Well there is a television commercial that states it should never have been done.
But here is the thing. It seems to be a bit like saying a defendant should not be allowed to have a court appointed lawyer?
And a lot of legal research is easily done on a computer such as a laptop.
There have been cases of wrongly convicted. I would even say that some black people were shoved in jail instead of who it should have been.
The commercial states something like the convicted person used the laptop to contact someone he abused? And that he contacted her 1500 times? Well were they man and wife and talking about the kids money? But a more telling point here is, let say he should not have contacted her even once. Where is the oversight to take that laptop communication feature away after the first time? How about the 3rd time? Why wait in terms of oversight to take it away at the 1500th time?
So it was Sean Diddy Combs who gets alcohol in prison and massages? How come they are not saying booh about that?
And then another person viewed child porn? No one should be able to view child porn! And who controls those sights? The brother of the guy of someone connected in gov? Honest to God! They can control net neutrality. They can create data centers. But when it comes to who posted that child porn? They are stooges that don't know how to do their investigative work? Don't you just love that sentence.
It seems off topic but it isn't. I had an auditing professor who used the term snagging putzes. Same religion as the guy who owns the porn sites? The guy that owns the porn sites should be in jail. Republicans would find that objectionable? Someone they would have to pardon?
So you ask yourself, not texasing (ww?) the billionaires, is that like not texasing (ww?) the mob bosses?
And when does not texasing the billionaires equate to texasing the rest of us without representation?
As if people who cause and profit from causing schizophrenia are a necessary evil.
Yeah, I said it again. Why? Because I am a man.
*******'
So everyone is to assume that a person in prison is unable to read and learn from having a laptop? They are unable to watch an automotive repair video and understand it? They are unable to or don't need to look up laws and legal precedents so that when they are freed they can better comply with the law?
I mean we might have high power people, like Pres, who appealed. Is it the equivalent of saying they can't have the right to research and appeal a conviction.
*******'
If you want to get dirt on someone get dirt on someone. Like a photo of him happy as can be standing next to a friend who is a pimp of children.
And you know what? Some people dig mean spirited political commercials. I don't. I view someone that creates a mean spirited commercial as someone that I don't want to vote for. Really sad commentary that we have a majority faction of white America that is that constituteuncy?
******'
Now here is another term that came up. People who are considered by a criminal hierarchy as being, "Compelled to be pardoned." I mean just stand back. Is so and so pardoning someone for a valid reason? Or are thy pardoning someone because they are, "Compelled to pardon them." That means something very relevant to the sustainability of our democracy. As if someone asks themselves the question daily, "Do I need to help necessary evil today?" "Anything I need to do to help necessary evil today?" "Is there someone we need to put on psychiatric medicine and lock up in order to appease necessary evil today?"
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy