Follow Neal Boortz on

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Listen: Weekdays 8:30-1pm ET

Nealz Nuze

Posted: 1:00 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007

Today's Nuze: January 25, 2007 

Previous Posts

By Neal Boortz

Today's Nuze: January 25, 2007
Thursday - January 25, 2007

21 YEARS LOST ... WHAT ABOUT THE WOMAN WHO FINGERED HIM?

I brought this up on the air yesterday, but we never really did develop much a conversation about it.

Pete Williams walked out of a Georgia jail yesterday. He had been in jail for 21 years, convicted of a rape he did not commit. Pete was freed thanks to the work of a third-year law student and the Georgia Innocence Project. Some DNA evidence still existed from his 1985 conviction .. and that DNA evidence proved that he was not the rapist.

So ... how did he get convicted? On the eye-witness testimony of the victim, that's how. The victim identified Williams as the man who raped her. I've been looking since yesterday, and I can't find the name of this victim who fingered the wrong man? Who is she? Why did she identify Williams? How does she feel now knowing that an innocent man spent 21 years in jail because of her faulty eye-witness identification?

More importantly .. does this woman owe anything to Pete Williams? Twenty-one years in jail means he's not exactly the most employable person in the world right now. Should she step forward to help? How about paying for some job training. Hell .. how about paying for a college education? I think she owes this innocent man something. An apology isn't enough. How about forking over about one-half of her net worth?

We've been learning that eyewitness accounts of crimes are not quite as reliable as we might think they are. Maybe we need to change the way this eyewitness testimony is generated and used in court.

One Georgia legislator is moving to do just that. Representative Stephanie Stuckey Benefield is drafting a bill that would establish new rules for the use of eyewitness testimony in court. Her bill sets forth four rules the police would have to follow for the testimony to be admissible:

  1. The officer showing possible suspects to the victim must not know which is the suspect;

  2. Photos or people must be shown one at a time, not all at once;

  3. The witness should be told that o.k. to say "none of these is the bad guy";

  4. Officers should record how confident a victim is in making an ID.

Every one of these rules sounds completely reasonable to me. I'm not a law enforcement officer, nor did I practical criminal law -- so perhaps more experienced people might have a different idea.

I do know that I just hate the idea of an innocent American having their freedom taken away. I would truly rather have a guilty person go free than have an innocent person serve time in jail.

At the very least ... let's five serious consideration to Representative Benefield's legislation ... and let's find the victim and see what she is willing to do to correct the damage done from her false eyewitness identification.

Science Myths

This week, we've been asking you about the most popular science myths. Below are the answers to yesterday's questions. Find Monday's answers here and Tuesday's here.

A dog's mouth is cleaner than a human's
True 57% - Yes! A dog's mouth is technically more sterile than a humans.
False 43%

Hair and fingernails continue growing after death
True 61%
False 39% - Nope! The body actually dehydrates after death exposing more of the hair & fingernails, they aren't growing.

A falling cat will always land on its feet
True 34% - True! Although I bet some of you cat owners have observed otherwise.
False 66%

Men think about sex every seven seconds
True 56%
False 44% - False! It may seem this way sometimes, but there's really no conclusive scientific way of measuring this and researchers guess that this is a gross overstatement.

You get less wet by running in the rain
True 20% - It's true! Complex mathematical equations that we don't understand prove it!
False 80%

Okay, here are the last five. And remember...check back tomorrow to see how you did.

DICK CHENEY UNLOADS ON IRAQ

Dick Cheney blew his stack in an interview with Wolf Blitzer [video] and finally fought back on Iraq...and he was mostly right. Despite the problems in Iraq, there really are some things that have gone right.

The fact is the administration has been horribly lacking in its ability to convince Americans of the necessity for success in Iraq. It's just a shame that the administration has waited this long to fight back and try and set the record straight. It's really probably too late to convince most people. Defeatism and pessimism controls. There are, though, reasons for optimism in Iraq. How so? Well, let's count the ways.


Here we are 4 years in to the war. According to Cheney: "There have been three national elections in Iraq. There's a democracy established there, a constitution, a new democratically elected government. Saddam has been brought to justice and executed, his sons are dead, his government is gone. And the world is better off for it." Right. The only problem is we screwed up the post-war planning. That's all.

As for politicians that are somehow questioning whether or not we should have gone to war in the first place, they have a selective memory.

First off, the official U.S. policy of removing Saddam from power in Iraq was not set by the Bush Administration. That policy was made official during the Clinton years. How conveniently we forget this fact.

It also is somewhat amazing how we have forgotten that the Democrats were solidly for removing Saddam from power. The invasion had widespread Democrat support on Capitol Hill. When things started to get a bit rough, tough, the Democrats turned. They saw a worsening situation in Iraq as an opportunity to demonize their true enemy .. George Bush.

It's too bad Dick Cheney is about 2 years too late in his defense of the war.

ANOTHER WORTHLESS RESOLUTION

The Senate is debating another non-binding resolution on the war in Iraq. Really...don't these people actually have something else to do? What about the first 100 hours of Democratic rule? Oh, that only applied to the House. So the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution yesterday saying President Bush's troop surge was not in the national interest.

Actually, it's not correct to say that this resolution is worthless. It is actually quite valuable. Not to us, but to the Islamic fascists. This resolution can be used as a rallying point for their recruitment of new followers. "See! We're winning! We have the unbelievers on the run! Join us in the Jihad! Victory is at hand!"

It was a straight Democratic vote in favor...except for, of course, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. By the way, ever notice how Chuck Hagel, a politician nobody ever heard of a couple years ago is suddenly the most important Republican on the Hill? That's because he opposes the administration...which makes him a principled, leading Republican in the eyes of the mainstream media.

So now this defeatist resolution goes to the full Senate for debate. Time will be wasted debating it, filibustering it and holding hearings in committee. All over a non-binding resolution that doesn't accomplish anything other than displaying America's weakness.. Here's an idea: if Democrats are so opposed to the war in Iraq, then show us real opposition. How about cutting off funding for the war? That would stop the troop surge in its tracks.

The reason they won't do that is that they don't have the you-know-whats to do it. They'd rather pass more resolutions. What's next, The Poodle crying on the Senate floor? Oh wait...that happened yesterday too.

CONSIDERING CHURCHILL .... AGAIN

I'm wondering ... what is life in the United States really going to be like once the rest of the world knows that we don't have the will to stand up and fight in the war against Islamic fascism? And what will life in the rest of the free world be like when they finally realize that the United States can no longer be counted on as a strong ally. Does Europe have the ability, let alone the will, to fight Islamic extremism? Some think the battle is already lost across the pond.

We're going to have to fight, folks. It's inevitable.

Perhaps it is time to consider the words of Winston Churchill again. I can think of no words of wisdom from the great men and women of our past that do a better job of summing up our current situation than these:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case; you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill

The American people are now showing that they are not willing to fight when victory could be sure and the cost relatively low. So .. the time will come. And when it does the costs are going to be great. Or will we be willing to live as slaves to Islam?

THINGS YOU CAN BLAME ON GLOBAL WARMING

You know, of course, that if anything goes wrong in your life today it will be because of global warming. I've started a small list of the things that we already know are being cause by global warming ... we'll add to it later.

The Saints' loss to the da Bears
The Flu
An increase in pit bull attacks
Citrus canker
That screaming brat on that AirTran flight
Wolf Blitzer
Alan Colmes' eyebrow
My loss of hair
Britney's crotch shot
Diana's car crash
Everything happening in Somalia
Your credit card bills
Liberal professors
Sand fleas
Most botched circumcisions
Kerry's tears
Dropped cell phone calls
Pop-up advertisements
Red lights
Cruise ship dysentery
Teen smoking
Hideous prom dresses
Dennis Rodman
Screaming car dealer commercials
Slow drivers in the left lane
Al Franken
Fever blisters
Slow elevators
Belinda's migraines
Virtually all paper cuts

AN ALERT FOR MY PILOT BUDDIES

OK .. so I know that most of you aren't interested in hearing me yap about my passion for flying. That's fine ... that's why I'm putting this in the Nuze this morning instead of covering it on the air (though I reserve the right to do so.)

It seems that our friends at the FAA are thinking of adding some more regulations that will affect all of us as we try to avoid the hassles of major commercial airports. Here's a new NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) from the FAA. Read it and let these bureaucrats know what you think.
 

Subject: FAA NPRM
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NPRM)
Part 0, Section 000 (a) 1(c)

Section I - No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of a pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make, or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by, the Administrator.


Section II - If a pilot, or group of associate pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers, or finds that he or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.

Section III - Upon receipt of the above-mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator shall immediately rewrite the Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

Section IV - The Administrator may, at his or her discretion, require the offending pilot or pilots to attend remedial instruction in Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

REDNECK SCRAP BOOK

This home improvement project brought to you by duct tape! More in the Redneck Scrap Book. If you just want a quickie, check out the top ten viewed redneck scrapbook entries for 2006.
 

HATE MAIL OF THE DAY

I listened to your show one time when traveling through Tennessee. You are a blatant conservative whose perspective is narrow and blurred that clarity has never reached you. When I listened to your show you allowed a Muslim women on the air. Once you knew she was Muslim you never let say another thing. That was it and it was over. The way you attacked her and the culture associated with Muslims was just you I guess. It was a narrow minded view. Simply because she was a Muslim you assumed you knew everything about her, because you have preconceived ideas of their culture. Some of your thoughts may hold validity, but you simply trash what our nation stands for when you attack listeners in that manner. We are an opened minded nation whether you wish to accept that or not. I
have no problem with a Congressman placing his hand on the Koran because if he is an honest man it is his word under God. It is better than having him swear on a text he does not believe in and most likely will represent our nation and what it stands for better than you do. I am sorry for all those people that call or write you thinking you are voice of the conservative party because people like you and Bill O'Reilly will no longer be tolerated. You are, I hope, the last of your kind. People like you attempt to push the divide between conservative and liberals and it is a foolish mistake. I hope you find this letter not as hate mail, but as a constructive letter that is asking you to stand back from your conservative nature and appeal to both the liberal and conservative that rests within everyone. Thank You and may God be with you.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Dick Cheney said Hillary Clinton would not make a good president.
The media seems truly shocked that he would say this. His reasons? Well, because she's a Democrat and he doesn't agree with her politics. Of course.

Fox News and CNN are having a showdown over the story about Barack Obama
attending a Muslim school during his youth. Fox says he did...CNN says he didn't. What difference does it make? According to the media, I thought being a Muslim was a good thing?

Senator Barbara Boxer has been caught in a bit of hypocrisy. Seems like she pushes the idea of tighter controls on mileage standards to save gasoline and the environment....but when it comes to her own driving habits, it seems she likes cars that don't get very good gas mileage. Oops!

Some House Republicans opposed to President Bush's amnesty plan
are actually taking action. They say the administration's border policies aren't working. That's right...they aren't. Sadly these voices are in the distant minority.

Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal makes a good point about the war in Iraq. He says the United States is talking itself into defeat there. With all the doom and gloom out there, you would think we had already lost the war. Where's the optimism?

President Bush tried to establish a bipartisan committee on terrorism....and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid told him to perform an anatomical impossibility. So says Robert Novak, who says the Democrats aren't interested in working with the president.

Victor Davis Hanson has a completely different take on the issue of illegal immigration.
He says the goal should be to improve living and working conditions in Mexico so that so many people aren't trying to break into this country. Interesting theory.

John Podhoretz has praise for President Bush's State of the Union address.
He says the speech reflected the current situation of the White House, that is a hostile Congress and record low polling numbers. He says there still may be hope for the administration.

Ann Coulter notes that if Hillary Clinton is elected president,
she would become the first woman to be elected president after her husband had sex with an intern in the Oval Office. Always entertaining reading from Ann Coulter.

Cal Thomas notes that Democrats are not going to serve on any sort of terrorism advisory council
because to do so would make President Bush look good. And they're just not going to do that, especially with the 2008 presidential race just around the corner.

Yesterday we posted a pic of the Decathlon...now here's the Mooney!

SOMEBODY'S GOTTA SAY IT!

It's done. All the editing is over. "Somebody's Gotta Say It" will appear on your bookstore shelves on Tuesday, February 20, 2007. The autographed first editions have sold out so if you want my mark on your book, you'll need to catch me at one of my book signings. Or if you just want to get to reading, order it online here.

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

COMMUNITY
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:



Talkmaster Yahoo Group





add to my yahoo







Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

 
 

Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets

 
 

© 2013 Cox Media Group. By using this website, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad ChoicesAdChoices.