Bruce St. James is a radio host on a local radio show in the
Phoenix Metro Area. I understand he is a
better movie reviewer than radio host.
He comes across as the typical libertarianesque radio host. Less government, cops are too heavy handed
“Its not a riot until the cops show up” (one of his quotes). For the most part he is pretty harmless
until he opens his mouth and starts spewing misinformation. Well to be honest some of it is just his
opinion but he is so wrong on every topic and it drives me nuts. I
think the first time I heard him was when he was stating that guy who had his
nephew dress up in a sheet and a very real looking replica RPG to simulate a Middle
Eastern terrorist on a street corner in Phoenix had not broken any laws. Well the courts seemed to disagree and I am
guessing Bruce never read the endangerment statute that he was charged with,
but it was his opinion and he as an American is entitled to be ignorant to the
laws and even entitled to spew his ignorance for everyone to hear (while getting paid to do it is pretty impressive).
The next time I heard him he was talking about some shenanigans
at the City of Phoenix and pension spiking (which I agree that there is some
abuse and much of the spiking practices need to stop) and he made some comment
about it going on because police unions pay off the elected officials so they
don’t put an end to it. No empirical
data to support his position, just a statement.
Never mind the fact that a police union can only contribute roughly $400
to any given candidate, even if the largest group of unions that are aligned
for political donations got together for one candidate gave the full amount
each candidate would get a maximum of $10,000.
Now that is not to say a politician is not going to sell their soul for
400 bucks or even ten thousand dollars, but lets’ be realistic. The city was giving away millions, do you
really think a few bucks that can be scrounged together is going to buy off
millions of dollars a year of waste? But
just blowing out your ass wild statements without empirical data to support
them is much more fun and better for ratings in this market.
A while after that I heard him talking about the war on
drugs and how President Obama commuted the sentences for a few people he felt
were incarcerated too long for “minor” crimes and such. One of
those was Stephanie George whom Mr. St James described as just getting caught
up because her boyfriend stored some drugs and cash at her apartment. While it is true that her boyfriend claimed
to be the owner of said drugs and cash, let’s look at this in a little more
detail. She was not sentenced to a mandatory
25 years because of this single arrest.
She had 3 previous crack cocaine related CONVCITIONS not just
arrests. Keep in mind this was during a
time when crack was ravaging US cities and murder rates were skyrocketing. In the early 90’s when I lived in New York
City crack was destroying the city from within.
You could not walk down the street outside of midtown without seeing
empty crack vials all over the ground.
In some places it was so bad you would lose your footing on the
thousands of empty crack vials on the stairs of the subway and such. In the early 90’s the murder rate in NYC
hovered around 2000 people a year. Now
its closer to 400 a year, a massive reduction.
Cities and states struggled to curb the violence that crack was bringing
to our cities. Thus the mandatory minimums
were developed to keep repeat offenders from continuing to dole out their poison
and death. In Ms. Georges case she had the previous three
convictions for dealing and using crack cocaine and was found with 1.2 pounds
of cocaine ($15,000 value), the equipment to convert powder cocaine to
crack. And $17,000 in cash. All of which belonged to her ex boyfriend who
paid her to care for all of these items and contraband. So let’s be honest about her culpability, she
was an active participant in wholesale distribution of crack cocaine. Bruce commented that it was not a violent
offense which in itself is true and was excessive in sentence. What most non cops do not realize is that 95%
of murders fall in to two categories.
Drug rips and Domestic Violence.
DV murders can be lovers, or any family relationship and drug rips are
what the news calls “a drug deal gone bad” , more specifically an armed robbery
over drugs or drug money gone bad. But I
digress. The remaining 5% are for all of
the other non drug and DV related, types like road rage, one neighbor kills the
other over too much noise (it happens) and the ultra rare random murder. So yes, her drug crime was not violent per se
but the violence that is a byproduct of said drugs is a very real component
that Mr. St James left out of his blathering of dribble.
I really like KTAR but when he is on as soon as he starts
talking about anything of merit I am forced to change back to the depths of NPR
where I know its slanted because I cannot take the complete reckless disregard
for the truth. There I was driving
somewhere channel surfing and I hear them talk about “gang related” issues,
well dealing with gang members regularly and having two gang members currently
serving prison sentences for threatening to kill me with their gang, I became
interested. It was an NFL member getting
kicked out or something for gang activity.
Bruce states that he has quite a bit of experience riding with the gang
unit and states from his expert opinion that he was not a gang member but “gang
related” or the correct term “a Gang Associate”
someone who affiliates with known gang
members but is not an actual member. He
points out that one of the incidents drawing this attention was the subject making
gang signs during a football game.
What???? If Bruce were an expert
on gangs he would realize that very bad things happen to “non gang members”
flashing real gang signs (acting as if there were a member of the gang) and in
fact it is reason for a serious beating.
Anyone who hangs around gang members knows that until they earn the
right to be a member (by whatever means is required for that gang) they are not
allowed to say they are a member, flash signs or do any such thing without
reprisal. But then again it was his opinion, but at
least a few hundred people listen to him and think highly of his opinion.
Now it brings me to
yesterday when I got in the car KTAR was on and I hear them talk about an
incident in Chandler where 5 schools are locked down over an armed
suspect. Well again without having all
of the facts normally the co-hosts are voices of reason but this time they
jumped on the tardwagon and jumped to conclusions with Bruce. They went on the assumption that Chandler PD
locked down the area and five schools because an open carry guy or someone
removing a hunting rifle from his car or something. Bruce drones on and on about how it’s legal
get over it and how this is being blown way out of proportion. Well in their defense the news was vague, but
when is the last time you heard the police locking down 5 schools for an open
carry guy out trying to prove his point?
Um………Um………Um……..I cant think of one can you? That is because they don’t! Hundreds of times a day retarded people call
the police because someone is open carrying and how many of those turn into
school lock downs and such? What really happened
was a felon with a gun was running through a trailer park pointing the gun at
people and later shooting at officers.
Not your typical open carry situation is it? Should people get over calling the cops on
that Bruce, was that an overreaction?
Who overreacted over the situation?
You jumping to conclusions or the people who called or the cops?
When you tell people to calm down over open carry rifles Just
remember this, when it comes to open carry with a rifle Adam Lanza and James
Holmes were both legally open carrying rifles right up to the moment they committed
the atrocities.
At one point a while back I heard Bruce tell people not to
take his word because he is a moron and we should look things up ourselves. I had to wonder was he a genius spewing
misinformation in an effort to get people to educate themselves or was in fact
a moron? I struggled with this because I did in fact
learn more by getting frustrated with him, but then I drew the conclusion that
he was right, he was in fact a moron, that thinks so much of his opinion he considers
it fact. I suppose this comes from being
a movie critic where his opinion is considered of above average value compared
to other people. So maybe he is just a
victim of his other profession. Regardless,
I prefer less windbagedness in my libertarian radio host; I prefer Larry
Elder. Larry makes his points with empirical
data to support his position. And his
voice is not as whiney and does not grate on my nerves. Check out Larry at www.larryelder.com
