Wednesday, November 30th 2005
Save Tookie!
Yes, I’m serious.
If you haven’t heard already, Stanley “Tookie” Williams, co-founder of the Crips and a convicted multiple murderer, will be executed in the next couple of weeks unless the governor intervenes. The usual suspects are coming out in support of Tookie: Hollywood, the ACLU, socialists, Snoop Dogg. The Berkeley City Council is mulling over another one of their famed policy resolutions. The kids are being mobilized.
With a such a carnival of fools supporting this proprietor of urban terror, you might wonder why I support sparing him too.
I’m not really against the death penalty for any moral or religious reasons. Even if we could guarantee that 100% of those put to death were guilty of their crimes, I would still be against it. It wouldn’t be wrong for them to be executed, but I just think that between life or death, the latter is the lesser of punishments.
Think about it: life in prison. A couple years of that and I’d rather die too. It would be even better if every life prisoner served out the remainder of their worthless lives in a Supermax style prison. I’m not exactly sure about how those prisons operate, but here’s how I would have it: No TV, no books, no human contact, no sunlight, no hope. Just you, your bed, and hours, days, years to think about what you’ve done. Call it cruel and unusual, I call it punishment.
It’s not like I enjoy having our fellow citizens locked up. On the contrary: we have too many people in prison as it is. Millions of people in jail is just shameful. We could easily cut that number in half by ending the War on Drugs and immediately releasing nonviolent drug offenders. Shrink it even more by legalizing victimless “crimes.” Let law enforcement focus on real threats to society: mega-gang founders, killers, rapists, burglars, etc.
Once we’ve cleared out half of the prisons, we could use the extra money to create new “Hell on Earth” ones. Those currently serving life terms in a regular prison or are on Death Row will be transferred. The criminal elements will take notice. Violent crime will nosedive.
Let me sum up:
- Save Tookie
- End the War on Drugs, etc.
- Abolish the death penalty
- Build awesome new prisons to transfer life prisoners and Death Row inmates to
- Throw Tookie’s ass in solitary, never to be heard from again
- (optional) Fry Mumia. Sorry, but he and his supporters are just too annoying.
Anyone who implements this plan, let’s call it the “Tookie Williams Plan,” will truly deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. It starts with step 1, governor.
NOOOOOOoooo! Not another resolution from the Berkeley City Council!!! How can anyone stand up to such criticism? Nice plan, though. But Tookie still needs to go.
Comment by Scott — 11/30/2005 @ 7:45 am
My God, did anyone else read the East Bay Express article about the woman doing the “Tookie Teach-in” in Oakland. She is a complete moron.
Then Johnson asked Faucher, “Does Arnold even have his citizenship?”
“No,” Faucher replied. “He doesn’t.”
“How can he be our governor then?” she asked.
Faucher took a step back and reconsidered. “I don’t actually know if he’s gotten his citizenship,” she conceded. She looked to the other adults for help. There were no takers.
I pray that these kids did not take her seriously
Comment by Greg S. — 11/30/2005 @ 11:09 am
You do not value life nearly enough. If prisoners really preferred death, they wouldn’t spend so much time trying to appeal to get a life sentence.
Next, most prisoners are not nonviolent drug offenders. Only 21% of prisoners are there for drug offenses. 51% violent, 20% property, 7% public order.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
You now want to spend billions of dollars to create “hell on earth” prisons. The voters would never want to waste their tax dollars on it. Since these prisons you are advocating would also only be for death row type inmates, I don’t see how the lesser criminals will be deterred.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/30/2005 @ 11:18 am
Pat, what about the argument, and I my main argument for the death penatly, which is simple justice? This man took lives. Is it not fair and just for those victims to demand an equal punishment? Not ‘Hell on Earth,’ just simple, fair, equal justice? I firmly believe if you take someone’s life through murder you have given up your right to life.
I don’t want these people to suffer, I want them to die.
Comment by Morbo — 11/30/2005 @ 11:55 am
http://www.savetookie.org
That is all.
Comment by Asinine — 11/30/2005 @ 1:35 pm
I often hear that ‘let them live so they can THINK about what they did’ argument. He isn’t sorry he killed those people, and if he really feared spending the rest of his life in prison, he wouldn’t be fighting so hard to live. (Keep in mind, before he found a new life as an author, he tried to avoid the death penalty by claiming he was too ‘retarded’ to be executed.) And life in solitary is ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ according to our friends in the ACLU. This guy Tookie is a manipulative, racist skunk. Lose him.
Comment by pro-croak — 11/30/2005 @ 1:43 pm
Michael: I must have gotten confused with the state vs. federal percentages. It’s about 55-60% nonviolent drug offenders in federal prisons. So if we combine both state and federal, that would be around 25-30%. These people should be immediately released.
Next, probably one of the most important part of my plan is ending the War on Drugs. Most criminals don’t kill or rob just for the thrill of it. They do so in order to finance their habit for artificially expensive drugs or to take care of business in the underground drug market. We’ll keep these kinds of people in prison because they’ve already committed their crimes. But by removing this black market, there will be no incentive to commit future crimes of this nature. This is how the lesser criminals that you speak of are deterred.
So with the low end squeezed out, and the high end taken care of by the super prisons, we only have to deal with a much smaller subset of criminal behavior.
Comment by patr — 11/30/2005 @ 3:38 pm
Morbo: We can take away a life by two ways: killing the guy, or removing every aspect of life that makes it worthwhile. Tookie may want to stay alive so he can enjoy his time working out, writing children’s books, being a celebrity of sorts. This is not how I would have it, as I stated in my post. Life in prison should come with zero amenities.
People die all the time, through natural causes, diseases, accidents, crime. It’s the sad fact of life. People don’t find themselves in solitary for life. If we want to give someone the Ultimate Punishment, it shouldn’t be something that eventually happens to everyone. It should be something that everyone would want to avoid. Don’t do anything bad Junior, or look what’ll happen…
I actually don’t really care about Tookie, if he lives or dies. The main point of my post is to present my ideal justice system, where people like Tookie could truly be punished.
Comment by patr — 11/30/2005 @ 3:51 pm
Thanks for showing Tookie some love.
Comment by Snoop Dogg — 11/30/2005 @ 4:39 pm
what about the arguments in favor of sparing his life? if reports in the media are accurate it seems he’s quite an influence against gang violence now. seems like he’s the reformed, repented voice some kids may need to hear.
in general though, our justice system isn’t just to punish, though that’s certainly an important part of it, but it’s also to rehabilitate criminals, and it seems like in this case it’s worked
Comment by kcdem — 12/2/2005 @ 12:52 am
[…] california patriot blog » Save Tookie! […]
Pingback by Jackson West’s Obsessive Compulsion » links for 2005-12-01 — 12/2/2005 @ 1:15 am
Murderers, especially mass murderers, don’t need to be rehabilitated. They should be removed from society forever, either through life without parole or the death penalty. If we really want to persuade those kids not to take up the gang lifestyle that Tookie helped create, then we could show them what will happen to Tookie.
One major turn-off about the anti-death penalty movement is how it focuses on these undeniably unredeemable thugs. Tookie. Mumia. Cold blooded murderers. These people aren’t heroes and aren’t worthy of any praise. No matter what they do in prison, they will never make up for what they have done to their victims and their communities.
Comment by patr — 12/2/2005 @ 1:35 am
FRY IN HELL TOOKIE AND ANYONE ELSE WHITE BLACK ECT THAT DID WHAT YOU DID AND I BET THE FAMILY DID NOT FORGIVE HIM. aND I’M TIRED OF THE I WAS A VICTOM OF SOCITY EXCUSE GET A JOB OR DIE IN JAIL LATE.
Comment by MIKE B — 12/5/2005 @ 2:25 pm
It’s a shame when our education system fails people like Tookie and Mike B, making them literate only once they enter prison. Shame.
Comment by Donald — 12/6/2005 @ 5:22 pm
If you commit a crime, obviously there is a punishment. Tookie has changed his lifestyle, hes anti-gang [which is the main reason people want to keep him alive], and has written a few books. Its nice to see that change, yet the law is the law. And unfortunatly, if Arnold does not grant him clemency then so be it.
Now, its not as if Tookie is the only inflential person to combat gang violence. If Tookie is executed I challenge all those who wanted his clemency, Snoop dog and the like, to start off where he finished off with the anti-gang campaign [of course in the rap game non violence=no sales, but we’ll see if they walk the talk]. Furthermore, the groups that supported him should follow suit too. I have an odd feeling that some groups will blame Arnold or whathaveyou for the death of Tookie, yet they need to put that energy into finishing off what Tookie started.
Comment by Danielle — 12/8/2005 @ 8:53 am
link
some more details on the case and the political considerations are discussed here
Comment by kcdem — 12/8/2005 @ 2:23 pm
I can not believe what I am hearing. I am listening to KFI, all the supporters of Tookie, attempting to defend him, sound so uneducated. They can not even state why they defend him.
Comment by D Lee — 12/12/2005 @ 6:58 pm
What Tookie did is indefensible, so it’s easy to see why his supporters have to come up with BS reasons: “He’s a Nobel Peace Prize nominee,” “His children’s books are weapons against gang violence,” “He has redeemed himself,” etc.
Comment by patr — 12/12/2005 @ 7:32 pm
Here’s a reason: his death accomplished nothing. No crimes will not be committed as a result, and regarding Williams specifically, some avoidable crimes will probably now be committed. While I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances, executing someone who has been useful in reducing gang violence seems particularly pointless. We’ve condemned future innocents to death. I can only hope that this charade has sickened enough people to make reform possible.
Comment by Donald — 12/13/2005 @ 6:40 am
Williams brutally murdered four people and then bragged about it. While in prison, he tried to kill people on multiple occasions. Executing him, removes a danger to the rest of society. Whatever he might have done in prison cannot erase the human lives he took. Furthermore, he has never even atoned for any of the brutal acts he committed, including founding the Crips, which continues to murder people to this day. His books, which certain people want to hail, have most likely not saved a single human life, and he appears to have written them for the sole purpose of gaining sympathy to preserve his own life.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 12/13/2005 @ 1:04 pm
What about ending a gang war in New Jersey. Do you think that saved at least a couple of lives?
“While in prison, he tried to kill people on multiple occasions.”
I’d like to see a citation for this.
“Executing him, removes a danger to the rest of society.”
The danger, if it still existed, was removed in 1981. Life in prison without parole means just that. Killing him doesn’t make you or I any safer. Regarding Williams specifically, it probably makes us just a little less safe in fact, by robbing the world of someone who could actually negotiate gang conflicts.
“Furthermore, he has never even atoned for any of the brutal acts he committed, including founding the Crips”
Quote by Stanley Williams:
“So today I apologize to you all — the children of America and South Africa — who must cope every day with dangerous street gangs. I no longer participate in the so-called gangster lifestyle, and I deeply regret that I ever did.
As a contribution to the struggle to end child-on-child brutality and black-on-black brutality, I have written the Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence children’s book series. My goal is to reach as many young minds as possible to warn you about the perils of a gang lifestyle.
I am no longer “dys-educated” (disease educated). I am no longer part of the problem. Thanks to the Almighty, I am no longer sleepwalking through life.
I pray that one day my apology will be accepted. I also pray that your suffering, caused by gang violence, will soon come to an end as more gang members wake up and stop hurting themselves and others.
I vow to spend the rest of my life working toward solutions.”
Sure sounds like a fucking apology to me. Congratulations to the supporters of yet another senseless taking of life. I hope you sleep well knowing that you’ve robbed the world of someone who was actually able and willing to make positive change. I don’t know if he murdered those people, and quite frankly, I don’t care. His death benefits nobody.
Comment by Donald — 12/13/2005 @ 2:19 pm
1. As far as the New Jersey Crips and Bloods truce goes, the Newark Deputy Mayor, not Williams, mediated the truce. It seems the two gangs might have been influenced by seeing a movie about Williams. If so, he could continue to have the same effect, alive or dead.
2. Next, as far as Williams not being a threat inside prison,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/13325482.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_news
“George Oglesby, a jailhouse informant with a grimy, violent criminal record, told the jury that Williams bragged about the killings and plotted an escape, planning to explode a jail bus with Coward aboard.
Jurors saw notes and a sketch that Williams purportedly wrote in jail, plotting the escape. A handwriting expert testified that the writing matched Williams’ penmanship.”
3. That quote you gave from Williams may sound like a fucking apology to you. I suppose that must be different from an actual apology. All he actually apologized for is a lifestyle choice “I no longer participate in the so-called gangster lifestyle”. He did not apologize for the brutal slaying of four people or for starting an extremely violent gang that has murdered thousands more.
4. Quite frankly, his death benefits his victims and their families, who at the very least finally have closure. The execution also shows that you can’t brutally slaughter multiple people and then if you get cought, avoid execution by pretending you’re sorry and writing a few books.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 12/13/2005 @ 4:58 pm
Its not the end of the world….
some peeps feel as if there is no hope for anti-gang activism because Tookie was executed. i think[and hope] his execution, brought more attention to anti-gang activism. A broader spectrum of people [including celebrities….for better or worse] have been reminded that gang activity still persist with all the attention to Tookie. And with that, some mobilize and try to make make a difference like snoops mother who just created a an organization to steer children away from gangs, . So yeah, Micheal definatly has a point when he said Tookie could have the same effect, dead or alive.
Its dangerous to assume that millions of lives will be taken because Tookie cant convince people not to join gangs. Hopefully, citizens, celebs, politicians, Tookies protesters, will attempt to “fill the void” that Tookie left.
Comment by Danielle — 12/14/2005 @ 6:10 pm
“some peeps feel as if there is no hope for anti-gang activism because Tookie was executed”
“Its dangerous to assume that millions of lives will be taken because Tookie cant convince people not to join gangs”
You’ve just created a straw man. I doubt anyone would suggest “millions of lives will be taken” or that there’s “no hope for anti-gang activism”. That’s hardly the point. Killing Williams took away an important anti-gang voice. People will die as a result. If you’re attempting to justify the killing of Williams by putting words into people’s mouths, please don’t (I’m not necessarily suggesting that’s your intent, but it’s unclear to me what point you’re trying to make).
Comment by Donald — 12/14/2005 @ 6:48 pm
I apoligize if my message wasnt clear, here it is…
Donald, Im not putting words into peoples mouths, Im responding to what I have heard [blogs, newspapers, newsclips, conversatiosn whathaveyou]. Ive heard people say that Tookies is the only influential voice for anti-gang violence, he isnt. Ive heard that so many lives would be taken because Tookie has been executed, not neccesarily so. My intent, Donald, is to be optimistic and hopefull in the outcome of his execution. It is my hope that people wouldnt feel defeated, that this would promt folks to joing the fight against gangs, continue Tookies anti-gang legacy . My fear is that people sit back in defeat and blame whomever because an anti-gang voice is gone, but my hope is that inspiration will come for the void to be filled, just as Snoops mother already started to do [could u imagine the effect if Snoop started an anti-gang campaign, and he is very influential]
I respect the outcome of the courts and i respect Arnolds decision. My message is that folk, dont get hung up in the whole “asshole Arnold killed him” and start the blaming and bitterness. The law has spoken, lessons should be learned from this, and people[organizations, celebrities, citizens who dont experince gangs, ect] have once again been reminded or have become aware of the persistance of gang violence with the execution of Tookie. This episode could influence the groups such as NAACP, HSAN, and others to continue where Tookie left off.
Comment by Danielle — 12/14/2005 @ 8:57 pm
I think a major point is how ridiculous the law is to begin with. Arnold shouldn’t have power over life and death.
Comment by Donald — 12/14/2005 @ 11:36 pm
Well, you’re quite right, but, of course, if you yanked the power from Arnie, Tookie’d be dead anyway.
Comment by Beetle — 12/14/2005 @ 11:44 pm
After a jury of 12 unanimously agree to execute a criminal, and judges confirm the decision through countless appeals,
the chief executive who is tasked with enforcing the laws, and is elected directly by the voters, decides whether or not to allow the execution. Seems pretty reasonable for the governor to have that authority.
If you don’t like the governor having that kind of power, then you should be relieved to know that no California governor has actually used their power to prevent executions since Ronald Reagon.
Comment by Michael — 12/15/2005 @ 9:51 am
“After a jury of 12″
Not of his peers as the trial was moved to a suburban town. He had an all white jury.
“unanimously agree to execute a criminal, and judges confirm the decision through countless appeals,”
With judges at multiple stages suggesting that 1) this case was one in which clemency should be considered and 2) the prosecution’s case was based on circumstancial evidence relying on witnesses with “less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie”. But our system places so much faith in the minds of 12 common citizens, that the judges refused to act on their misgivings.
“the chief executive who is tasked with enforcing the laws, and is elected directly by the voters, decides whether or not to allow the execution”
A chief executive who’s political career is based on his decisions. A chief executive who’s decisions are shaped based upon how close we are to an election cycle and which political interests he needs to curry favor with at any given time. A chief executive who’s natural impulse on any given issue is to appear “tough on crime” so as to gain favor with the powerful prison union and police lobbies, for fear of a misleading and inaccurate Dukakis “Willie Horton” ad entering California politics.
Comment by Donald — 12/15/2005 @ 10:04 am
You were previously arguing that the governor should have no role in preventing executions. Now, you want to argue against trial by jury.
“A chief executive who’s political career is based on his decisions.” Why yes, we have an elected government which represents the people, and the decisions it makes actually determines whether the voters approve it or not.
There are systems of government, where the public makes no decisions, and is unable to choose or criticize its leaders, and I
much prefer our govenrmental system.
Of course I find these arguments by you rather odd, considering that you previously stated: “I don’t know if he murdered those people, and quite frankly, I don’t care.”
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 12/15/2005 @ 12:52 pm
“You were previously arguing that the governor should have no role in preventing executions. Now, you want to argue against trial by jury.”
My point wasn’t that the governor should have no role in preventing executions, but rather that there should be no executions for the governor to prevent.
I’m not necessarily arguing against trial by jury. The adversarial judicial system operates under the pretense that the opposing advocates will be of equal caliber, presenting 2 contrasting positions with the truth ultimately in triumph. The system collapses when the poor and the very rich are on trial. The poor because they are provided a public defender that, if not incompetent, is overworked. The very rich because they can afford lawyers far superior to the prosecution. So, I would argue that trial by jury, as it is presently practiced in America, doesn’t work unless we provide greater funding to public defenders and give them smaller workloads. Also, a jury that represents a greater cross-section of America and not just 12 white suburbanites naturally inclined to want to remove gang members from the street at any cost would perhaps ensure greater fairness, especially when multiple races (and classes) are involved in the trial.
“Why yes, we have an elected government which represents the people, and the decisions it makes actually determines whether the voters approve it or not.”
Congratulations on removing the context from my words.
“There are systems of government, where the public makes no decisions, and is unable to choose or criticize its leaders, and I much prefer our govenrmental system.”
I much prefer a system where we recognize that the public, and especially 12 members of the public, can make mistakes. I much prefer a system where we recognize that the public is not necessarily the most informed, not necessarily able to understand nuance, and not necessarily able to recognize that some lawyers are much more incompetent than others. I prefer a system that recognizes that the public isn’t necessarily right and doesn’t kill people banking on them being right most of the time. Because some of the time they’ll be wrong.
“Of course I find these arguments by you rather odd, considering that you previously stated: “I don’t know if he murdered those people, and quite frankly, I don’t care.””
I don’t see why you find them odd. I don’t know if he was guilty. He was convicted mostly on circumstancial evidence. While I’m not opposed to convictions based on circumstancial evidence per se, every other method of punishment provides unlimited time to correct mistakes. Execution kind of ends the appeals process, and needlessly so.
Comment by Donald — 12/15/2005 @ 1:51 pm
1. “My point wasn’t that the governor should have no role in preventing executions, but rather that there should be no executions for the governor to prevent.”
You said that it was ridiculous that the law gave Arnold the ability to prevent executions. This means either you dislike the current governor, or don’t want the governor to have that option. Also, even if you were just trying to say that:
“there should be no executions for the governor to prevent.”,
that conflicts with what you argued in your following post:
“A chief executive who’s political career is based on his decisions. A chief executive who’s decisions are shaped based upon how close we are to an election cycle and which political interests he needs to curry favor with at any given time. A chief executive who’s natural impulse on any given issue is to appear “tough on crime” so as to gain favor with the powerful prison union and police lobbies, for fear of a misleading and inaccurate Dukakis “Willie Horton” ad entering California politics.”
2. “I’m not necessarily arguing against trial by jury.”
And yet you constantly rail that 12 people cannot possibly be competent enough to make good rulings.
