Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The North Carolina General Assembly voted to repeal the Racial Justice Act enacted in 2009.  Why?

What was the purpose of having enacted such legislation to begin with?  What was the purpose of calling it: "The Racial Justice Act."  Racial Justice strikes me as an honorable objective.  What's confusing to me is "Actual innocence."  Either you are innocent, or you are not innocent.  Another entity I find interesting is one that calls itself: N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.  Isn't that what our courts are?

You would think so; but there is some controversy about FairJudges.net, a 527 tax-exempt organization created by a former N.C. Supreme Court Judge, that ran campaign ads in 2006 that said: "Fairness.  It's the most important quality a judge can have...judges who will treat all people fairly."

That's interesting because it was on the watch of Chief Judge Burley Mitchell, that my First Amendment case of symbolic speech was denied by the court in 1992.

North Carolina legislators, judges, politicians have the propensity of throwing out such purposeful sounding names i.e, Actual Innocence, N.C. Institute of Constitutional Law, and FairJudges.net,  in juxtaposition to their motto: "To be rather than to seem."

According to news reports the N.C. Conference of District attorneys petitioned the General Assembly to repeal the newly enacted Racial Justice Act, signed into law in 2009 by Governor bev. Perdue.

Perdue is now set to repeal the act. They say it is because of fear that using statistics to prove bias would let 157 inmates appeal their death sentences, because it's is alleged that during voir dire, blacks were screened preemptively from the jury panel by white prosecutors.

I think there is another reason.   You see, Gov. Perdue was sent a claim for exoneration, and remedy of redress, compensation for a First Amendment, Free Speech case sent by Certified Mail to her previous spokesperson, Chrissy Pearson, and Perdue's General Counsel.  Both have since resigned.

Jon Romano is now said to be Perdue's new communications didrector, replacing Pearson, who left 2-3 months ago.

Another interesting question is:  "Why was a resolution to the legislators signed by all but two of the district attorneys in North Carolina?  And, who were they?  What were their motive for not signing?

A writer of American Detective fiction, Rex Todhunter Stout, says: "...Statistics are of two kind, the kind you look up, and the kind you make up."

If statistical findings from a Michigan State University law school research show that black defendants who killed a white person in North Carolina--or, let's say offended a white person [finger gesture]-- were more likely to be sentenced to death, or fined respectively, 2 1/2 more times, than if the person was not white, then let N.C. law schools prepare for the State of North Carolina statistics to show otherwise, which the N.C. General Assembly can then use to dismantle the Racial Justice Act.

Monday, May 30, 2011

America's Tennis Decline of own making

Released, May 30, 2011, TOTT, America’s Tennis Decline, As I see it.

It's the Talk of the Town!


For some time now, sportswriters have noticed an absence of an American players in the finals of the U.S. Open, the French Open, the Australian Open, and Wimbledon, and not just as the result of injuries.

Some attribute the decline to the lack of Clay Courts in the United States, and offers that up as the reason for Spanish Players' new dominance. However, I see it a little differently.

As I see it, it’s a lot more basic than that. Surprisingly, and with the surge of popularity in the USTA’s Quick Start Program, at local county, and city recreational facilities, you would expect a plethora of talented new players. Not so, and I’d like to elaborate on several problems that come to mind.

Many take lessons but few learn to be Tennis Players.

One of the reasons I do not participate in USTA Tennis events is because of its "tennis marketing" rather than marketing of "better playing of tennis." Many of the tennis magazines are written by tennis instructors certified by the USTA, but who have limited experience in teaching tennis, but may have been talented players in their day.

The tennis magazines will often highlight, and promote the playing style, ball spin, and service speed, of the most popular player, rather than calling attention to the players form, the early, or lack of  early shot preparation, or the players’ ability to anticipate, or the tennis acumen of the player, or the player’s shot selection, as I see, or how players should employ better footwork, and stroking, and service technique to prevent tennis injuries.

Let’s start with the USTA Rating System. As I see it. The purpose is to provide a basis for tennis instructors that are certified by USTA, to give lessons in order to move players from one rating to another with their self evaluation criteria for tournament play. Using the USTA rating format, I see only a 1. Novice; 2. a beginner, 3. a person who plays tennis, and 4. a Tennis Player. as being a necessary ranking method.

However, the tennis teacher, as I see it, and the instructors’ ability to disect the stroke, and present it in increments so that the student can grasp how the stroke is produce is sorely lacking.

I believe it is more important being able to teach the fundamental, and the basics of any stroke in less than and hour, and have a unique, systematic method, and realistic expection for student to use my technique to develop their own style of play.

If a teacher, who is of tournament skill level, uses a one hand backhand when playing or teaching, and acknowledges that using a two-hand backhand, or two-hand forehand requires the student to run more, and requires quicker foot speed to get to the ball--which would be a handicap to the Senior player--why would the instructor permit the student to use two-hands, when learning to play?

Finally, the work ethic for learning, and practicing around most courts, as I see it, where I play appears to be only actual play. There is also a sense of entitlement around the Challenge Courts that if you wait, you will get a chance to play, but little understanding that competition, requires daily attention to your playing skills, and ability, not just exercising, that drives the accomplished, and winning tennis players.

Hey!  That's my perspective.  What's yours?

Tennis Decline is of America's Own Making

Released, , TOTT, America’s Tennis Decline, As I See it.

For some time now, sportswriters have noticed an absence of an American players in the finals of the U.S. Open, the French Open, the Australian Open, and Wimbledon, and it's not just because of an injury.

Some attribute the decline to the lack of Clay Courts in the United States, and offers that up as the reason for Spanish Players dominance. However, I see it a little differently.

As I see it, it’s a lot more basic than that. Surprisingly, and with the surge of popularity in the USTA’s Quick Start Program, at local county, and city recreational facilities, you would expect a plethora of talented new players. Not so, and I’d like to elaborate on several problems that come to mind. Many take lessons, but few learn to be "Tennis Players."

One of the reasons I do not participate in USTA Tennis events is because of its "tennis marketing" rather than marketing of "better playing of tennis." Many of the tennis magazines are written by tennis instructors certified by the USTA, but who have limited experience in teaching tennis, but may have been talented players.

The magazine will often highlight, and promote the playing style, ball spin, and service speed, rather than the players' form, the early shot preparation, players’ ability to anticipate, tennis acumen of the player, player’s shot selection, and how player’s employ better footwork, and stroking, and service technique to prevent tennis injuries.

Let’s start with the USTA Rating System. As I see it. The purpose is to provide a basis for tennis instructors that are certified by USTA, to make more money giving lessons, supposedly in order to move players from one rating to another with their self evaluation criteria for tournament play.


However, As I see it there need be only a 1. Novice; 2. a beginner, 3. a person who plays tennis, and 4. a Tennis Player. as being a necessary ranking method.

Tennis teachers'--as I see it--their instructional, capability to disect the stroke, and present it in increments so that the student can grasp how the stroke is produce is sorely lacking. I pride myself in being able to teach any stroke in less than and hour, and have a unique, systematic method, and realistic expection for student to use my technique to develop their own style of play; though many have disparaged the systematic, graduated length method of stroke production.

If a teacher, who is of tournament skill level, uses a one hand backhand when playing or teaching, and acknowledges that using a two-hand backhand, or two-hand forehand requires the student to run more, and requires quicker foot speed to get to the ball, which would be a handicap to the Senior player--down the road a few years-- why would the instructor permit the student to use two-hands, when learning to play, a sport of a lifetime?

Finally, the work ethic for learning, and practicing around most courts I visit, as I see it, appears to be only playing, and few spend more than 15 minutes on the Wall. 


There is a sense of entitlement around the Challenge Courts, but little understanding that competition, requires daily attention to your playing ability--not just exercising--that drives the accomplished, and winning tennis players.

And yes, I do sometimes lose to players I think I should beat, but even aging champions are nurtured, and "born in the labor of defeat."