Fair shake

Reader question:

Please explain “fair shake” in the following:

The candidates get a fair shake during the debates. They take turns being asked questions and have the same amount of time to answer and to make a final statement at the end.

My comments:

“Fair shake” suggests, as you can probably infer from the above example, fairness. In the example, candidates each were given the same amount of time to answer questions and a chance to make a final statement.

In short, an equal opportunity or treatment for each and all.

“Fair shake” is a term borrowed from perhaps gambling. “Shake” refers to the action of dice roller, the person who rolls the die or dice. Before he casts them onto the table, he puts the dice into a cup and rattles or shakes the cup violently.

That’s what a “fair shake” is originally. It simply means the roller is not cheating and is being fair – by making sure that the dice in the cup get a good mix.

Alright, before we move onto examples, here is a chant from yours truly: HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Now, recent media examples of fair shake, a fairly commonplace phrase used in all walks of life, i.e. not just limited to the casino:

1. Bears for Life, an anti-abortion organization, is holding a screening of “Maafa 21” at 7 p.m. Thursday in Morrison Hall 100.

The documentary, which was released on June 15, 2009, discusses the effects of abortion on the African-American community.

It was directed by Mark Crutcher, the founder of Life Dynamics, an anti-abortion organization headquartered in Denton.

Bears for Life chose to show this documentary in February because it is Black History Month, said Houston junior Rachana Chhin, Bears for Life president.

“Maafa” is Swahili for “tragedy,” and the number “21” refers to the 21st century.

The documentary title indicates the tragedy of the 21st century is the aborting of African-American infants.

The documentary is about the dark side of Planned Parenthood, Mesquite junior and Bears for Life member Phuong Luu said.

The film delves into the history of the American eugenics movement that began in the early 20th century when slavery was abolished.

The documentary also said there was no problem with African-Americans maintaining a self-replacing population while they were slaves.

Post-slavery, the documentary said there were millions of freed slaves considered to be jeopardizing “race integrity.”

“After the Civil War, suddenly there were millions of free slaves, jeopardizing the purity of the gene pool [and] threatening the white population,” Chhin said, referencing what the documentary said.

Therefore, the American Birth Control League, which is now Planned Parenthood, early eugenicists, and many state governments targeted the African-American community in order to limit the spreading of bad genes, Chhin said.

“Planned Parenthood says its purpose is to help the population, but actually it’s not,” Luu said. “It’s trying to reduce the population.”

...

The film claims abortion is the No. 1 killer of African-Americans in the United States, and that it has reduced the African American population by 25 percent.

“It’s above heart disease and AIDS,” Padilla said.

Padilla said the documentary is important for everyone to see, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, and no matter their major.

“I think that even beyond the issue of abortion, it just tells us we need to pay more attention to what’s going on around us,” Padilla said.

For every black child born, two are aborted, Chhin said.

“If people are willing to give the film a fair shake, this might just give them a different perspective on the conversation our society is having about abortion,” Chhin said. “Open your eyes to more than just the right to life or right to choose.”

According to the United States Center for Disease Control, almost 13 million African-American women have had abortions since 1973.

“You can’t replace 13 million people,” Chhin said.

- Bears for Life to show screening of documentary, Balor.edu, February 3, 2010.

2. Walker is about to rule on the first federal trial to decide the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban.

Suggestions of Walker's orientation peeked out on several gay blogs throughout the January trial, including at Michael Petrelis’ blog Petrelis Files: “On several occasion, Walker, who I think could be a fab host at a piano in a swank cafe, would make a funny comment or joke from the bench, bringing forth many laughs and alleviating my boredom.”

But Sunday, the ‘San Francisco Chronicle’ verified for the first time that Walker is gay.

“The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay,” the paper wrote.

The paper cited a friend of Walker's – also a federal judge – as saying that Walker does not conceal being gay, but believes the subject is private.

“He has a private life and he doesn't conceal it, but doesn’t think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn’t bring it to bear in any decisions,” the unidentified judge said.

When asked for comment, proponents of Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban, refused to comment.

“We are not going to say anything about that,” Andy Pugno, general council for ProtectMarriage.com, the group behind Proposition 8, said.

Pugno, however, did say he felt his side did not receive a fair shake in Judge Walker’s courtroom.

“In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case. Regardless of the reason for it,” Pugno said.

But during the trial, the defense made the argument that California’s gay community has powerful and influential allies, openly gay politicians and judges included among them, and concluded that the community does not need protection from the government.

- Marriage Trial Judge is Gay, Opponents Keep Quiet, Webcastr.com, February 8, 2010.

3. After being accused of wrongdoing, being convicted by a jury of his peers, and having the conviction reversed years later by the Guam Supreme Court, former Guam International Airport Authority Executive Manager Jerry Yingling has filed an ethics complaint against the Superior Court judge that presided over his case. Yingling was convicted in March 2005 of unauthorized use of a government credit card and official misconduct, but Guam’s appellate court found there was no evidence to prove that the former government official did anything unrelated to his official business.

Now Yingling has asked Ethics Prosecutor Bruce Bradley to review judicial misconduct and ethics complaints against Superior Court Judge Steven Unpingco.

“In my opinion Judge Steven S. Unpingco should not be sitting on the bench at all. I don’t think he’s competent and I don’t think he has the judicial temperament to judge others. I don’t want any other Americans such as myself to experience what I did,” Yingling said. “There’s nothing more horrible than to be falsely accused and falsely convicted and I lay that blame squarely on the judge.”

Yingling maintains the judge abused his authority when he failed to properly voir dire, or question potential jurors for the case that Unpingco determined was not high profile...

“My complaint against Steven Unpingco is not about anger. It’s not about revenge. It’s not about some kind of retribution on him. It’s to protect other people. Seriously any attorney or defendant who goes before him needs to be very, very careful,” he explained...

Because of his legal battles and his experience with the judicial system, Yingling says his view of justice has changed completely. He believes the court system tries to do whatever it can “in back rooms without airing any dirty laundry”. For now he hopes the ethics prosecutor will look into his entire complaint and hopes he’ll finally get a fair shake.

- Yingling files ethics complaint against judge. Kuam.com. February 9, 2010.