You have the right to remain funny...anything you say or do may be used to amuse us. There...I've read you your amirights! ;D

OMR. Your comment is funnier than my song.

I commend your pairing of "lucky Irish" with "Scot-free," but the reason we have laws is to protect people. That includes criminal defendants, the ones who really are guilty and the ones who aren't. Earl Warren was a great man, and he was NOT soft on crime: He was the Attorney General of his State, and its Governor (certainly, California's had some horrible Governors since), and the Warren Court held the police to their own standards. Mick Jagger got it wrong: Not every cop is a criminal, but enough of them are, both in 1964 Mississippi and 1997 New York, that things like this had to be done.

The FBI, as I understand it, read suspects their rights long before the Court required it. Hoover, for all his flaws, was image conscious and wanted his agents to enjoy public respect and cooperation. I recall "Impeach Earl Warren" signs being publicly displayed by the far right during the 1960's and early 70's. It occurred to me this morning that there were far more lynchings during the era when the death penalty was widely accepted and carried out, and the courts were not sympathetic to racial and ethnic minorities. High profile killers were often put to death within a few months of conviction, not 25 years as is the case today. One of the problems with police came with the change from "peace officer" to "law enforcement". The standard has changed from lack of crime to number of arrests. The growing use of cops to enforce revenue laws (traffic tickets, seat belts, forfeitures) has only made things worse. Walking a beat in uniform, with a night stick, checking in on all the local businesses and being a friend in need to children and old ladies attracts a different kind of individual than running around in a ninja suit with an MP5 kicking down peoples' doors at 3:00 am and flash banging them because they were selling certain plant derivatives. The primary (some would say only) purpose of government is to bring an objective standard of evidence and due process to the prosecution of crime. I'm sure the businessmen of my home town could wipe out most of the crime in our downtown overnight, but the chances of innocent bystanders getting hurt would be a lot higher than having a professional team, less encumbered by ethnic prejudices do the job. Thanks for the comment. Glad you liked the 'Scot-free". What did you think of "hemp fiber therapy"?

Estoy mirando tu canción y la estoy dando cincos.

You could revise this for OJ Simpson and his criminal trial jury! I'd change "To celebrate" to "Celebrating" for accent. Otherwise 555.

I found time to read this after your brilliant reply to JAB's MLK spoof 8/31.

Probably better I didn't. Appreciate the intent, but actually, the cops f***** over Miranda royally. I know, because a song that I've already submitted for today (Wednesday) makes reference to that same Supreme Court decision. - before I was aware of this one. Weird. (I also know because I took some courses in criminal and constitutional law.)

Anyway, look up the case itself, and you'll see why the outcome was what it was.. Many police officers and Chiefs support the Miranda warning, because it legitimizes police practices in the eyes of the public, and assures that public that their police are behaving professionally.
      You support the Constitution as I do, we both know the Fifth Amendment, and we also know that *everyone* is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. That's what differentiates our system from that of dictatorships.

Sorry to disagree, but then, maybe it''s Karma for being nagged to read a parody when obviously I didn't have time last week - you *know* that you're on my A-list to read *when I'm here". Mentioning it was fine - I plug a lot myself -- but saying "Missed your commentaries..." implied some sort of obligation.

I'm certain that I haven't read all 81 of your parodies, just as you haven't read all 368 of mine. So you have four times as much catching up to do. ;-)

Maybe i misread your comment. In any event, you know that I always say what I think, popular or not, and I hope you respect that, as I respect you, and not let this be an issue between us after this minute. - TT.

Glad you took the time to read this one. I don't feel a song of mine is complete until you and Micheal Pacholek have read it. Your commentary is most appreciated, favorable or otherwise. I'm not after numbers, I want to know what thinking people think.

Patrick, *great* attitude. And extremely rare here, alas.

I must admit that I don't really care whether MP reads my stuff or not. This is not a personal attack; it's just that the comments are always the same factless rants for which"rob" was chased away a while back. If Michael would cite some specific facts and reasons for his disagreement, rather than personal attacks against the people and pundits with whom he disagrees, then I would respect his comments more,

Or, in other words, if the comments would reflect that "thinking" that you mention. Check out yesterday's (8/31) comment at the FG/TT parody, and you'll see an example of what I'm saying. Again, nothing against Michael personally - he's going to be included in a group tribute that should post next week, I think -- just that fact-free ad hominem attacks aren't thoughtful comments in my book.

Will try to catch your other one when possible. Thanks again for your gracious reply. (although you'll have a *lot* of "uncompleted" songs by that criterion -- see my reply to your own comment there as well. Not enough hours in a day....)

By now I don't know whether I'm commenting on someone's song or on your response. Computers are troublesome things. I don't think they will ever make them better.

Barack Obama's judge i guess or Obama's early release for murderers,Rapists and child molesters who vote for the Demac-RATS

My older brother when he was a kid could play TOM DOOLEY on one of those toy pianos