Book Reviews; The Olden Days; Guest Post

Two Books reviews: “Midnight In the Garden of Good and Evil” by John Berendt and “Who Named the Knife” by Linda Spalding. One a study of murder and life in Savannah, Georgia, the other, also a true crime genre, is a lesson in just how silly liberals can get.

Been reviewing this summer’s hottest reality tv shows, including “ The Bachelorette”, “America’s Got Talent”, “Hell’s Kitchen”, “Project Runway”, “Big Brother”. Check them out.

Guest writer Michelle’s got a new WII and weeeeee, check it out.

Finally, a lesson for those faux-green fools and how to REALLY put a cap on burning fossil fuels.

Pic of the Day

 Posted by Hello

My Reality TV Reviews on The Morton Report

Been writing reviews of this summer’s hottest reality shows, including “The Bachelorette”, “America’s Got Talent”, “Hell’s Kitchen”, “Project Runway”, “Big Brother”. By contract I can’t post on my Blog for 60 days but no reason why yon reader can’t read them at Links and descriptions below.

TV Love-The Bachelorette, Love In the Wild-7/10/11

TV Love-The Bachelorette, Love In the Wild-7/15/11

TV Love-The Bachelorette, Love In the Wild-7/22/11

TV Love-The Bachelorette, Love In the Wild-7/27/11

The Summer Food Wars, MasterChef, Hell’s Kitchen, The Next Food Network Star 7/1/11

The Summer Food Wars, MasterChef, Hell’s Kitchen, The Next Food Network Star 7/13/11

The Summer Food Wars, MasterChef, Hell’s Kitchen, The Next Food Network Star 7/21/11

The Summer Food Wars, MasterChef, Hell’s Kitchen, The Next Food Network Star 7/29/11

<The Marriage Ref

HGTV’s Design Star 7/15/11

America’s Got Talent 7/19/11

Big Brother 7/23/11

Project Runway 7/31/11

center>  Posted by Hello

”Who Named the Knife"by Linda Spalding

Here’s a twisted tale that began in 1978 going on with the latest update in 2009.

It’s a book as much about the author as it is about the subject.

It’s a book about justice and juries and court trials and two innocent males who met their death because two selfish young people went on a killing spree and murdered them for pretty much no reason.

Male in picture above is victim murdered in Hawaii, Larry Hasker, NOT William Acker as the text indicates. My mistake. Woman is Linda Acker.

Let’s begin with the author, Linda Spalding. Spalding was a juror on this case. Circumstances caused her to be late the morning the jury was charged with delivering the verdict against Maryann Acker and an alternate was put in her place. Spalding declares that she would have found Maryann innocent.

Only the jury legally qualified to vote on the verdict found Maryann Acker guilty and she was subsequently sentenced to life in prison.

Spalding then began on a life quest to try and free Maryann Acker from the Hawaiian prison for the crime Spalding sincerely believed the woman did not commit.

Maryann and William Acker were young newlyweds when they jointly went on a murder spree that had them robbing and murdering two young men. One was lured by Maryann from a bar in Hawaii to his home where both William and Maryann robbed him then drove him to a secluded roadside where one of the Ackers shot and murdered him. This duo later murdered a man in California, a fellow who stopped and picked them up when they were hitchhiking by the side of the road. While both the Ackers were convicted of murdering the California man, only William was charged with using a gun in the commission of a crime. For the Hawaiian murder, both William and Maryann were charged with using a gun.

Make no mistake, there is some question as to who pulled the trigger to kill these men. As is often the case, lesser charges were also filed against William and Maryann, one of which was the use of a gun in the commission of a felony. Maryann was not found guilty of the use of a gun in the murder of the California man but she was found guilty of murder. Just because she wasn’t found guilty of using a gun, Maryann Acker was very much found guilty in murder in the first degree for the murder in Hawaii. Since she was sentenced to life in Hawaii, the state of California hadn’t a chance to try Maryann but had she been released in Hawaii she would have had to face the judiciary in California.

The testimony of William Acker was all over the place, even to a point of perjury. For Acker testified in California that he shot and killed Lawrence Hasker in Hawaii. He recanted that statement in the 2009 re-trial, saying he lied under oath only to try and get his ex-wife out on parole.

Local stories of that trial HERE and HERE.

William later testified in the Hawaiian trial that it was Maryann who pulled the trigger that killed Lawrence Hasker.

Odd. First, husbands are not normally required to testify against their wives. William so testified willingly. Second, it is asserted that William was hinted at a possible early release if he testified. The jurors in Hawaii, which included, at the time, the book’s author, did not know this, could not weigh the fact that William’s testimony might be tainted by that promise.

What was not disputed was the fact that both of this couple participated in the murder of two men, one in Hawaii and one in California.

Maryann, over the years in her Hawaiian prison, began to create a story that she was completely innocent, that it was her husband William who murdered those two men, that she had nothing to do with it, could not stop him, was totally unaware of it all.

If this writer’s opinion means anything to yon reader, and mileages do vary I get this, sweet little Maryann was knee deep in the murder of these two men. This book’s author, remember, was on the jury for this crime and due to a fluke, was not present to vote the “not guilty” she alleges she would have delivered. Which would have caused a hung jury because Maryann was, in fact, found guilty. Not once, yon reader, but TWICE. Could all of those 24 jurors who voted her guilty be dumbbell boobs with only author Linda Spalding having the brains to see the truth?

At the time of this book’s writing the additional trial had not been complete. As Maryann’s attorney was preparing for the retrial, the author was what I consider a stupid, misled, usually silly liberal, believer in the innocence of the guilty.

They’re everywhere, these people with teeny tiny little lives with nothing more going for them in their life than to embrace the innocence of some very guilty criminal type. They’ll get themselves so emotionally wrapped up in the jailed n’er do well, who is probably yukking it up over having so fooled this fool, that they visit them in jail, write them endlessly, there are stories of stupid lonely women up and marrying a murderer, remaining loyal to them until their release, only to themselves be murdered by the guy whose innocence they so believed.

Linda Spalding is a bit different in that she a)is smart enough to write a book and a very well-written one at that and b)was involved with the criminal she so adored in a more unusual manner by actually being a juror on her trial.

Beyond that, Spalding is a bit of a dim bulb. Dear Lord, does she really believe that Maryann and her young husband picked up not one, but TWO men, who both ended up very dead, without knowing a thing about how these men keep ending up dead all around her? Maryann and her husband thought they were Bonnie and Clyde and I got a bridge through some swampland to sell this author if she thinks this precious innocent she is wasting her life on knew nothing about the young men who died, both who made the horrible mistake of helping Maryann and her husband out.

Linda Spalding would do way better spending her time doing something for the very helpless, innocents who lost their life before having a chance to live it. Instead she throws away her time and money on the evil witch who murdered them in cold blood.

The book’s title is an allusion to testimony at the trial that alleged that Maryann carried a knife that had a name. Spalding said she felt, as a juror, that whoever named that knife was the guilty one.

Maryann Acker named that knife…”JUSTICE”….I have not a single doubt.


”Midnight In the Garden of Good and Evil” by John Berendt

Here’s a book as much about Savannah, Georgia as it is about the famous murder that happened there. For a young, handsome and virile Danny Hansford did end up dead, killed by a bullet shot from a gun held by his ersatz room-mate, Jim Williams.

Williams was a Savannah resident of cosmopolitan tastes and European culture. He purchased and fixed up those old Victorian type of homes that filled Savannah’s inner city streets. Williams was a beloved Savannah fixture whose annual Christmas party invites were cherished as any gilded treasure.

Williams was a homosexual. Danny Hansford was a heterosexual who sold his body for money to Williams or, at times, local fellows who hung out in Savannah’s sleazier districts for just such a purchase.

While the story of this book is true, much of it is fictionalized, based, on author assertion, gleanings of truth and Savannah folklore gathered from his research. The author was in pursuit of the story of the Hansford murder, spending many months actually living in Savannah, meeting the local characters, researching the facts of law.

Jim Williams claimed that he did shoot Danny Hansford but only in self-defense. Hansford was a loud lout of a guy. The classy home owned by Williams and shared with Hansford was often the scene of arguments and cussing by Hansford, as any one of Williams’ neighbors would attest. Williams claimed that Hansford was approached while he was sitting at his desk. Hansford had a gun in his hand and shot at the vulnerable Williams. The bullets shot by Hansford failed to hit Williams so he opened the desk drawer, grabbed a gun stored there, and shot Hansford dead before the angry young man could fire off another shot.

The book is full of colorful characters, rich with local lore, and saturated with the kooky, sophisticated traditions of Savannah. Jim Williams was tried three times by a very inept prosecutor. The author spent many hours with Williams as he endured the hung juries of two trials. Williams was nonplussed by being constantly under attack by the prosecutor, smug and secure his innocence would be affirmed.

For there were holes in Williams’ story, big ones. Danny Hansford had NO gunpowder residue on his dead hands, very unusual for someone who’d so recently shot a gun. The prosecutor’s theory was that Williams, out of a final rage and anger at this young man he so obviously loved, got a gun and finally shot him dead. The juries of Williams’ peers in Savannah, Georgia were not buying it. Whether this was because of their true belief in Williams’ innocence or due to Williams stature in Savannah’s gentile society is unknown.

Williams spent a fortune in defense attorneys though musing often to the author that he is as well served by the local voodoo witch doctor than the plethora of defense attorneys who hadn’t managed, through two trials, to get him a not-guilty verdict.

Williams did finally get a defense attorney that pleased him, this defense attorney finally finding one missed fact through the many trials that arguably poked a fatal hole in the prosecutor’s case.

This is a very well-written book. For sure it’s a peek into an intriguing part of America that eschews entry into a more modern world for living in a quaint past.

There are many colorful characters in the book which the author assures us might not exist on a one by one basis but as combined to one fictional name they very much existed in the Savannah he visited and studied.

It’s a great look into a justice system filled with flaws and as far away from justice as can be.

center> Posted by Hello

We Fit

First, an update on Harry. He's doing well, healing fast. He had his ten-day checkup this morning (has it already been ten whole days?) and the doctor says Harry's on track. The incisions (there are five, not four) are looking good, pain levels are dropping, and Harry has a touch of cabin fever. Removal of the gall bladder has removed his heartburn. Magic!

The doctor had already told Harry he could drive whenever he *thought* he could drive, so Harry's been driving for a couple of days. Makes for some long days for him, because he's still recovering from surgery, but no adverse effects the following morning. It won't be long before he's back to working full days, eh?

So, Harry's fit and getting fitter.

Not to be outdone, I've started using the Wii Fit. It's the newest Nintendo, I think, and so far it's not only fun, it's funny.

The Wii Fit we have comes with a Balance Board. This looks like an electronic weighing bathroom-style scale without the number gauge.

I wasn't sure how, exactly, the Board would work. Now that I've been using it, I'm a bit amazed. Let's look at ski jumping, for example. To ski jump, I get on the Balance Board when it says it's ready. The television shows me the jump, and instructions appear on the screen below it. The view is a 3D view (not true 3D; no funky glasses) of the jump from the point of view of the jumper.

The instructions tell me NOT to jump on the Board, and to squat in preparation for the jump. In the upper right corner there's a wavering dot in the middle of a blue square. A bit above it is an orange dot.

By controlling where my weight is on my feet, I can move that wavering dot. The goal is to move it to the orange dot and hold it there. Ready? Press A on the Wii controller, and the jumper begins to slide down the ski slope.

I have to hold the wavering dot against the orange dot on the way down. At exactly the right moment, I'm supposed to extend my legs straight, coming out of the crouch as if I am jumping. Without actually leaving the Board.

Once my jumper is in the air, I am supposed to try to keep my wavering dot in the cross hairs.

A good jump is when my wavering dot stays over the orange dot all the way down the slope, and then remains in the cross hairs until my jumper lands.

A bad jump results in my jumper tumbling down the slope as a giant snowball.

Most of the fitness games are funny that way. There's a soccer head butt game where you have to lean to the left or right to hit soccer balls coming at your character. After a few balls, shoes and other stuff comes flying at you, too, and you're supposed to avoid those.

I'm not very good at it. But it's funny!

So, Harry is getting fit in his way and I'm getting fit in mine. I can hardly wait until he's well enough to compete against me on the ski jump.


The Desk Drawer writer's exercise


 Posted by Hello

I came across this via an email or some such. It’s a tongue-in-cheek thing, true, but as I read it I see the truth of it and ponder that these “greenies” shouldn’t consider life without endless water bottles or even air conditioner.

How Wasteful the Older Generation Was ...

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman

that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were


But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry the clothes.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters,

not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right, they didn't have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house, not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you.

When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right, they didn't have the green thing back then.

They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn't have the green thing back then?


A Brain Infection? A Medical Journey Surpassed by Few

A Medical Odyssey to a Quadruple Heart Bypass

To My Townhall Blog

My Twitter Page, I post all Blog posts there with the link

My Face Book Page

No comments: