Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Racial Profiling in Reverse

Racial profiling, targeting someone purely because of race, is wrong. Profiling based on behavior is not wrong. If I, a white woman, walk down an alley and at the end, blocking my way out are ten black men, I may either panic or smile with relief. I will panic if I see ten black men dressed in thug clothes, cussing and talking about bitches. If I see ten black men dressed in suits with copies of The Watchtower in their hands, I am going to happily walk right up to them. The same would hold true for ten white men at the end of the block.

Henry Gates and President Obama are guilty of racial profiling. From what I can see of the officer who arrested Gates, Officer Crowley, is not. Officer Crowley acted professionally as a peace officer and did his job. Gates and Obama simply assumed that the only reason for the arrest was that Crowley just assumed this man, because he is black, was doing something illegal.

First of all, Crowley didn't do anything at all that resembled racial profiling. He already knew that Gates was the homeowner when he arrested him. He wasn't jumping to any conclusion that a black man was up to no good. Gates, a black man, WAS up to no good. He was disorderly and out of control.

If an officer arrests a black man for selling drugs, is that racial profiling? If an officer arrests a black man for stabbing his wife, is that racial profiling? If this is the case, I guess no one of color should be arrested for committing crimes. I am sure the black community will love to have these criminals remaining at large for them to contend with.

I, myself, have been accused of racism and racial profiling in spite of the fact my ex-husband of twenty-five years is black, I have one black son and two biracial children. Oddly, in all the years I have known my ex and my kids, none of them have experienced "driving while black" or any other version of racial profiling. Could this be because their behavior didn't raise suspicions in the minds of the cops? Could it be they know how to speak in a respectful manner to the police and understand, the few times they have encountered a situation with the police, that the police were just doing their job? For that matter, my sons have told me that the few times they were stopped for speeding and such, the officers let them off and they didn't even get a ticket.

I have done ride-alongs with my police officer daughter and I can tell you people who act badly often accuse the police of racial profiling or harassment or brutality and it doesn't matter who is what race. Going on the attack is their way of shifting the blame for their actions.

Gates is doing that exact thing. He acted like an idiot. He was rude and obnoxious and, in my opinion, racist. Obama is backing his friend's poor behavior and accusing the officer of something he has no idea has any merit. Both want Crowley to apologize for his actions and he refuses to do it. Good for him. Crowley, who once gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Celtics star Reggie Lewis, a black man, says he didn't racial profile and he is not a racist. I believe him.

Does racial profiling exist? I am sure on occasion it does. But, I believe a good portion these days is in the mind of the offender. If it does, why did my family never encounter racial profiling.

Maybe we just knew how to behave.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Health Care Extortion

When did we stop being the "land of the free and the brave"? When did we lose our right to choose our own destinies without government interference? When did we decide to be socialist republic? What happened to something called The Constitution?

I had an interesting conversation with a good friend of my last night who was expressing her fear that discrimination was about to be levied against people who are zaftig, well, fat, in many people's view. With the new health care system coming our way, she worried that people with a weight issue would become a hated group, sanctions levied against them for causing health care costs to rise for the American people. She wondered if thin people with clogged arteries from our Standard American Diet would receive the same treatment or be able to hide behind their shield of thinness?

I thought she had a point and I told her why. Truly, is it my business to lambaste her for her extra pounds? Is it my place to yell at smokers? To be angry at women who desire induced labor and planned c-sections? Other than being concerned for their well-being as any friend might be, am I now to join brigades assaulting them for their lifestyles? I guess I will if the money to care for them comes out of my pocket. Actually, I should already feel that way because I think a good portion of our poor diet practices, drug and medicine addicted people, and over-medicalized birthing practices have skyrocketed medical care to the point where one's salary is greatly reduced to pay for them and those who have no medical care can't afford the going rates.

I think we need to completely get rid of ALL mandated health insurance, whether it is sucked away by our employers or by the United States government. We need health care choices that are truly individually selected. Why nobody in this country except a few of us sees that mandated health insurance is nothing more than extortion boggles my mind!

Let me explain, especially for those of you who are so enmeshed in our medical care system you think this extortion is normal.

There are societies in the world like Okinawa or up in Hunza country where elders romp about like agile mountain goats. Ninety-year-olds have perfectly normal blood pressure and they don't get strokes, cancers, or heart attacks. They live healthy until the machinery shuts down from exhaustion. This is how the human body was designed. Yes, there are disasters and there are unlucky blokes who get nailed out of the blue with some awful, unexplainable disease.My son had a horrific bike accident at age six. I wouldn't object to disaster insurance (by choice) with high deductibles. I might like this myself, just in case some drunk driver broadsides me.

But, most of disease is preventable. Proper diet (low in fats and mostly vegetarian), exercise, and avoidance of alcohol and drugs lends to pretty fine health. People with healthy lifestyles rarely need to see doctors all the time.

When I was married, I tried to disentangle our family from the health insurance that my husband's employer billed us for every month. Oh, you say, but it isn't that expensive, only a few hundred because the employer covers the other half. Are you dense? The way the employer "covers" the other half is to reduce your salary by that exact amount. What a deal!

So, I asked not to have the money taken out and they told me if we opted out of the system, we would not only not get back "their contribution", we would not get back ours either! We would get about ten or twenty dollars returned. So, of course, opting out was pointless. We had to accept the extortion.

Why did I want out? Simply because I never made use of the system. No one in our family went to doctors. You heard me right. Why? Because I didn't believe in those silly "well baby" checks and yearly checkups. Hey, if you are healthy, why do you need someone to tell you that you are healthy? For that matter, having worked ten years in hospital watching people get checkups, I learned that the tests and their results couldn't be trusted and people were getting procedures done that were unnecessary. They also got put directly on medicines that made their health worse. Rarely did any doctor approach health issues as a problem with lifestyles. Diet was almost never addressed outside of "suggesting" less sugar and fats. Those who got high blood pressure medicine stayed on drugs, those with diabetes stayed fat, and those with nothing wrong with them eventually found something to be worried about.

I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years. People are horrified when they find that out. "Oh my god, suppose there is something wrong with you?" Folks, I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years and I am still here. So nothing was wrong with me. My kids grew up without doctors and they are all adults. Most health problems can be solved without drugs and surgeries.

So, why do I have to pay for health insurance I don't want or need? Oh, yes, because everyone else wants it because they eat badly, drink, drug, and are scared of cancers sneaking up on them. I don't have a problem with their attitudes, I just don't want to pay for them. If one wants to eat badly and ingest drugs, illegal or medical, be my guest! I will still be your friend and I won't even go on a soapbox when we get together and nag you and tell you how to live. To each his own. You play, you pay. Not my issue. Shouldn't you be allowed to enjoy life through food if it makes life good for you? Maybe you prefer forty years of yummy pies and cakes rather than a longer life! Some people climb mountains and fall off of them. Should we deny them that right because they could die from their lifestyle choice? Oddly, we praise these people. Why? They don't cost us anything.

But, my friend is right. She is going to become a burden. Well, I personally think the most people now are a burden as they shoot those medical costs up. Why can't I go to a doctor of my choice and pay a reasonable price to get something like Zythromax if I happen to get bronchitis? Why should it cost me a fortune? I solved the problem by picking up a supply in Mexico and India, just in case I needed it. I had a breathing problem twenty years ago when I was on my husband's insurance where every winter I got this walking pneumonia-like thing and the x-rays never showed anything. The doctors refused to give me Zythromax and told me I had emotional problems. Oddly, my foreign Zythromax cleared up my "emotional condition" within days. This nontreatment, was given to me in the emergency room because I couldn't get an appointment with a doctor for two weeks and it cost an outrageous thousand dollars. For a stethoscope listen and an x-ray? It should have been something I could to see a doctor in a walk-in treatment center and pay fifty for the visit and fifty for the x-ray.

So, now our government is going to force me to get insurance. If I don't get it, I will be fined for not contributing my money to the system. Isn't this method called extortion? Taxes are bad enough but Obama wants us to think we are not going to be taxed for our health care system. We are going to "contribute" - by force. Taxes by another name are taxes. Pretty soon we will have our incomes docked 50-60%, just like all socialist countries. I wish more Americans spent time living in those countries to understand living in them sucks, unless you are living in them on American money.

Think about it, American citizens. Do you want to be free or do you want your government dictating everything you do in life? The intrusion on private lives and private business by the government is already massive. When they take your money away, you lose a thing called choice. I cannot choose a lay midwife or a naturopath; I cannot choose massage therapy or chiropractor. I cannot choose to spend my money on organic produce. The money I have left after the government extorts its health care money from me won't cover such things. Obama has already stolen huge amount of our future incomes with his bank bailouts and when we add the cost of health coverage and all the other social welfare programs that are going to increase, we will find the middle class no longer exists. Welcome to socialism, mates.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Dead SC Murderer is NOT a Serial Killer

I have been watching network after network stating that the man shot dead in North Carolina is the South Carolina serial killer. This is incorrect. Yes, the dead man is the guy who offed five people during the last week, but he is a spree killer, not a serial killer.

Is this important point? You bet. Serial killers don't want to get caught; they like sneaking around and getting their jollies in whatever method amuses them, then, feeling better about themselves for having taken someone's life, get a hamburger and get a good night's sleep. Serial killers are not fed up with life and want to get caught or die. They want to win, beat the people they hate, the society they live in.

Spree killers, on the other hand, are mass murderers in slow motion. They plan on suicide, usually suicide by cop. They have had enough of life and they want out but they want to go out in a blaze of glory and take their enemies with them. On occasion, a spree killer kills off his wife or mother and realizing that his freedom is coming to an end, prefers to raise his body count and go out with a bang.

This was the South Carolina killer. He had way too many kills in too short a time to be a calculating serial killer. He was a burning star and he knew law enforcement would catch up with his in due time. And as soon as the police showed up, he shot at them rather than go with them peacefully. The police shot back and he got his suicide by cop as he always intended to get.

It will be interesting to see what caused this man to go on a spree. Does he have dead bodies back at his house or did he just realize he was a colossal failure at middle age and decide to quit life. Most mass murderers and spree killers are either in their twenties or their forties: the young ones see no great future in their lives and the older one know that the have already hit their zenith.

Spree killer, not serial killer. It makes a difference in an investigation and protecting oneself. While mass murderers, spree killers, and serial killers are all psychopath, the serial killer is the one living down the street for the next twenty years slowing picking off the citizens. At least we know this bastard is done.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Naked Dead Guy Hanging

I had to laugh, sadly, when I heard that actor David Carridine, who had been find hanging in his hotel closet, was also naked. The suicide possibility flew immediately out the window. Naked dead guy hanging means auto erotic asphyxiation almost 100 percent of the time. Even if one doesn't find pornography nearby or other weird red flags like bondage apparatus (hands tied, gags, freaky sex toys, genitals "adorned" with item intending to increase stimulation, etc), the fact the guy is naked points to a private sex act gone bad. People rarely commit suicide naked (although it has happened) and almost never when hanging themselves.

For those of you who can't fathom how one hangs themselves during a sex act, here is the basic scoop. The man (almost always male) ties a rope or a belt to the rod in a closet, loops it around his neck, and bends his knees. When he does this, blood flow is shut off and oxygen doesn't reach the brain. This causes a euphoric feeling and enhances orgasm. The trick is having the orgasm during the time when this feeling has reached its peak and then standing up straight again before one passes out. The pressure then comes off the constricted blood vessels and oxygen flows back to the brain. If one screws up and passes out, he will be found hanging with his knees bent, naked in that closet.

The practitioners of autoerotic sex always think they will be able to orgasm and stand up in time. The think they will know if they are "taking too long" and need to give up the attempt. Unfortunately, in the midst of all the fun, they lose track of time and push the envelope. Often when one finds someone dead of autoerotic sex it is after they have practiced this art for a while and, like all things in time, their fantasies get a bit dull and their ability to be sexually excited slows down. Sometimes alcohol can also be a factor in delayed orgasm. Bottom line: get off or end up dead.

Some will wonder why David Carridine didn't just go buy some sex in Thailand considering the country has the world's most deviant sex trade. After all, according to Carridine's fourth wife, Marina, he did practice perverted sex along with the another kind of deviant sex act that was "dangerous."

My answer? Who knows? Sex acts are very personal to the practitioner. Each human being enjoys sex in his or her own way, sometimes in a number of ways. Deviant sexual behavior is often addictive and the need for bizarreness escalates. Sometimes sex with another human being actually frustrates the practitioner because the partner "doesn't do it right." Reality can screw up a good fantasy.

I don't know why David Carridine felt a need that evening to truss himself up and take the risk of death just for a moment of sexual satisfaction, but he did. We have all lost a great actor and his family has lost someone they love. Worse, the last memories of the man are an embarrassment to all.

If anything good can come out of this sad ending of Carridine's life, may it be that men out there. especially young men, come to understand just how dangerous auto erotic sex is and refrain from involving themselves in such acts. The supposed added kick is simply not worth it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Pat Brown on E!'s Fatal Beauty

If you missed the show on Sunday, catch Pat Brown on E! Channel's
Fatal Beauty: 15 Most Notorious Women

Wed 6/3
9:00-11:00pm

Thu 6/4
1:00-3:00pm

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Is the Spectorcle Over? I Hope So

Unlike Phil Spector's gold digging 28-year-old wife, Rachael, who is saddened because "I have lost my husband, my best friend" and feels that a "grave injustice has been done" (probably to her income level and social status), I feel nothing but relief and happiness that for once, the jury (the second one) didn't fall for that Hollywood history rewrite put-on by the defense and its highly paid actors (read: expert witnesses). Even Spector's son, Louis, agrees that justice has been served. Finally.

It was such an open-and-shut case from the beginning it blows the mind to see how difficult it is in America to convict a guilty-as-hell person with a half-way decent lawyer. Why? Because our legal system isn't about the truth; it is about game-playing and money-making and career-building. It isn't about truth. It isn't about justice. It isn't about doing the right thing. If we wanted this in our country, we would work to revamp our criminal justice system instead or constantly claiming, "It may not be perfect, but it is the best system in the world." I don't think the best system in the world is one that constantly leaves killers and rapists on the streets and pretty much only convicts total idiots and people with no money or public support (inner city street thugs and trailer park losers). Something is wrong with this picture to me.

I hope Phil Spector does stay in jail for the rest of his life. But I wouldn't be surprised to see him get out on an appeal due to some "technicality" or, if he stays in jail, getting nice treatment because he is "old and infirm" or transferred to some mental health facility because he has emotional problems. He probably will spend his old age being pampered and chatted up, watching television, and writing love letters to his many lady friends.

I am happy he is going to prison. I hope he stays there. I hope he doesn't get to have a good time. I hope.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smiley Face Killers and Pat Brown

Yes, some guy on Facebook has cracked open the Smiley Face Killers case and, if law enforcement considers his theory, they could solve the mystery of all those athletic young men found drowned in rivers and lakes near their colleges. I'm very nervous about the police following up on this man's ideas because I am sure they will come straight to my door , take me down to the station, and interrogate me. I could end up in prison for aiding and abetting these serial killers. I never thought it would come to this. I was pretty confident I stopped all speculation about any Smiley Face Gang with all those television appearances I did debunking the concept. I thought I had fooled everyone and no one would ever figure it out. But this man did!

From his Facebook Page:

Folks, I have some truly alarming news.Someone is killing college men across America.

I think it's a group of female serial killers acting in a cult-like fashion around the country.They target Alpha Males because they fear them.I think it's a bunch of feminists gone amok.And they've been doing it for years.

Even more alarming, the stupid FBI brought a biased woman to get her opinion on the Smiley Face Killers.Talk about asking the wolf to guard the sheep.You don't ask a feminist author to investigate a case where men are the primary victims.Just like you don't ask vegetarians to help meat eaters who are drowning

It's simply common sense.

I got a radical theory of my own.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown is shielding the female Smiley Face Killers.

I don't know how this man put two and two together and discovered my connection to the murders. Did he find out I lived in Minneapolis where Chris Jenkins ended up in the Mississippi? Did he discover that I had driven Interstate 94 through Eau Claire, Chicago, and Pittsburgh, cities where other victims have been found, on the way to my other home in Washington DC? How did he know that when I was seventeen I admired Gloria Steinem and wore my hair like hers and bought her signature tinted eyeglasses? Who told him I am a vegetarian? This man is a really too smart and he has found me out.

Now that this man has broadcast the truth about me and the Smiley Face Killers on the Internet , I am going to need your help. The Pat Brown Defense Fund will be accepting your donations in the sums of $100, $500, $1000, and $10,000. Please be generous. Thanks.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Profiling Topic of the Day: Interview with a Cannibal

No, I haven't been away because I got eaten; well, at least not by a human. Work on the other hand has consumed a good portion of me! Finally, things are lightening up and you should see The Daily Profiler return to a daily rather than monthly feature!

I have been so busy I forgot to tell you all about the great book by Gunter Stampf which I edited. When I was asked to make the English version readable (the original is in German) I was rather leery about being involved with such a project. Most of you who have read The Daily Profiler for a while know that I am a rabid anti-gore person and I don't like true crime that is overly gruesome and gratuitous. I expected a book titled Interview with a Cannibal to be of that ilk. I ended up being pleasantly surprised. I liked the book a lot, a whole lot, because not only was it well-written but it actually supported my view that the excess of gore and violence on the Internet is an unhealthy trend.

The book covers the intersection of two disturbed human beings - the psychopathic cannibal Armin Meiwes and his willing (yes, willing) victim, the mentally ill Bernd Brandes - and cannibal websites on the Internet. Stampf meticulously (but in a good way) tells the story through interviews with the cannibal in his jail cell and through histories of the two men. Interview with a Cannibal is is a pleasure to read in spite of the disturbing material. I also added a profile of Armin Meiwes at the end of the book to assist readers in understanding the psychology of this extremely creepy man.

For a little more about the book, check out my interview with Laura James at CLEWS.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: People Are Getting Stupider and Stupider

I work in the news business and I think, in general, the news agencies try to bring the most important issues to the public. However, churning out news for our twenty-four hour-a-day news networks, daily newspapers, and the massive number of Internet results in lot of repetition, sensationalism, and less-than-worthy stories making it out there.

But FirstCoastNews.Com just hit a new low today, totally embarrassing the news media with such tripe that they ought to be the laughing stock of the industry.

You know about the sad case of the little missing girl, Haleigh Cummings(pictured left) who has been missing for three weeks now. The news stories about this case are already a garish circus. Geraldo Rivera is doing his usual "irreverent" style of aggressive and tacky interviewing (though I did appreciate that he got Haleigh's father, Ronald Cummings, to look straight into the camera and lie like a dog that didn't EVER do drugs (meaning that the police must have falsely arrested him some ten times for cocaine, meth, marijuana, heroin, GHB, etc.

The girl's father, Ronald Cummings, spouts off obscenities and acts out in weird ways (check out that frightening tattoo he's got of Haleigh on his leg which looks more like the child bride of Chucky than the pretty little tyke). Add to this to a whole cast of squirrelly characters who should be on Jerry Springer - the girlfriend, Misty Croslin, who can't keep her story straight, Haleigh's mother's overly emotional fiance, and the creepy criminal cousin Missy claims is a pedophile. What should be serious news topic becomes a bad reality television show with daily outrageous episodes.

But, THIS, this "news" story just made me wonder if media outlets hire reporters and producers who just left their jobs at Petsmart the week before. This "news" story, which just appeared on FirstCoastNews.Com , required a reporter to actually drive out to this woman's house to get the "story, do the interview on camera and then get the piece approved by his boss for public viewing. Wait until I tell you the title of this "news" story! WOMEN DREAMS ABOUT HALEIGH CUMMINGS BEING IN MISSOURI.

Yes, Melanie (pictured at the top of the this post) with-no-last-name (hell, I wouldn't want them to put MY last name out there if I did an interview that made me look like I had an IQ of a Doritos chip) had a dream! That's right, folks, Melanie had a dream! Woo Hoo! Now, she doesn't even claim to be a psychic (which makes me mad as hell when media gives these frauds the time of day) or to regularly have dreams come true (like that stupid show on television). No, she simply had A dream! OMG! Breaking news! Melanie had a dream!

Well, Melanie apparently thought this dream was SO meaningful she had to go to the police with it. Even though the location at which she "saw" a dead Haleigh, a town called Addison, Missouri, doesn't even exist ...oh, wait, Melanie says she found a place in Missouri called Madison, and, in her very own words, that's close enough), she called the tip line and the television station with this earth-shattering information.

Okay, maybe this flaky goofball (I can say this without getting sued; watch the video - truth is on my side) really believes her dream will help the family or, perhaps, she is seeking her fifteen seconds of fame (and she got painfully way more than that with this interview). I don't have too much of a problem with Melanie. The world is full of fame seekers, nutcases, and weirdos and the media will be sought out by droves of them. But, and this is what has me irked, the media is supposed to be a professional entity that can tell a news story from a pile of steaming shit (this story) or an an expert in profiling or homicide investigation (someone like me) from a publicity seeking felonious moron (like bounty hunter Leonard Padilla). Yet, Padilla is brought onto Nancy Grace daily, not as part of the news story, but as a consultant, a correspondent, a professional with specialized knowledge which this buffoon clearly has exhibits he is lacking, and now, FirstCoastNews spends its time interviewing a stupid woman who had a stupid dream. WTF?

Hey, I have some "news for FirstCoast. Everyone has dreams and lots of people in Florida have had dreams about Haleigh. Is this really something to report? Do you honestly think anyone in the United States cares that some fat woman from a trailer park (okay, maybe she lives in a regular house) had a dream? Did the production team (which must have had the combined IQ of an entire bag of Doritos chips) actually discuss this "lead" and say, "Gosh, we have to get this incredible story?"

Just when you think the world can't get any stupider....

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Do You Take This Murdering Felon ...?

...to be your lawfully wedded husband?

I just heard the breaking news about the man who is on the run in Ohio after gunning down his wife (whom he married on Monday...guess THAT honeymoon is already over), her sisters, and four little children and the words, "Oh, for God's sake..." escaped my lips. I then plugged in "Davon Crawford" (the scumbag) and "felon" into Google and, whaddya know, I came up with a hit.

33-year-old Crawford has a major record (and not with a recording company). He was convicted of manslaughter in 1995 and felony assault (for shooting at a child) in 2002. He got out in 2007 and was doing drugs again. So Rose Stevens, the dead wife of Crawford, thinks this will be a great man to have in her kids' lives.

Oh, and enough about this being a "domestic dispute." Arguments between husbands and wives happen all the time. A "domestic dispute" somehow puts the blame on the dead mate for pissing them off. I don't care how bad the argument is, killing everyone in the house is not part of having a disagreement; it is mass murder committed by a psychopath. Anyway, Crawford's own son said his father got nailed for parole violation over drug possession and didn't want to go to jail. Domestic dispute, my ass.

Having said that, I basically feel sorry for those kids (hers and her sister's). There is no excuse to marry a criminal creep like this when you are supposed to be providing a safe home for your children. No excuse. None.

Oh, and here is another idiot: Kathryn Wiley-Motes. She married Richard Wiley who had gunned down his first wife nine years earlier (I guess she believed he had a good reason). Now she and her seventeen-year-old son are dead as well. Thanks, Mom!

Look, I have no objection if you want to have hot sex with a criminal, want to "help" him, or want to have someone to keep you company even if he is a lowlife scumbag. You have the right to do that and, if you are willing to risk your life to have a man in it, be my guest. But you have no right to gamble your children's lives for your own personal needs.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Give Your Son an Equalizer for Christmas!

It's happened again.

Another kid has offed one of the adults in his house with a gun one of the adults gave him. Can you say WTF were you thinking, Dad? Yes, eleven-year-old Jordan Brown used his Christmas present, a special made-for-children (can I say WTF again?) to murder his new step-mom (well, girlfriend of his Daddy who was eight months pregnant while she was asleep in bed. Not much has been released about this child's psychological history but I can make sound reasonable guesses what this irresponsible father did.

1) You had a kid with a woman who didn't take to the mothering role very well, so you ended up raising him by himself (unless you are widowed and then I will give you a break). One has to wonder where the mother of the boy is since the father has custody.

2) Your son is used to having you to himself and suddenly you add a women and two little sisters. Did you spend a couple of years getting to know the woman and seeing if your son was emotionally able to deal with his instant new family (and competition for attention)?

3) Now, you added a new baby to the mix, a little brother, with this woman you haven't yet married.

4) You move all of them into your house.

5) You pay no mind to the fact that your son has a serious personality disorder.

AND THEN! You taught the kid to kill animals, gave him a shotgun of his very own, and left the shotgun unlocked so that he could pay you back for all your stupid choices. Brilliant!

Now, before I get a dozen emails saying I am cold-hearted and the father is already suffering enough, stop and think. A young woman has just lost her life, a baby has been killed before he even got to breathe, two little girls are now motherless, and a family has will never recover from their losses.

There is no excuse for giving your child a gun to play with. There is no excuse for giving an obviously disturbed child a gun to keep in his room. There is no excuse for your irresponsibility. None. The father should be going to jail with his son for aiding and abetting a homicide.

I don't have a problem with keeping weapons in the home for protection and for hunting (although I hate hunting). I believe this is a citizen's right. But, for God's sake, if you demand the right, you have to accept the responsibility. It is time to hold gun owners responsible for what happens with their weapons. If your gun is locked up, someone breaks in and steals it and this is reported immediately to the police, the gun at that point is not your responsibility. But, if you don't lock the weapon up, any crime it is involved in should be considered a crime you committed; your weapon, your responsibility, your crime.

Is this concept so hard to understand? Why is it I have never seen any move in our country to charge adults for giving guns to children to kill with? I have been harping on this for years and it seems the idea is repugnant to most people, even the prosecutors. I don't understand why we can't say enough is enough.

Guns don't kill people. Adults who give children guns kill people.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Flying while Muslim

Nine Muslims got tossed off a plane for making what they claim were innocuous comments about plane safety. Already people are writing on blogs claiming this is racial profiling and that Muslims are suffering the same pain African-Americans have experienced in "Driving while black". In order to assess the level of unfairness being leveled at a particular group of people for no reason other than that they are members of a particular race, religion, or subculture, we need to first define racial profiling.

To be called racial profiling, one must essentially view race as the only profiling issue and the issue of race must be entirely arbitrary to the situation. For example, suppose a bomb blows up at a shopping center in Prince George's County, Maryland. One third of the shoppers are Black, one third are White, and one third are Hispanic. Now, if police review the security tapes and send investigators out to interview only the black shoppers, then we have an issue of racial profiling.

Now, let's go to another mall. This mall is celebrating Black History Day and the location in which it sits is in a predominately black area of town. That day, a bomb goes off in the mall. Security tapes show the mall has entirely black shoppers except for this one squirrelly white guy sneaking around a corner with a shaved head and tattoos down both arms. Now, if you were a police detective, who would you be looking at as the possible bomber? Now you can be as politically correct as you want, but practicality says, check out that white dude. It is not just that he is white that one pays extra attention to him. The police would be unlikely to blink if that one white person were a blonde woman in high heels holding the hand of a mixed race child or a white man with his arm around his black girlfriend. But, a guy in an all-black mall on Black History Day who looks like a white supremacist AND a bomb goes off, makes it impossible not to focus on him as a top suspect. Likewise, if there is only one black guy seen at a KKK rally when a bomb goes off, it would be hard not to check him out.

"Driving while black" often is an excuse for folks acting squirrelly WHILE driving and being black rather than JUST driving and being black. Police must profile in the course of their work; they must make split decisions on who to pull over and check out. They work off a profile of what they experience in their work. Believe me, having done ride alongs with my cop daughter, it isn't just blacks that get profiled. Check out that white guy lurking behind that business in a black area of town. He was not ignored by police; they thought, "What's he up to?" and they checked him out. Sure enough, he was trying to burglarize a black man's business. But, they profiled him not only because he was white in a black area, but because he was lurking in an odd way, and because he was somewhat unkempt in the manner of a drug user looking for some way to support his habit. If you are black. dress like a thug, and jump into a vehicle that matches the style drug users like and you look like a drug dealer AND you act in some squirrelly fashion, you might get pulled over (often after the cop runs your plate and finds out something is suspicious about it).

So, now to flying while Muslim. This group looked VERY Muslim with the men with the long beards and the women with their heads covered. They were in a location where they will stand out to those around them (like the white guy at the black mall or behind the black business). Their behavior was possibly squirrelly. Now I know these Muslim passengers claim they said nothing concerning, just something about the safest place to sit on a plane and something about the engine jets right outside the window. All of this might have just been normal chit-chat. However, we have not yet heard the other side of the story, what the a passenger or two overheard; perhaps what was said was a little more scary that what is claimed.

Regardless, everyone knows clearly by now that one doesn't shout fire in a theatre or anything close to it. A white boy who loves rap and hangs with all blacks may be able to say Nigga when with his friends but he best not say that while he is alone in a black club without them. Even as a white middle-aged female I know enough not to lunge for something under my seat while a police officer is standing outside my vehicle waiting for me to produce my license. I also know that when I travel in predominantly Muslim areas like Kashmir and Egypt that covering my arms and head is both wise and respectful. It makes those around me comfortable (even if I disagree with the philosophy behind it). The United States is a country that is not terribly in sync with Islamic views, especially of women, and certain Muslim attire makes many feel extremely wary.

These were intelligent Muslims. The spokesman for the group is a doctor and his brother is a lawyer. He knows darn well that it is simply not wise to make comments that can be misconstrued as threatening on a plane when dressed in the manner of a particular group of people who have members who like to crash planes and participate in suicide missions.

Yes, this may have been a perfectly nice group of people who made a silly comment. Well, you pay for making silly comments if you know that those silly comments shouldn't be made at that location. You learned a lesson of what not to do in that public venue. Sorry. Your bad.

If it turns out they made no suspicious comments at all, then the onus of what happened falls on the other passengers, but let's see what their side of the story is before we accuse them of being racists as opposed to concerned citizens worried about the safety of themselves and others on the plane. I look forward to more clarity before judging one group or the other.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Yes, Ms. Halazon, Blanning IS a Bad Person

Happy New Years to you all-- all you good people out there. No, Ms. Halazon, that doesn't include that creep you call "a good person," who just planted four bombs in Aspen, hoped to get a high body count, and then offed himself. "Good" is not a term you apply to James Blanning, a psychopath felon with a criminal record of racketeering, organized, crime, and fraud who just tried to blow up his home town on New Year's Eve.

I didn't plan to start the year off surly, but now I feel I have to make a point. Bad people do bad things. Accept this. Please. I think being kind is a lovely sentiment but save it for the struggling souls who are not amusing themselves by abusing and attacking society. Express your sympathies for the victims of crime and not the perpetrators. Grow some moral outrage and "Stick with a victim" instead of "Hugging a thug." They don't deserve kindness; victims do.

This year make a resolution to stand on the side of good, not evil.

Happy New Years!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Mysterious Meter Reader and Caylee Anthony

I have to say this odd bit of breaking news on the Caylee Anthony case is rather bizarre! Apparently the man who found the likely remains of the little girl called the tip line three times back in August to report a suspicious bag on the side of the road near that location.

Now speculation is flying! Did the police screw up when the meter reader first reported what he thought was possibly evidence linked to the Caylee Anthony case and did not follow up properly? Or is it too bizarre that back in August the man claims to have seen a gray bag that concerned him, never actually checked it out, and when the police did finally do a more thorough check of the area found nothing? Then this same man "rediscovered" the bag months later? Did the man help Casey dispose of the body? Or could he be the one to have done Caylee in?

Well, first let us take a deep breath. We do not really know exactly what the meter reader said when he called in August and why the police didn't locate the bag. Supposed he was involved with Casey, helped her dump the body and then felt guilty about it. So he calls the police to find the body but moves it before they arrive? Not likely.

So, Scenario Two. He killed Caylee and felt guilty about it, called the police, got scared, then moved the body, and felt guilty again and called the police again. Again, not very likely.

Scenario Three. The meter reader saw a strange bag, got creeped out and called the police. Officer doesn't bother to check it out or cruises by and misses the bag. However, one of the Anthony's sees the police car and moves the body into the woods. The area floods, body goes under water, but when it recedes, that curious meter reader goes back and this time finds the remains. Maybe but not likely.

Scenario Four. Meter Reader sees a bag on the side of the road and jumps to the conclusion it could be Caylee. Calls police a few times to get them to really check it out. By the time they do, the bag has been picked up and moved as all it contained was trash. Months later, when the water recedes i the area, curious meter reader, one of those obsessed with searching everywhere for Caylee, finds another bag with Caylee in it. He lucks out. Possible? Yes.

But we need to get a lot more information before we label the man of being a killer, an accessory after the fact, or a hero. Poor guy might just have been trying to be a good citizen and now he is being looked at mighty suspiciously. I will look forward to finding out more about the situation and seeing how this story ends up. It is an interesting one.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Profiling Topic of the Day: Duct Tape Damning Evidence for Casey Anthony?

Sometimes you just have to wonder whether in one hundred years, people will look back and think that we have one ignorant court system in 2009. Today there is possible "damning evidence" in the missing Caylee Anthony case. A small skeleton was found near the Anthony house and there was duct taped supposedly associated with finding of the remains.

But, say the attorneys, this doesn't mean that Casey Anthony, that poor excuse of a mother that Caylee got sicced with in the fickle finger of birth parent fate dice roll, still won't have a defense. It is pointed out there still may still not be enough evidence to prove Casey killed her daughter. It may not be clear if it was homicide or an accident. Even if it is proven Casey was involved in the death of her daughter, the defense may be able to "prove" that Casey was not in her right mind when she did it.

Is this another OJ Simpson case in the making? Another dog-and-pony show that will end up with a not-guilty verdict? Will our idiotic crap shoot of a jury system fail again to provide justice to the victims of murder and put a killer back on the streets? Will some well-meaning, but untrained jury going to be suckered by yet another bunch of lying, justice obstructing, snake oil salesmen attorneys? Why is it if we are seeking justice in our court system do we allow attorneys to "defend" their clients by lying for them and about them?

Why is it that a woman who "loses her child" for a month, parties hardy without a concern about that innocent little girl, lies about leaving Caylee with a babysitter, and abandons the family car with a corpse-like smell in the trunk given the luxury of an entire overpaid staff of lawyers to bail her out of her crimes?

Why is it that when this women commits obstruction of justice over and over, she is still handled with kid gloves and not charged with those crimes as well?

Why when all Casey's actions add up to homicide can't we just put this evil woman away with a short, sweet, and logical professional jury system that knows what they are doing?

I am disgusted when I see how much money goes to garbage like this, how much money is wasted on a simple case, how much money and time is spent on what should be an open-and-shut case. There are hundreds of open cases, missing and murdered children and adults who deserve their share of the attention and funding.

Our criminal justice system is corrupt and worthless and it is about time we admit it is nothing but a moneymaking scheme for attorneys and court experts.

I say make everything above board, require video cameras during all discussions between attorneys and their "innocent" clients, and send defense lawyers to jail for obstructing justice if they gain information from their client that proves them guilty. Let them defend innocent people and miscarriages of justice, not violent criminals they know are guilty.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The REAL Reason the Obama Birth Certificate Issue Won't Go Away

Hundreds of articles and blogs are missing the point, perhaps purposely. The reason so many people are questioning Obama's birth issue is not only because they don't want him to be President of the United States (they don't) and it isn't only because they are searching desperately for some legal mechanism to kick him out of the office (they are), but because they actually may have caught him in a technicality which could prevent him from being President and they may have caught him lying about it.

The biggest problem lies in Barack Obama's history. He has a rather concerning way of rewriting history for expediency. History is always the most important indicator of likely future behavior especially when one is has decades of ingrained methodologies. One of Obama's patterns is to do whatever it takes to move up, regardless of whether those choices are exactly moral or ethical. This was well exemplified with his association with Reverend Wright, Rezko, and Ayers. Obama found them useful and moved up in the political world with their assistance and, then, when those associations became a threat to his future, he essentially denied they existed or that they existed to the extent anyone claimed. He speaks so well, one tends to believe him even in the face of contradictory information.

So, now, let me offer the scenario that I do not think is born solely of conspiracy theory.

Barack Obama achieves the quite unbelievable! He actually is chosen to run for President of the United States on the Democratic ticket. Although I am sure he always wanted this, he may have had moments of realization that the odds were not in his favor. Even if he weren't dealing with being biracial, only a very few people ever have the opportunity to run for the top job in the country.

So, here is Barack, suddenly achieving his dream! Wonderful! Incredible! And, then it occurs to him. OMG! I am technically not qualified to be President! Just a stupid technicality created by my impulsive and somewhat careless mother. She shouldn't have traveled to Kenya so late in her pregnancy and ended up delivering there. Yes, she did return within a week and was smart enough to register me as a home birth in Hawaii so I could get my birth certificate and be an American. After all, how fair is it to deny me citizenship because my mother went on vacation? So, I do have a Hawaiian birth certificate and if no one decides to run down exactly where I was born and who saw me being born, I am fine. Hopefully, too many years have passed and most of the witnesses are dead. Perhaps, if anyone does question my birth location, they will still not actually be able to prove that I wasn't born in Hawaii. To be on the safe side, however, no sense in having the home birth registration issue come out and open up that can of worms.

I know about the home birth registration issue. My son, David, was born in my home and I just filled out the paperwork later. I didn't even need a witness as it was filed as an "unattended home birth". Essentially I could have had that baby anywhere and claimed he was born in Maryland.

Of course, it is possible that Ann Dunham, Barack's mother, did indeed have a home birth. If so, why not say so? Well, here is where some people who don't always tell the truth or who tend to obfuscate the truth run into problems. IF they perceive that the truth might cause difficulties, they decide not to be quite forthright about the issue, hoping in doing so, the issue will never rear its annoying head. But, in doing so, sometimes they make matters worse. If, however, one is always a truth-teller, then there is no option and the chips just fall where they must fall. Whether one hides the truth or tells the truth, one may suffer unwanted consequences.

Is Barack Obama a naturally born American citizen? I have no idea. At this point, there is not any legitimate evidence to disprove his right to be President of this country. However, the fact he has not shown his original birth certificate is a problem because the questions lingers as to why he had not done so. Some will say it wouldn't matter if there was a video of Obama being born in a Hawaiian hospital with a bunch of big local docs around him (and by "local" I mean true Hawaiian as in really big guys in dull Aloha shirts (as opposed to those flashy exports); the conspiracy folks would say it was digitally faked.

I beg to differ. While I believe one shouldn't have to respond to every naysayer, hater, and conspiracy theorist on the planet, if one particular issue is causing a massive problem and can be easily rebuked, for goodness sake, release the simple document that would end the criticism (or at least actually prove it for all those who are not nutty). If Obama could release the present copy of the birth certificate, why not just go all the way and release a copy of the original. Yes, someone could say that was forged, but Obama would have risen to the highest level of transparency possibly and that would be that.

But, he didn't do this and the question lingers, why not? I had the same issue with Palin and the "Whose the Mommy?" issue. Why not just toss up a copy of the birth certificate and a picture of Sarah and the baby in the hospital bed on the Internet and have done with it? Instead, all we got was a doctor (who was in Palin's employ for years) giving us a vague statement and we are supposed to believe her. Sorry, but this only leads to more curiosity. I know this and anyone who is in the public eye knows this. If there is a simple way to stop a rumor, do it, as it is not worth the battle to be all high and mighty and refuse to set things straight.

When one conducts a police investigation, the approach is no different. When a person-of-interest gives conflicting statements, or he seems to be unwilling to give up information or evidence, then red flags go up for the investigator. Many times the person being looked at will get upset that the police don't believe him and keep hounding him in spite of the fact he is the one that caused the police to be suspicious in the first place. The McCanns leave their tiny children unattended in a hotel room and then wonder why the police don't trust their parenting. Cindy Anthony, mother of suspected child killer, Casey Anthony, whines that the police are hounding her even though she has been less than truthful, destroyed evidence, and mislead the investigators.

Likewise with Obama. In his editing of history, his claims he was unaware of Reverend Wright's belief system for twenty years, that he hardly knew Ayers, and Resko, well....his ability to change his story on a dime, makes some citizens question his veracity.

The birth certificate will indeed not go away, but, I for one, would like to see the original. If it turns out it says "Home Birth" than we either have a President Elect who was not born in the country or a man who was embarrassed to admit his mum was a bohemian and birthed her baby, like an African woman in the bush, without medical attendants at her home in Hawaii. If it were the first issue, then Obama would have lied to become President in violation of the Constitution. If it were the second issue, then Obama would have lied in order to not have questions about whether his mother really did have a home birth in Hawaii or just claimed she did.

If the birth certificate says "Home Birth", Obama has put himself in a bit of a bind and maybe that is why he doesn't want the American public to see it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Doing Wrong to Do Right

Governor Sarah Palin apparently has been cited for losing some of her ethics on the warpath to getting her brother-in-law nailed for his misbehavior. Did the end justify the means? This is an age-old question, especially when it comes down to protecting innocent people.

Let's look at a couple of scenarios that can drive us nuts.

The first one: A man is let out of prison after he has raped and murdered to children. He comes to you one night - say he is your brother-in-law- and he tells you, as he is getting into his car, "I am going to go rape and kill me a little six-year-old girl." You know he means it. Do you shoot him?

The second one: Ten men are fighting the death penalty in court. One is innocent of murder (and truly an honest and wonderful law-abiding citizen) and the other nine are vicious serial killers who we know have killed many times and, if they get off, they will go out and kill ten innocent people a piece. Should we be so strict with our requirements to get a conviction that it is nearly impossible to get a guilty verdict? Is that saying that it is better to let ten guilty men go free to save one innocent one? I don't know why the person who made that statement can't count but if you let the guilty men go free, you are condemning 100 people to death.

Maybe Palin got caught up in this kind of thinking or maybe she just wanted to win and didn't think she had to follow the rules. I tend to think the latter is true but the issue of right vs. wrong in protecting innocent people is really quite interesting and certainly frustrating.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Too Young to Blame? Then Blame the Parents

When young children commit heinous crimes, who is to blame? Who is to be responsible? Once upon a time, society held the parents accountable for the actions of their children who hadn't reached adulthood reasoning that they are in their charges, their responsibility, and they controlled their behaviors and movements. If your child committed a crime, you paid either out of your pocket or with some jail time yourself. When did this concept disappear?

A seven-year-old boy recently broke into a zoo in Australia (yes, seven-years-old) and beat thirteen lizards and turtles to death and fed them to a crocodile. The toll of the mass animal murder tallied over five thousand dollars, not to mention the loss of life to these innocent animals and the sadness and horror felt by the zookeepers and community.

The boy cannot be charged because he is too young. The zoo is going to sue the parents for his actions. I think it is a damned fine idea. It is about time parents realize if they are going to bring another human being into the world and train it for eighteen years, they must take the job seriously.

I have suggested the same concept for teens who murder their friends and classmates with guns. Make the gun owner responsible for whatever happens with that gun (unless the owner reports it stolen). Since a gun is either supposed to be on your person or in a lock box, there is no excuse for your kids getting to it. If you clearly already deranged teen takes your guns to school, you go down as an accessory to the crime. If this happened to the next parents who gave little juvenile delinquent Johnny access to lethal weapons, I am guessing you would see a major increase in the sale of gun safes.

Some folks will say this is too harsh, that some children are just born bad and parents shouldn't have to pay the price for their child being a psychopath. I disagree. I just don't believe out-of-control kids "just happen to good parents." Sorry. Maybe I am to harsh, but i am getting sick of parents claiming they can't do anything about their kids. It starts young, folks, and raising children means putting in lots of work. My feeling is you work hard when they are young and then you don't have to suffer later. Your kids may not turn out "perfect" but they don't have to be menaces to society.

Other than providing three more meals to the crocodile (the boy and his parents), suing the parents is the next best thing.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did Financial Woes made a Mass Murderer of Karthik Rajaram?

I can't but help see red when I see headlines like this: "Man Kills Family and Self over Market."

Then, to make matters worse, we get to read how the man struggled over time and finally, after three weeks of planning, decided to commit suicide and murder all of his family members as well. Why don't we see this headline instead?

"Innocent Children and Women Brutally Murdered by the Father and Husband who was Supposed to Love and Protect them."

Then, why don't we read about each one of these wonderful people - the 19-year-old son, Krishna, who was on full scholarship at the University of California and the other two sons, Ganesha, 12, and Arjuna, 7, who were top students in their schools as well. And what of the lovely wife, Subashi and her mother, Indra, the fine women who raised these three wonderful boys? Why don't we only focus on them and stop analyzing the coldblooded killer who took their lives?

I know people want to understand how a man could do such a thing. The fact the man once made big money and then lost his job makes people think that he must have had a breakdown. What is ignored are all the signs along the way that he had other issues as well. What is dangerous about this kind of man is that his psychopathy may be unrecognized until it is too late. He may be smart and controlling and successful but when he starts losing the game, losing his status and power and control, he suddenly doesn't want to play the game of life anymore. And if he doesn't want to play the game anymore, he is going to smash the game up and all the other players aren't going to get to play anymore either.

Karthik Rajaram was just this sort of man. Even if he had financial troubles, his family was doing well. His eldest son didn't even need his money as he already had his college education fully funded. But that didn't matter to Mr. Rajaram. If he can't be happy, no one can be happy. If he has failed, everyone is going to fail. He is a narcissistic, self-centered man and his relatives were simply possessions to him. He killed them because they had no rights and he had no empathy for them. He could dispose of them if he wanted and he did.

Maybe if we start calling this murderous psychopath the evil man that he is a mass murderer - maybe other psychopaths wouldn't follow suit and off their families. After all, it isn't nice to think you will be called nasty names in the newspaper. If you are going to kill yourself and your family, you want to leave your poor excuse of a suicide note and get sympathy at the end for being a poor suffering soul.

I say let's change the headlines and tell it the way it really is.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Profiling Palin

Just as everyone is saying to drop the whole Sarah Palin fake pregnancy issue, I feel compelled to make a few points in defense of the rumor that so many say is disgusting and nothing but a leftist/Democratic smear campaign to make the new Republican VP pick look really bad.

For those of you living under a rock (or maybe living the better life of no television and Internet), The Daily Kos, a strongly left-leaning blog accused Alaska Governor Sarah Palin of faking a pregnancy to cover for her errant teenager, Bristol, and pretending the new addition to the Palin clan, little Trig (who supposedly has Downs Syndrome) is hers and not her daughter's. As proof, The Daily Kos provided a picture of Sarah Palin at six months pregnant with a stomach that is flat as a pancake. They pointed out that when Governor Palin announced that she was seven months pregnant and going to have a baby soon, her staff was floored. No one who worked with her had a clue she was pregnant. Finally, The Daily Kos offered the frightening story of Sarah Palin's abrupt return to Alaska via a ten hour flight, even though her amniotic fluid had started leaking and she was experiencing real labor pains. She didn't tell the flight attendants that she was that pregnant and in labor and they never had a clue this was her situation. The chances of Palin giving birth on the flight were relatively high and taking such a chance seemed so irrational that those at The Daily Kos felt Palin wouldn't have actually taken such a crazy risk. They felt it was more likely she only flew home because her daughter, Bristol was giving birth to the baby and because taking such a long flight while not pregnant was no risk at all.

So, that story multiplied on the Internet to the tune of over 2.000,000 references in just a few days. The story had very good running legs until Governor Palin and John McCain decided to clamp down on it by admitting Bristol was pregnant (five months pregnant) but had become pregnant before Trig was born, thereby eliminating her as the mother of the little boy. Now, Republicans and many others are embracing the pregnant teenager and her mom as just regular folk who have problems and telling those ridiculous gossipers and slanderers to shut up about this fake pregnancy thing. "Enough is enough!"

I beg to differ and I do so as a conservative who absolutely does not want Barack Obama in office. I do not like his ideology and I do not trust where he wants to take this country (keep in mind I have a biracial son that looks pretty much like Obama, so race is playing no part in this - I would love to see the color barrier erased in politics and would be thrilled if a black man or a man of Indian descent like Bobby Jindal or a man of mixed race like Obama made the big time). I also would love to see more women in high political office in the United States (I am a huge fan of the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto) and I love renegades (look at me!). I am not to fond of McCain but I planned to vote for him if his running mate was someone I felt comfortable with. Now, I am stumped as to what to do come this election. Palin is a problem for me. I find her just as disingenuous as Obama.

Let me explain my position. First of all, I don't think she is ready to be vice president because she does indeed lack experience on the international front. I have no issue with Sarah Palin being mayor of a small town and being the new governor of Alaska. I think these are appropriate levels of government for a woman with her experience. I might have thought a number of years down the road, she would be a good VP. I don't think she is ready to be Vice President or, heaven forbid, the President should McCain croak.

But, even her lack of experience pales when it comes to Sarah Palin's character and choices. She scares me. Let's take a look at the "Whose Your Mommy?" scandal.

1) If Trig is her baby, why did Sarah Palin get pregnant at age forty-four and just when she became governor of Alaska? Does she not know the meaning of birth control, tubal ligation, or vasectomy? If she was planning on a full-time career in politics that leaves little time for young children, shouldn't she have made sure she would not jeopardize this venture by becoming pregnant?

2) If Trig is her baby, why did Palin, an ardent anti-abortion/pro life woman, get an amniocentesis? This procedure carries the risk of miscarriage; if she never planned to abort the baby even if he had Downs syndrome, why take this test? I refused amnio for this exact reason during my pregnancies; if I killed my baby for useless information, I could never live with myself. So why was the pro-life Palin willing to risk "aborting" her baby?

3) If Trig is her baby, why did Governor Palin keep everyone in the dark for seven months and then spring this news on them? Doesn't she think the people she works with and works for have some right to know what her situation is? One could say it is a private matter, but she is in public office and a change in her life circumstances can affect others, even if just because of the publicity. Furthermore, does she lie to them about her doctors appointments and come up with excuses for changes in exercise habits or diet, etc.? Isn't all of rather disconcerting behavior? If I worked with her and realized she had put up a big pretense for months, I wouldn't trust her much in the future.

4) If Trig is her baby, why in the heck would she risk the baby's life (and her own life) by getting on a long plane flight while in labor and leaking amniotic fluid? I myself am not fond of doctors and had a home birth the second time around (attended only by a lay midwife) and even I would not get on a plane with a high risk pregnancy and high risk birth (because of the Downs Syndrome) after my fluid started leaking and I felt labor pains. I would know that labor could increase quickly while airborne and the child could be born at any time during the flight. It would not fair to the baby or my family to take such a risk. It also wouldn't be very nice of me to put the flight attendants and the other passengers through such an ordeal. This to me is a huge red flag as to the judgment of Sarah Palin and what she considers important in making her decisions (you can decide for yourself why she got on this Alaska flight).

5) If Trig is her baby, why does Palin hide her daughter's pregnancy for so long, only telling the public about it she needs to squash this other story? Is it the lesser of two evils for her? Did she throw her daughter under the bus just to make herself look better? Shouldn't she have made the pregnancy known before she accepted the VP spot and when she accepted the VP spot? Why does it only come out to override the other scandalous story?

6) If Trig is her baby, why, oh, why didn't Sarah Palin just post a "Trig Birthday Page" with pictures of her holding Trig in her arms in her hospital bed, in her hospital gown? Why not show a picture of Palin being wheeled out of the hospital with Trig on her lap? Why not show a copy of Sarah/Trig's hospital record?

Some folks will say, "Why should Governor Palin have to do all this? Why should she have to respond to this smear campaign?" Under many circumstances, I would agree. I have suffered some amount of slander and libel in my career. Most of it I have ignored so as not to start a forest fire where there is only a small campfire burning that will extinguish itself in time. Sometimes one should not fan the flames even if the lies are unsettling and insulting. However, if there is a very damaging falsehood being spread about, especially the kind of stuff that would harm others I work with or work for, then I best deal with it. This story about Sarah Palin faking a pregnancy to cover for her daughter is not only bad for her reputation, but a huge liability for the Republican campaign for the White House. Why would she ignore such a nightmare when putting up one quick page on the Internet - a cheerful little piece with a happy tone, maybe even a slightly mocking tone - could solve the problem within minutes?

"To all my supporters out there, that silly story about me tossing on a fake belly for a couple months and pretending to birth Trig - here we are at the hospital! Yes, that baby at my breast is really mine and that ugly hospital gown was really on me that day. Check out this hospital record also! See my name associated with pregnant/birthing patient? Okay guys? Got it? Thanks! See you in the White House!" Simple to do and, in my opinion, necessary. Sarah Palin still hasn't responded to the allegations. All we have seen are a couple of new pictures of Palin looking pregnant in her eight month. Unfortunately, this is not proof of anything. If she announced she was pregnant in the seventh month (when she still did not look pregnant) and she was faking being pregnant, she would have to do something in the next month or two. She would have to carry through by adding a little tummy under her clothes as time went on. So the pictures don't prove she was pregnant; they just proved she looked pregnant.

7) If Trig is her baby and she knew her daughter was pregnant, shouldn't she have told John McCain that this was not an appropriate time to accept the VP spot, that a Downs baby and a young pregnant daughter will need a great deal of attention from her? Is it possible that a VP with exceptional life crises would not be beneficial to the Republican ticket?

So, I have no clue if the Palin fake pregnancy story was total bunk or not. While it has not be proven, neither has it been disproved - yet. If Bristol Palin has her baby (and doesn't have a "miscarriage" which would then make the original story possible again, or have the baby "so late" she would have had time to get pregnant again), then the Sarah Palin fake pregnancy story will have been proven a misinterpretation of "the evidence", but an understandable misinterpretation considering the series of events.

So even thought I am conservative and would have voted for the Republican ticket this time around, I can't entirely fault The Daily Kos for jumping on this bizarre story. I, too, have had the same thoughts, and although I haven't seen proof of the story being true, I haven't really seen enough proof that it isn't. I guess I will continue to wonder unless I see solid evidence that puts my curiosity to rest.

In the end, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me if the story of faked pregnancy is true or not. I am still uncomfortable with how Palin handles situations. She and John McCain won't get my vote at this point, and I am guessing, she has cost the Republicans the presidency in 2008. I think, regardless of the big effort being put forth to make Sarah Palin palatable, a whole lot of people won't want to vote for her or the fool who picked her.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown