and-a-half years in prison before being exonerated.

Happy ending?  Not really.  Where is his DNA sample now, what label is attached to it, and does his criminal record now show a clean slate or an official explanation that he was wrongfully convicted?  Or does it simply say he was released from prison four-and-a-half years later and his DNA sample sits in the crime database labeled as "rapist?" 

What Delawareans need to demand

DNA analysis is a valuable crime fighting tool on par with fingerprint analysis.  Where DNA collection defers from fingerprint collection is the extent of the information provided.  Fingerprints simply tells someone "Kilroy was here."  DNA tells someone "Kilroy was here and Kilroy is related to (insert whole family tree here).  Kilroy is a Black male with sickle cell anemia and most likely will develop heart disease and Type II diabetes some time past his fiftieth birthday.  Kilroy is prone to ADD (attention deficit disorder) and likely prone to depression or bipolar disorders."

Now, if you're Kilroy and thought you were perfectly normal...just like everyone do you think law enforcement looks at you if they know your DNA profile before meeting you?  How about a prosecutor when you show up in court for a speeding ticket?  How about an employer considering you for a job you really want?  How about you health or life insurance provider?

DNA analysis is more personal than allowing the law to search your house.  If you don't want the law to legally search your house without a warrant, why would you allow them to collect your DNA without a warrant?  And here's a paradox.  Kilroy is convicted of a violent felony (serial killer, maybe) and is sentenced to life without the possibility of parole or maybe even the death penalty.  What would be the purpose of collecting Kilroy's DNA and keeping it on record?

DNA analysis is a valuable crime fighting tool.  Storing DNA analysis in one database is a hacker's...and Corporate America's...dream come true.  In worse case scenarios, it's a corrupt government's dream come true.  We're slowly evolving into a police state because a couple of generations being raised by helicopter parents have taught us we have a right to feel safe.

But no such right exists.

What does exist is our right to privacy.  As Associate Justice Louis Brandeis argued in a dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court decision on Olmstead v United States, (from Wikipedia):
The protection guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are broad in scope. The framers of the Constitution sought "to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations." It is for this reason that they established, as against the government, the right to be let alone as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth."
Justice Brandeis' opinion is often abbreviated as every American has the right to be left alone.  He meant every American has the right to be left alone, not just the Americans who haven't been arrested.  The consensus, today, is a felon gives up his rights, but our Constitution says no such thing.  The idea that felons give up rights because of their choices is born out of racist policies, not out of our Constitution.  The belief that felons give up rights because of their choices is further strengthened through our collective fear.  The racist reasons to deny felons the right to vote has been extended to deny felons the right to own a gun and now the right to control their own DNA, the essence of not only who they are, but who their family is.

Whether we're talking about denying one's right to vote, own a gun, where they can live, or control their personal information, all of those actions are directly contrary to the fundamental principles this country was founded on.

Yes, a felon in jail shouldn't be allowed to vote.  The felon is in jail, not walking freely to a polling place.  Once released, a felon should be free to walk to a polling place.

A felon shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.  A gun would make it easier for the felon to break out of jail.  Once released, a felon should be free to own a gun...unless the sentencing forbade it because the felony committed involved a gun.  Think about it.  Should anyone fear Martha Stewart, a convicted felon, from voting or owning a gun?  Should her DNA have been collected since she is a convicted felon?

A felon who stands no chance of being released from jail shouldn't have his DNA collected.  The felon isn't going anywhere to commit another crime.  A felon who may be released?  Put a reasonable time limit on how long the felon's DNA can be kept on record.  That should be determined at the time of sentencing.

In a country where 40% of White males and 50% of Black males have an arrest record by the time they are 23-years-old, it's not difficult to imagine a country where the minority (read rich people) rule and enjoy our Constitutional freedoms whereas the rest of us (read less than upper middle class people) are tracked through DNA databases (and watch lists) as if we're common criminals.  And, yes, that means a disproportionate number of minorities as well as the less than rich will suffer the wrath of the Police States of America.

Hyperbole and scare tactics aside, every Delaware citizen should be concerned about the new proposed DNA collection law.  There is no debating DNA analysis is a valuable crime fighting tool.  What every Delaware citizen should be concerned about is how the law governing DNA collection is used.  A blanket law that simply states "Collect from every convicted violent felon and every accused sex offender" is not good law.  At minimum, demand lawmakers to put time limits on how long the DNA sample is kept in a database.  Require warrants anytime an investigator wants to access the database and require the warrants to specify which samples will be accessed.  Deny familial searches.  Require notifications to anyone whose records were accessed and for what reason they were accessed.  And provide legal recourse to those whose records were breached or abused.

The questions and concerns aren't about how DNA evidence is used today.  The questions and concerns are about how DNA evidence will be used - and abused - tomorrow.

Now for Two Surprises and What You Can Do

I wrote this whole article and got to this point where I need you, the reader, to take action.  Do you know what the surprise for me was?  All six sponsors and cosponsors of the bill are Republicans.  Take that fact for what you want it to be.

Here are the sponsors and cosponsors contact information (phone numbers and email links):

Representative Timothy D. Dukes (sponsor)

Representative Daniel B. Short (co-sponsor)

Senator David L. Wilson (co-sponsor)

Representative Ruth Briggs King (co-sponsor)

Senator Catherine Cloutier (additional sponsor)

Senator Brian Pettyjohn (additional sponsor)

Ok, you got my first surprise that all the sponsors are Republicans; now here come the second surprise.  Delaware doesn't make it easy to find out who your state representatives and senators are.  The flippant side of me says they don't want you to know because they're doing a lousy job and know it.  The professional side of me says I'll let you make the determination of why finding your elected officials online isn't an easy task and let you decide if you want to give them an earful on their poorly designed website.

Anyway, if you're feeling brave and want to send an email to your representatives on House Bill 29, you can find your representatives and senators here.  Simply click around on the tabs.  They can try to hide from you, but persistence will allow you to find them eventually.

Let the sponsors, co-sponsors, and your state representative and senator know you are very concerned with the potential rights to privacy violations this bill could eventually lead to and potentially every citizen will be bagged, tagged, and tracked in the future.  If you think being tagged and tracked is unlikely, take a look at New York Police tactics.  Today, they track your car across the country and build a profile on you based on where your car has been.  Imagine what profile law enforcement could build on you if they added DNA analysis  in the mix.  You could unknowingly end up on a government watch list, a watch list potential employers can access.

House Bill 29 might be filled with good intentions, but it is ripe for potential abuses.  Privacy rights safeguards need to be built into the law including the need for warrants to collect, access, and store DNA samples, time limits on storage of the samples, and strict guidelines on the DNA use that prevent familial searches and "fishing expeditions" to solve a crime.

We are a country founded on the basic principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  House Bill 29 is written on the basic principle that everyone is guilty even if they haven't been convicted yet.          

TL;DR folks:
DNA collection is an awesome crime fighting tool...until they come to collect your DNA

For your listening pleasure:

Posted by A Drunk Redneck

Sunday, February 3, 2019

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" cried Donnie Grumplin. "There's drugs, criminals, and rapists streaming across our borders!"

"Look!" Donnie Grumplin points out across the open border. "There's the caravan coming now! It's huuuuge! Look at the dust it's kicking up!"

Donnie Grumplin makes one last desperate plea. "Build the wall now!"

"Knock the crisis fabricated story off already, Donnie," challenged Nancy Pelistorki. "That's probably Miguel delivering my authentic Mexican burrito for dinner."

"It's an inundation by the brown tide," retorted Annie Coiture. "Two years in and Grumplin has built zero miles of wall to stop the flood!"

"We haven't built the wall because Pochantas won't give me the money," sneered Donnie Grumplin. "She's using my money to stuff her peace pipe."

"That could be a caravan," reasoned Bennie Scampiro. "It might be a dust devil, too, and nothing more."

"So now the Mexicans are dust devils," screamed Nancy Pelistorki. "We need less evil stereotyping and more open arms."

"See? The caravan or dust devil doesn't matter to the liberals," triumphed Bennie Scampiro. "Open borders is all that matters to them. Free flowing Mexicans, drugs, and burritos is all Nancy wants."

"Those burritos are proven abortifacients," warned Mattie Falshe. "Eat one and your insides are cleaned of all parasites...and unborn babies."

"That's because nothing good ever comes from south of the border," chimed in Annie Coiture.

"We need a wall now before the human tragedy of the caravan gets to our border!" pleaded Donnie Trumplin.

"Excuse me sir, madam, or generic pronoun you prefer," Mr. Gonzalez politely said. "I took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. Could you point me to my home in Toronto?"

 The befuddled border patrol agent hesitantly pointed north.

 "Oh, can you deliver this to Nancy Pelistorki for me?" asked Mr. Gonzalez.  He handed a burrito to the border patrol agent and left a dust devil behind as he hurried northward.

Posted by A Drunk Redneck

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Nationalist Pride Day

Fifty-three years ago, Martin Luther King had a dream.  He had a dream everyone lived in harmony and were proud of their heritage.  This January twenty-first, I ask everyone, in Martin Luther King's honor, to stand up and boldly proclaim, "I am proud to be American" to show the world our unity as a nation.

Every day, we have a "Proud To Be" day honoring some subset of Americans.  We have a Women's March; Black History Month; Gay Pride and its offshoot, LGBQT Day; St. Paddy's Day for the Irish; Cinco de Mayo for the Mexicans; and almost every city has their Italian, Ukranian, and Polish festivals.

But nothing to honor Americans.

Tomorrow, I will sign into law making the third Monday of January the federal holiday, Nationalist Pride Day.   This Monday, Americans need to stand up and shout to the world, "I'm American and I'm proud of it."

There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your ethnic or racial background unless you use it to gain favor like Pochantas did.  Squaw Warren might be proud of her alleged Indian heritage, but have you ever heard her say, "I'm proud to be an American"?

No.  She and her liberal peers want open borders so the terrorists, drug dealers, and rapists can erase America from the map and banish Americans to the ash heaps of history.

The good ol' days when we were proud to be
On Monday, when you stir from your siesta, proclaim, "I'm proud to be American," but state it in English, the official language of America.

On Monday, when you're preparing dinner for your husband and kids, give thanks for the bounty America has given your husband to bring home for your family.

On Monday, kiss your welfare check in thanks for the support your country gives you and the other less fortunate living in the ghettos.

On Monday, stand in front of your rainbow door that let's us know who you are and proclaim you are proud to be an American.

On Monday, the world should see smiling pearly whites from Canada to Mexico and sea to shining sea.

Embrace Nationalist Pride Day and Make America Great Again!

Posted by

Donnie Grumplin: So-called president of the conservative world whose tiny little hooves are a tumultuous terror when they hit the keyboard.

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Dorchester County Owes Me $125

About a month ago, the county mowers came through on their last run for the season.  They cut into my yard demolishing a tree and some bushes.  This isn't the first time the mowers waged war on my yard.  Six years ago they did the same thing.  This time, I'm sending the bill to the county.

For my readers who may not be familiar with phragmites mentioned in the letter, phragmites are commonly called giant or common reeds.  They grow eight to twelve feet in one season and die back in the winter.  They are highly invasive and grow so thick in one season, they choke out waterways.  Mowing them doesn't kill them although mowing does weaken them, but it takes years of continuous mowing to have any impact.  Skip a year and you have to start the battle all over again.  It is phragmites that causes the view obstruction mentioned in the letter, not our native plants and bushes.

Dear Mr. LeBlanc,

Six years ago, your mowers extended their blades into my yard and cut down some bushes, bushes that were supposed to be replaced in the spring, but never were and I chose not to follow up on it.  I don't remember who came down to look at the damage, but he agreed the mower cut too far in.

"People complain they can't see the deer, " he explained, "so we cut wide to increase visibility.  Our mowers are supposed to know not to cut into people's yards, though."

Before he came down to assess the damage and explain things to me, I went to the county yard to ask what the county's right-of-way is.  A young woman explained, "It depends on the property.  The right-of-way can extend anywhere from fifteen feet in to thirty feet in."

"So your mowers have a map of the road depicting how far they should be mowing and adjust the blades accordingly?"

"No.  They mow as far in as the blade extends."

May as well bring the paving machines down
and make it a four lane highway
After the disaster six years ago, the county didn't mow much past the ditches.  This year, the wide mowing began again.  If obstruction of view and deer are the concern for the county, why wasn't there a concern in July?  The phragmites grow eight to twelve feet high by July every year and the deer are out year round.  If you don't want your mowers carrying right-of-way maps to do the mowing correctly, at least mow consistently.  Fifteen feet in is about to the roadside edge of a lot of these ditches, twenty-two feet in to the other side of the ditch.  A safe bet would be to mow to the other side of the ditch and no further.  Be consistent with the mowing throughout the growing season and homeowners will know where it's safe to plant their trees and bushes.

What's left of the $70 tree, a unique tree that
takes on the form of the prevailing wind like
a living sculpture.
This year your mowers cut well past the ditch.  On my property, they cut thirty-two to thirty-three feet in.  Your mowers leveled my $70 tree and six bushes that I planted for privacy to the ground.  I calculate $125 should cover the cost.  I based the pricing on the pot size larger than what I bought six years ago to get the new plants closer to the size they were before being razed.  Please let me know when I can pick the check up.

Since I am copying our County Commissioner, Jay Newcomb, in on this email, I hope he takes the initiative to introduce a standard policy that governs consistent mowing year after year.  Yes, Mr. Newcomb, please set a standard compromise that every mowing follows.  Since the minimum right-of-way is fifteen feet and the maximum is thirty feet, compromise and set the standard at twenty-two feet.  Every mowing will be done at twenty-two feet and I'm sure no one will complain - except the speeders who want to feel safe from hitting deer while doing seventy on these back country roads.  Since no one should care about the speeders keeping our vultures well fed, their complaints can, and should be, ignored.

Also, Mr. Newcomb, if the county refuses to pay for my losses, then I ask you to demote the supervisor responsible for training mowers.  He's unqualified for the job of supervisor.  If he spent a couple of years as a mower, he would be a better trainer of mowers in the future. 

Thank you and with regards,

A Drunk Redneck

If you have concerns or comments about mowing practices in Dorchester County:

Contact Person for the Engineering Division of the County Highway Department
Greg LeBlanc, County Engineer
5435 Handley Road Cambridge, MD 21613
410-228-9516 FAX

Dorchester County Commissioner, District 1
Jay L. Newcomb
Cell: (443) 521-6957

If outside of District 1, find your commissioner for your district.



I received an automated response to my email from the County Highway Department informing me that Greg LeBlanc was no longer with the department and all emails should be forwarded to Ms. Stephanie Newcomb.  Her full contact information:

Stephanie Newcomb
Project Manager Dorchester County Department of Public Works
5435 Handley Road Cambridge, MD 21613
410-228-9516 FAX

I copied my county councilman (Jay L Newcomb) on the first email and this email, but, no, I do not know if the two Newcombs (Stephanie and Jay) are related.  My councilman has remained quiet, but I didn't expect him to answer.  My complaint isn't about the lack of Mexican workers so probably is of no concern to him.

Dear Ms. Newcomb,

Last Friday night I saw something flopping across the road.   As I got closer, I saw a scared deer, unable to get on its legs, dragging itself across the asphalt trying desperately to get to safety.  I didn't have a gun to put it out of its misery.   I had to leave it to suffer hoping another person would come by with a gun.

A few weeks ago, someone stood by an injured bald eagle on the side of the road.  The big birds take a bit of time to get airborne and the speeders don't bother to slow down to give them that time.

In the last month, I've seen two dead vultures, a dead heron, a couple of dead foxes, and one scared opossum sitting on its hind legs in the middle of the road.  There was nothing I could do for the roadkill, but I did walk up to the opossum to see if I could help it.  It sat there, unaware of my presence...and blind.  A car must've straddled it and its eyes were popped out as it rolled across the asphalt.  Again, I had no gun to put it out of its misery.  I decided to run it over quickly to stop its suffering.

I know.  You could say I should've called the authorities.  A couple of months ago, I did just that when I came across an injured owl.   I was told by the sheriff's department to leave it on the side of the road.  There was nothing they could do and animal rescues wouldn't be opened until the next day.  I disregarded the instructions and took the owl home to keep it safe from coyotes and foxes.  The next night, it flew off into the night on its own.

Why am I telling you this?  Because your mowers and your mowing policies contribute to the killing of our wildlife, wildlife that is often left to suffer before mercifully dying.  In the spring, your mowers chew up our turtles laying their eggs.  In the fall, mowing the roads to look like four lane highways gives the out-of-state hunters and SUV drivers a false sense of security.  They'll do sixty or seventy at night believing they could stop in time if they come across an animal.  They can't.

Perhaps if you send me your full name and contact information, I could investigate your department's mowing policies and practices.  I would like to have that information for my records.

Do you get my point?  In the police state mentality sweeping our country, you get nothing from me "for your records."   I made my complaint.  In a follow up email, I told you I'm moving from Dorchester so I don't want the money since I won't replace the tree or bushes.  If you need to investigate as opposed to building a file of "county troublemakers," tell your supervisor to take a road trip through the tidal marshes of Southern Dorchester if the pictures on my blog weren't enough for the investigation.  Make sure your supervisor comes at night so an accurate count of roadkill and suffering wildlife left to die can be tabulated.

Fix the four lane highway style of mowing and you'll fix the problem of decimating homeowners' properties and people like me wouldn't have a need to write you...and a lot more wildlife might be around to thank you.

Full disclosure:

This email will appear as an update on my blog.  I gave you the option of responding with an email to answer the points I made to tell your side of the story and explain what homeowners can do if they have a problem with the mowing in their area.  You have sent me a response stating the people who worked in your department are no longer there and two separate requests for my personal information.  I have not reproduced those emails on my blog.  Any emails from here out will be reproduced.  Don't you think it's time to address some of my questions and concerns instead of asking for my personal information?


A Drunk Redneck