3. “Congratulations on removing the context from my words.”
I quoted the first line of a paragraph, where you are supposed to
state the point you are trying to make.
4. “I much prefer a system where we recognize that the public, and especially 12 members of the public, can make mistakes.”
We already do. Williams had twenty-six years of appeals. We also recalled Davis in 2003.
5. “I don’t see why you find them odd.”
First you say that you don’t care about whether Williams murdered four people. Then you want to argue about whether Williams should have been found guilty or innocent.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 12/15/2005 @ 4:11 pm
“You said that it was ridiculous that the law gave Arnold the ability to prevent executions.”
That’s not what I said.
Me:
“I think a major point is how ridiculous the law is to begin with. Arnold shouldn’t have power over life and death.”
The law I was referencing wasn’t the law allowing governors to commute sentences but rather the law allowing executions. I do mean Arnold specifically, but I also mean the state apparatus in general. Still, I think I was quite unambiguous early on stating my objections to capital punishment. From a post that predates the post in question:
Me:
“I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances.”
You then suggest there’s some contradiction in my opposition to executions and my opposition to the politicization of criminal law in general. Again, I’m curious where the contradiction lies, as I don’t see it.
Later…
Me:
“I’m not necessarily arguing against trial by jury.”
You:
“And yet you constantly rail that 12 people cannot possibly be competent enough to make good rulings.”
Once again, you remove the context in which I explain how jury trials can be made to work better. As I said, the system rests on the assumption of equally qualified and prepared advocates, something that doesn’t exist.
Regarding a self-correcting system…
“We already do. Williams had twenty-six years of appeals. We also recalled Davis in 2003.”
The Davis recall would be relevant if we executed defeated challengers. We don’t. People have been on death row for more than 20 years only to be exonerated. You may recall the case in Illinois when a man was freed from death row after almost all appeals were exhausted. He was freed only after a law school class discovered evidence proving his innocense. No number of appeals was sufficient for that man. The system would have executed him without third party intervention.
“First you say that you don’t care about whether Williams murdered four people. Then you want to argue about whether Williams should have been found guilty or innocent.”
When I said I didn’t care, that was in the context of whether or not execution was justified. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to me what his guilt was in determining whether he deserves to be executed. Clearly, I do care if someone is innocent in the context of whether they should have been convicted of a crime to begin with. Two different, though related issues.
Comment by Donald — 12/15/2005 @ 8:39 pm
1. “The law I was referencing wasn’t the law allowing governors to commute sentences but rather the law allowing executions.”
You only specifically mentioned the governor’s role. If you just wanted to state that you were opposed to capital punishment, you should not have spent time attacking the governor’s ability to prevent executions.
2. “You then suggest there’s some contradiction in my opposition to executions and my opposition to the politicization of criminal law in general.”
No. I said that if in one post you really were not attacking the governor’s ability to block executions, then you shouldn’t later defend that post by attacking the governor’s ability to block executions.
3. When you argue:
“But our system places so much faith in the minds of 12 common citizens,”
and
“I much prefer a system where we recognize that the public is not necessarily the most informed, not necessarily able to understand nuance, and not necessarily able to recognize that some lawyers are much more incompetent than others.”;
you are arguing that 12 people cannot possibly be competent enough to make good rulings.
4. “The Davis recall would be relevant if we executed defeated challengers.”
The Davis recall is completely releveant since you are stating that our system does not recognize that the public can make mistakes.
5. I find it odd that you argue against capital punishment on the grounds that innocent people might be executed, yet you do not care whether this person executed was guilty or innocent.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 12/16/2005 @ 11:41 am
stop telling our society tookie was anything but a cold blooded killer and an animal. the bleeding hearts of the world should be ashamed for trying to turn this garbage into a hero. tookie stanley williams is dead and justice was served. may he rot in hell. his 4 victims are the HEROS and he is filth. as all gang members and drug dealers and thugs etc. crips, bloods… all sheep hiding behind the ‘gang’ thug life…
have the loons in hollywood lost it? ashes on african soil? this GUY IS NOT A HERO. HE’S A MURDERER AND THE LEADER OF ONE OF AMERICAS WORST EYE SORES… PERIOD!!!
Comment by edward przydzial — 12/20/2005 @ 8:26 am