Alablawg

This Blawg Has Moved

2006-06-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

Visit me at my new location here.

For an explanation, see the previous post.

Then head to The Alablawg's new home.

Relationships Are Built On Trust

2006-06-09T12:47:00.000-07:00

And Blogger, I just can't trust you anymore.

You've let me down in the past, and I've always forgiven you. If not for you, I'd never have begun blogging in the first place. You introduced me to whole new worlds. You are simple, yet offer so much. You're a good service when you want to be, I really believe that.

But I never know when you are going to work. Lord knows I've given my all to this relationship, but you show up whenever you feel like it. I've always taken you back, but this week has been the last straw. I mean, how could you screw up on election day? You knew how important all those stories were for me. You let me down, and I don't think I can let you pick me up again.

Sure you are free, but that doesn't mean I have to go to Vegas to find your replacement. The web has plenty of other choices. So I think, at the least, we need some time apart. Next week I am going to blog from here.

Now this isn't only about us, the commentators and readers are what matters. We have to think about them. And really, I'm doing this for them. They need me to have a reliable blog service. They shouldn't have to wonder where their next post is coming from.

If I like the new blog, and if the readers approve, (they can let me know in your comments, or by e-mail, or else here) I'm gone and I'm taking them with me. We'll always miss you and the good times, but you can only blame yourself for this.

Another Important Study On Education

2006-06-09T09:53:00.000-07:00

Finds:

Apple Computer Inc.'s iconic iPod music player surpassed beer drinking as the most "in" thing among undergraduate college students, according to the latest biannual market research study by Ridgewood, N.J.-based Student Monitor. . . .

The only other time beer was temporarily dethroned in the 18 years of the survey was in 1997 - by the Internet, said Eric Weil, a managing partner at Student Monitor.

That is truly disturbing on a number of levels. No mention of where "learning" ranked.

Equal Opportunity In Education

2006-06-09T07:24:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting new study on educational inequality. From the introduction:

Every year, a large number of children enter school substantially behind. Sometimes that’s because of poverty. Sometimes it’s because they speak a language other than English. Sometimes there are other issues. But regardless of the reason, many children – especially low-income and minority children – are entering the classroom without the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.

Unfortunately, rather than organizing our educational system to pair these children with our most expert teachers, who can help “catch them up” with their more advantaged peers, we actually do just the opposite. The very children who most need strong teachers are assigned, on average, to teachers with less experience, less education, and less skill than those who teach other children. . . .

Of course, teacher quality cannot be measured only by years of experience and knowledge of basic skills and subject matter. At some time in our lives, almost all of us have heard about a brand-new teacher who was remarkable or a veteran teacher who was ineffective. And nobody who has spent much time in higher education would argue that deep knowledge of subject matter necessarily translates into quality teaching.

But substantial bodies of research show that these proxies for teacher effectiveness, though imperfect, do matter to teachers’ ability to produce student learning. So when all of the proxies tilt one way – away from low-income and minority students – what we have is a system of distributing teacher quality that produces exactly the opposite of what fairness would dictate and what we need to close achievement gaps. This system, quite simply, enlarges achievement gaps.

In short: On average, rich white kids get good teachers, poor black kids get lousy teachers. The cause of the problem, at least around these parts, is simple economics. All the incentives draw teachers towards the rich white schools.

On the one hand, you have, oh let’s say B’ham City schools. As a teacher in one of those schools, you will teach in a building that leaks, is surrounded by weeds, has a tempermental (at best) heating and cooling system, and does not have so much as a functioning fridge in the teacher’s lounge. There are no working copiers or other office equipment. You must supply your own paper, pens, staplers, and similar products. You even have to supply your own toilet paper. The classroom in which you teach was designed for twenty students, but has thirty-five students sharing thirty desks. Computers? Ha. And even though you are a salaried professional, you must clock in on one of these every day.

On the other hand, you have, for example, Hoover High School. The building is brand new and is better equipped than some colleges. Your cavernous classroom has its own thermostat, and even empty desks. The teacher’s lounge is nicer than your first apartment. The school has an employee whose only job is making copies for the teachers. All your record keeping is done on your computer in your classroom. HHS even provides tp. Finally, far from requiring you to clock in, you are treated like the professional you are.

Now, how much more money would B’ham have to pay you to get you to teach there instead of Hoover? Probably a lot; maybe no amount would be sufficient. Unfortunately, B’ham pays less than Hoover. So, who ends up in B’ham? Teachers who can’t get a job anywhere else: The inexperienced, ill educated, and unskilled.

Fixing this problem means increasing the incentives to teach in B’ham. That may mean more pay for teachers, but it certainly means improving the environment at the schools. It is not just the pay that drives teachers away from B’ham. Who is going to teach at a school where you have to provide your own toilet paper? The entire system is broken. It needs some serious TLC.

But, of course, that requires money. I certainly do not want to pay any more taxes for education in B’ham. Mostly because our local officials will fritter it away long before it does any actual good. So, maybe we ought to consider structural changes, like this suggestion in the study:

take a cue from professional sports and start using a “draft strategy.” That is, put high-poverty, struggling schools at the head of the hiring line, allowing them to have the first pick of teaching talent. If we can give struggling sports teams first dibs on talented new players, can’t we do the same for low-performing schools and provide these schools a decent shot at giving good teachers to the students who need the most help?

That would be a radical change, but if we want to call this society a meritocracy, something needs to be done.

More On Larry Darby

2006-06-08T16:02:00.001-07:00

Jeff at the original Politics in Alabama is asking how Darby got 160,000 votes. Thus far, the apparent consensus, and certainly the charitable view, is that there were a bunch of uninformed voters on Tuesday.

Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh, head of the Alabama Republican Party, however, has her own ideas:

“I really think it's the fact that the Democratic Party has gone out of the mainstream,” Cavanaugh said. "As an Alabamian I truly was shocked that that so many people would vote for someone that completely denies that there is a God and there was a Holocaust."

There are two issues here.

First, notice how Twinkle is shocked not just that people would vote for a Holocaust denier, but that they would vote for someone who denies there is a God. So, for her, an innocuous philosophical belief is the equivalent of denying the clear teaching of history out of a deep-seated hatred for a large part of society. Disagreeing with Twinkle about God disqualifies you for public office just as does disagreement with the rest of the intelligent world about the purposeful slaughter of the Jewish people. I think Twinkle needs to adjust her moral astrolabe.

Second, if we want to impute bad motives to voters, Twinkle ought to consider her own people first. Be honest: Which party’s followers are more likely to vote for a candidate who says stuff like this:

Darby attributed his "strong showing" to people who identified with his message and platform of "dealing with the Mexican invasion" and fighting "for equal rights for European-Americans."

"This multi-culturalism is destroying not just the United States but the Southern culture," Darby said Wednesday. "It's part of the global war on whites to replace the whites of the world with brown-skinned people. We're becoming a third-world country."

I think we all know the answer. I’m not saying all, or even most, or even a significant amount of Republicans would approve of Darby. I am saying that whatever the amount, it is exponentially greater than the number of Democrats who would. You can vote in the other party’s primary in Alabama. So, if we want to get nasty, my theory will be that a lot of Republicans hate immigrants so much that they would vote for Darby even though he is an atheist and a Democrat.

But I am going to think more highly of my fellow Alabamians. I am just going to assume they acted in ignorance. The same story also provides some good evidence for this theory:

In most counties, Darby gained from about 30 percent to half of the votes cast in the Democratic attorney general contest, including in heavily black counties such as Greene, Sumter, Macon and Wilcox. He fared worst in some of the counties nearest Mobile County, where Tyson has been a political fixture

Action by the state's most powerful black Democratic voters' group could also have been a factor in the final tally. Two days before the primary, Joe Reed, the chairman for the Alabama Democratic Conference, said that the caucus was not endorsing Tyson because of how he prosecuted David Thomas Jr., a black former Mobile County school board member.

So what happened was a lot of black voters saw Tyson’s name and thought “oh, that’s who we are not supposed to support” and then, not knowing any better, voted for Darby.

I will say one more thing. Individual voters may be guilty of no more than ignorance, but the ignorance is the Democratic Party’s fault. Even if they can be excused for letting Darby on the ballot in the first place, and even if they could not kick him off the ballot, they could at least have spent the time and energy necessary to ensure everyone knew the facts about Darby. No doubt the Dems opposed Darby, but that just makes their response more unacceptable.

Straining Out Gnats, Or, Why You Should Vote Republican

2006-06-08T09:28:00.002-07:00

Molly Ivins in today’s Anniston Star:

I believe what we have here is a difference over moral values.

The Republicans are worried about the flag, gay marriage and the terrible burden of the estate tax on the rich. The rest of us are obviously unnecessarily worried about war, peace, the economy, the environment and civilization. Another reason to vote Republican — they have a shorter list.

Yep, Sen. Sessions, Sen. Shelby, your courageous support for the anti-gay marriage amendment has convinced me your party is the one with the rational, achievable plan for solving this country’s problems. Clearly, anyone who opposes you wants to destroy America.

Sure you guys fell miserably short of the goal in this case, but if you keep up the good fight you will eventually get your deserts. If you and your kind stay the course, no doubt you’ll see the country rush to join you - as they did your ideological anscestors - the next time you toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and say Republicans now, Republicans tomorrow, Republicans forever!

Both Our Senators Put Pandering Above Principles

2006-06-08T05:19:00.000-07:00

And voted for the Federal ~~kill the homos!~~ anti-gay marriage amendment.

Shelby offered the same irrational emotional appeal as do most supporters:

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society," Shelby said. "Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure."

Marriage is critical to our health and well being. So let's make sure certain people can't take part in it. Yeah, that makes sense. Notice, again, there is no attept to explain how letting a gay couple marry will undermine your marriage. He may as well have said that to protect marriage, we need an amendment prohibiting hybrid cars. In any event, I for one find it insulting that the Senator thinks my marriage is so weak that if my gay neighbors got married, my marriage would end. This whole debate is beyond stupid.

But I can't say I am surprised that these two losers voted for the amendment. What I can say is that neither of them can ever again invoke federalist/state's rights principles in favor of an argument. There is absoulutely no subject more fit for exclusive state control than marriage. So if they will let the federal government decide our marriage policies, they should have no objections to the federal government overseeing our elections. If either of these two ever again invoke federalist principles to explain their opposition to legislation, the response should be: Liar.

The Alabama Constitution: Home Sweet Home For Stupidity

2006-06-07T16:48:00.000-07:00

As expected, the anti-gay people amendment passed. Supporters had plenty of compelling reasons for it.

John Giles, head of Alabama’s Christian Coalition, tells us "Marriage is a sacrament.” Of course he fails to explain why the civil law should attempt to enforce his own views of that religious doctrine.

The bill’s sponsor thinks gay people are icky: "I [introduced the amendment] after a trip to San Francisco where I saw ~~a black man and a white woman~~ two men on television in a public place kissing deeply.” He does not explain how this amendment will prevent public displays of affection, nor why we should codify his squeamishness.

Anyway, to put this amendment in context, let’s look at some other provisions of our state constitution.

Section 102, our first defense of marriage: “The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro.”

All right, that was unfair. Amendment 667 (you read that right – the six hundred and sixty seventh amendment) annulled that one in the year 2000 (you read that right to - the two thousandth year of our lord).

Section 256, however, is still on the books. The original version stated: “Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race.”

Amendment 111 ‘fixed’ Section 256: “To avoid confusion and disorder and to promote effective and economical planning for education, the legislature may authorize the parents or guardians of minors, who desire that such minors shall attend schools provided for their own race, to make election to that end.”

In addition to enshrining bigotry, the world’s longest constitution also addresses several other serious and weighty matters

Amendment 400: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the legislature may hereafter, by general law, provide for the promotion of, the production, research, distribution, marketing, use, improvement and sale of swine and swine products.” Maybe this explains the aroma wafting from Montgomery over the rest of the state?

Like the we-hate-homos amendment, Number 387 discusses licenses: In Madison County “No bingo license shall be issued to any nonprofit organization, unless such organization shall have been in existence for at least 23 months immediately prior to the issuance of the license”

Nor is this the first time we’ve amended the constitution in order to get rid of a pestilence. Number 449: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, the legislature may hereafter, by general law, provide for the eradication or control of the boll weevil.” Maybe Tom DeLay could help with this one, he's got time on his hands.

Furthermore, we only amend our constitution when we are dead serious about an issue. Number 520: “The Madison county commission is hereby authorized with or without charge to provide for the excavating of human graves.”

And Alabamians don’t waste their constitutional resources on garbage. Number 521: “The Pickens county governing body shall levy and impose a fee of not less than sixty dollars per ton on solid waste.”

But we do dare defend our rights. Number 597: “All persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with law and regulations. This amendment shall be known as the “Sportsperson's Bill of Rights.’”

On the topic of sex we also have Number 688: In Jefferson County, “It shall be unlawful for the owner or manager of any hotel, motel, inn, boardinghouse, apartment house, or any lodging place or like kind to employ a person who has been convicted of aiding or abetting prostitution.”

Finally, for now, Number 715 leaves me asking, what about bull? “The Legislature, by general law, may provide for the promotion of the production, distribution, improvement, marketing, use, and sale of sheep or goats.”

In short, I think Alabama’s constitution is the perfect home for this amendment.

Larry Darby?

2006-06-07T08:54:00.000-07:00

Perhaps my glee over the Moore-ons defeat ought to be tempered by the fact that Larry “The Only Holocaust I Believe in Is the One I Am Going To Instigate Against Illegal Immigrants” Darby managed to receive forty three percent of the vote in the Democratic A.G. primary.

Who are the 163,000 people who voted for this guy? I’ve argued in the past that a person’s belief, or non-belief, in a deity has no relevance to his qualifications as a political candidate. That said the fact is in Alabama being a Bible believing, God fearing Christian of some type is a pre-requisite for public office. So how did Larry Darby, the atheist get so many votes? Some might respond that he is a Democrat, and Democrats hate God. O.K., but Democrats also dislike holocaust-denying, war-on-immigrants-declaring, avowed racists. The Libertarians also long ago disowned him. Who voted for this guy?

I don’t know. So I am going to do like The Honest Propagandist and assume it’s because of ignorance. Surely the only reason Darby got 163,000 votes is because 162,999 of the voters (all but Darby) did not know the whole story.

Supreme Smack Down

2006-06-07T06:55:00.000-07:00

None of the Moore-ons came within twenty points of the incumbents. Riley almost doubled up Moore; Woodall had two-and-a-half times the votes as did Fowler; ditto Stewart over Zeigler.

This was the Super Bowl XXIV (San Fran 55, Denver 10) of primaries; the 1996 Fiesta Bowl (Nebraska 62, Florida 24) of elections. The electorate took to the Moore-ons' message like consumers took to New Coke. They were the Edsel's of candidates. Like the cavalry behind George Custer the Clones followed their leader into battle. The results were the same. The incumbents took the challengers out behind the woodshed. They opened up a big ol’ can of whupass. This. Was. Ugly.

So what does it mean? Is this the theocrats' Stalingrad? Their Waterloo? Gettysburgh? Is this moment the wax holding their wings together melted, so that their political lives will end as did Icarus's actual life? Will the challengers’ few supporters sulk back to their caves? Or will they support the Republicans in November? Will Mini-Moore now be quiet and do his job? Whither Roy Moore? Goodbye to his pipe dreams about the white house. Maybe he could run for some city council position? What of the Foundation for Moral Law? Is it content to file irrelevent and poorly reasoned amicus briefs? Or will it shut down? Will we soon hear cries about the activist electorate? Is God even now telling Pat Robertson that Alabama is going to suffer from a plague of locusts because we rejected the Moore-ons?

The people have spoken. The Moore-ons went too far for Alabamians. We’ll keep the taliban in Afghanistan, thank you very much. I suddenly feel better about this country. If the Moore-ons' message couldn't make it here, it can’t make it anywhere.

If I Was A Member Of The Libertarian Party In Alabama

2006-06-06T17:30:00.000-07:00

I'd be pretty depressed right now. Not just because they could not surmount the great wall Alabama has erected between third parties and the ballot, either.

I just finished watching For the Record. (There is no video up on the website yet, or I'd link to it). The guests were two Ph.Ds in political science. The host asked them if the Libertarians "deserved" to be on the November ballot in Alabama. One guest said yes, if they met the ballot requirements. Then both of them suggested that Libertarians ought to run as Republicans.

Wrong on both counts.

First, if they meet the ballot requirements, the Libertarians don't "deserve" to get on the ballot, they have a right to be on the ballot. The problem is that the requirements are too restrictive. They keep off the ballot parties, like the Libertarians, who might have some success. This is a viable party, they ought to be on the ballot. That they are not is proof that the ballot laws are flawed.

Second, asking a Libertarian to run as a Republican in this state would be asking the Libertarian to surrender half the party's platform. In theory Republicans are against government regulation of businesses, but they love to regulate private conduct. Libertarians agree with the former proposition, but strongly oppose the latter. No-one in this state could win a Republican primary while taking Libertarian positions on social issues. So to win, the Libertarian would have to adopt Republican views. In other words, sell his soul.

In sum, I saw two Ph.Ds fail to understand the problem facing the party or the doctrines of the party. If the eggheads don't get it, how will Joe Six-Pack ever do so? Hence, If I was a Libertarian, I'd probably be mixing a stiff drink right about now.

Tis Better To Remain Silent, Or, Bush Again Removes All Doubt

2006-06-06T12:40:00.000-07:00

President Bush’s speech in support of the federal marriage amendment was the sort of babbling nonsense we all expect from our mush minded president. You can get the overall criticisms here and, here. What I am going to criticize is his continuing reliance on the activist judges canard:

Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. The people have spoken. Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Since 2004, state courts in Washington and California and Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws. Last year, a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an amendment that was approved by 70 percent of the population. And at this moment, nine states face lawsuits challenging the marriage laws they have on the books.

First, the rest of the story:

The cases in Washington, California, Maryland and New York are all lower court decisions. The Nebraska case, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, is the only case in which a state marriage amendment has been overturned, and that case is under appeal. The court invalidated the amendment because it was drafted so broadly that it would have prohibited every type of same-sex relationship, not just same-sex marriage.

Not one of these states has been forced to recognize same-sex marriage. Why enact a constitutional amendment to address a problem that does not exist?

Now on to the phrase at issue. Andrew Cohen nicely summarizes what ‘activist judges’ really means:

Of all the lies and half-truths that spring from the mouths of politicians, the pernicious and pervasive use of the phrase "activist judges" to demean well-intentioned jurists surely is one of the worst. Even the late, great Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist hated the phrase.

Everytime a judge makes a decision, any decision whether you like it or not, that judge is "acting." Even when the Supreme Court decides not to review a case it is "acting." To judge-- to choose between competing arguments-- is to act. Every judge every day, therefore, is an "activist judge" in the honest meaning of the word and, therefore, no judges are the sort of creepy "activist judges" that President Bush and his cronies in Congress want you to be afraid of. Anytime you hear someone call a judge an "activist judge" all it means is that the person doing the calling didn't like the decision the judge just rendered. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Ed Brayton explains Bush’s hypocrisy:

This is nonsense. Only one state, Massachusetts, has had a court rule that gay marriage was required by their state constitution. And in that state, the legislature declined to attempt to overturn that court ruling and public sentiment in that state is against doing so. And of course, the phrase "activist judges" is utterly meaningless in this context.

The people of Oregon spoke, twice, in supporting assisted suicide; that did not stop Bush from ordering the DOJ to run to the courts to get those "activist judges" to strike down the "broad consensus" even though "the people have spoken." The people of California had likewise spoken and passed their medical marijuana law; Bush immediately ran to court to get "unelected judges" to overturn the "will of the people" on that one too. This rhetoric is not only empty, it's absolutely hypocritical. Pure demagoguery.

Federal Judge John Jones, the Republican judge who ruled that the Dover Pennsylvania school board could not require the teaching of intelligent design offers a judge’s perspective:

To be blunt, I think that many people need a civics lesson about the judicial system, because we are beginning to cross the line between fair comment and criticism of judges' work into something which is much darker and debilitating. At its worst, the failure by some segments of the media and the public to understand the proper function of an independent judiciary leads to results which are not only frightening, but are at times tragic.

All of you remember the murders of my colleague Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother last February, shot by a disgruntled litigant whose case had been dismissed by the judge. The killer was lying in wait for Judge Lefkow and when he discovered her loved ones first, he killed them instead. We cannot know if, in fact, the killer of Judge Lefkow's family members, who later took his own life, was influenced by the creeping disrespect for the judiciary that exists today. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is entirely likely that it was. As a result, as a direct result of the Lefkow murders, Congress has appropriated funds for security systems for the homes of United States judges. That is a very sad statement about our times.

And I will share something else with you that I have in common with Judge Whitamore, who presided in the Terri Schiavo case. That is, after our respective decisions, mine in the Dover case and Judge Whitamore's in the Schiavo case in 2005, both of us were under round-the-clock marshal protection for a period of time due to threats that we received, in my case, from various parts of the country. I’m sure you’ll agree that that’s a sad state of affairs and an alarming state of affairs.

When Bush invoked the activist judiciary nonsense, he not only contributed to this sad state of affairs, but demonstrated his own ignorance and hypocricy. George Bush: A decider? Maybe. A distractor? Probably. A leader? Definitely not. At least definitely not in the correct direction.

Another Reason Not To Vote For Troy King

2006-06-06T08:27:00.000-07:00

Here is the case in a nutshell. The Board that oversees the Department of Environmental Management consists of seven people. According to Section 22-22A-6(b)(6) of the Alabama Code, on of those people must:

be a biologist or an ecologist possessing as a minimum a bachelor's degree from an accredited university and shall have training in environmental matters.

Pat Byington is the current ‘ecologist’ on the commission. Don Siegelman appointed him, and the state senate unanimously affirmed him. Byington has a degree from Alabama in environmental studies. He is an environmental consultant and the publisher of the Bama Environmental News.

For some reason or another, a couple of folks don’t like Byington, and so they went to court to try to get him removed from the commission. The rationale? Byington does not meet the Code’s requirements for the ecologist’s position.

Well, the only degree required by the statute is a generic bachelor’s degree, which Byington has. As for being a ‘biologist or ecologist’ and having ‘training in environmental matters’ former Governor Siegelman thought Byington was qualified, and so did the Senate. His c.v. also indicates Byington meets these requirement. So the suit was meritless, right?

Wrong. The plaintiff’s asked Troy King for an opinion on the statute’s meaning. King responded that the statute requires a degree in biology or ecology.

Now, not only does the statute say no such thing, but at the time it was written no college in Alabama, and few elsewhere, even offered a degree in ecology. So, King’s reading not only contradicted the plain language of the statute, but as the judge who tossed the suit stated:

It appears that the Attorney General completely failed to consider the fact that his overly restrictive interpretation of the statute means that the Legislature would have created a position that was virtually impossible to fill at the time.

Why did King interpret the statute in such a ridiculous manner? Maybe he wanted a particular outcome. Maybe he lacks interpretive skills. Biased or incompetent; either way, his error was a major factor in this wasteful lawsuit. Either way, his performance in this case does not inspire confidence in him for future cases.

Alabama's Ballot Access Laws

2006-06-05T18:22:00.000-07:00

Have done their job. Once again, our choice in Alabama is between the Republicans and the Republicans who call themselves Democrats.

From Loretta Nall's blog:

The colorful Libertarian Party nominee for governor, Loretta Nall, said Monday she will run as a write-in candidate after failing to get enough signatures to get her name on the general election ballot.

"I'm not dropping out," Nall said.

Tuesday is the deadline for third-party candidates to turn in voters' signatures to the secretary of state to get ballot access for Nov. 7. Nall needed 41,300 signatures to get on the general election ballot. She said she and her supporters collected between 10,000 and 15,000 signatures, which she plans to turn in Tuesday to make a point about Alabama having one of the nation's toughest ballot access laws for third parties.

Her and her supporters did a lot of work to collect those signatures, yet the result amounted to less then a third of the required amount. The purpose of the signature requirements is to limit the ballot to serious candidates. The effort and expense needed to collect ten thousand signatures is more than enough to deter thrill seekers. Requiring more than that, never mind four times more, is overkill. It serves no rational purpose (other than the constitutionally impermissible one of protecting the power of the current parties).

It's too late for this year. But to remedy this problem in future elections you can vote for Ed Packard as Secretary of State, who has this to say:

Alabama's ballot access requirements are too severe and are punitive by their very nature. I think the Legislature should review the requirements and take steps to expand the ballot choices offered to Alabamians. The Secretary of State, as the Chief Election Official, should be the advocate pushing for these changes.

The End Of The World?

2006-06-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

Alabamian worries that the proposed anti-homosexual amendment could energize the Roy Moore supporters, handing him victory in the Republican primary tomorrow. I'll admit part of me - the same part that wants to slow down to look at car wrecks - kind of hopes it happens. Maybe even a total sweep for the Clones, also. And then Larry Darby as A.G. Wouldn't Roy Moore as governor and Larry Darby as A.G. be amazing? Whose head would explode first?

But this article doesn't think the homophobia thing will be much of a catalyst. I agree. Besides, anyone who supports the amendment is just as likely to support Riley and the incumbent justices as the Moore-ons. So even if it drives folks to the poles, it won't necessarily drive them to the Moore-ons.

Then again, tomorrow is 6-6-06, so who knows what will happen.

Court Of Civil Appeals, (Murdock) Decides Interesting Abortion Case

2006-06-05T13:59:00.000-07:00

This story reminded me to comment on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals decision in L.K.D.H. v. Planned Parenthood of Alabama, Inc. (I would love to link to the decision but Alabama does not make its judicial opinions available on-line.)

Basically, Mom wanted an abortion, which Planned Parenthood of Alabama (PPA) botched, allegedly injuring Child and Mom. Mom sued for her own injuries and for those of the Child. Because of her own procedural missteps, Mom’s suit gets dismissed, leaving her claim on Child’s behalf.

To overcome Child’s claim, PPA relied heavily on another Alabama case, Elliott v. Brown. In Elliott, a child born with a deformity sued the medical provider who had flubbed a vasectomy on the child’s father. The Elliott court rejected the claim, holding that there was no cause of action for a wrongful life. In the same way, PPA argued, Mom in this case was suing for Child’s wrongful life.

Not so, replied the court. The plaintiff in Elliott was not arguing that the medical provider actually caused the defect; just that by failing to properly perform the vasectomy, the provider had allowed for the possibility of a birth and a defect. The argument was that absent the error, the child would never have been born. Hence the medical provider was responsible for the harms suffered during the life. You can see why rejecting this argument makes sense if you just imagine the scope of liability had it been accepted. Any time a medical provider improperly performed some type of birth control operation, they would be liable for any harm suffered during any resulting child’s life.

But that is not Mom’s argument. Here, the court explained:

In contrast to Elliott, L.K.D.H., [Mom] on behalf of J.L.D., [Child] did not claim in the circuit court and she has not claimed in her brief to this court that J.L.D. had a right not to be born. Instead, she alleged before the circuit court and argues in her appellate brief that Planned Parenthood negligently performed the abortion procedure (an allegation that Planned Parenthood conceded for purposes of the summary-judgment motion as to the claims asserted on behalf of J.L.D .) and that Planned Parenthood's negligence proximately caused injuries to J.L.D. Thus, unlike in Elliott, in the present case (based on the facts alleged on behalf of J.L.D.) it was the physician's negligence that caused J.L.D.'s physical injury or deformity. The claims asserted on behalf of J.L.D. seek to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for causing an injury or deformity, not for the fact that J.L.D. was born. In other words, unlike Elliott, the present case is an action alleging “wrongful injury,” not “wrongful life.”

PPA responds by reminding the court that if all had gone according to plan, there would have been no birth at all. The opinion does not include the conclusions PPA drew from this, so I am speculating in saying this kind of sounds like they are arguing there were no damages. In other words, Child has a defect, but that Child should not have been born at all means Child has nothing about which to complain even if PPA was negligent and caused the defect. No harm, no foul.

The court also rejected this argument:

We find Planned Parenthood's position disturbing. According to Dr. Davis's [PPA’s expert witness] affidavit, when an abortion provider properly performs an abortion procedure, i.e., is not negligent, “particularly during an early gestation period, such as in the case here, it is not uncommon for there to be a continuing pregnancy.” (Emphasis added.) In light of the “not uncommon” possibility that a child will survive even a properly performed abortion procedure, it is untenable for Planned Parenthood to argue that it should be able to avoid liability to the child who is thereafter born no matter how deficient the abortion provider's actions or how serious the harm the provider might cause to the child.

The opinion, written by Supreme Court hopeful Glen Murdock, then closes with this bit of pulpit thumping:

The United States Supreme Court has decided that a mother has a right under certain circumstances not to give birth to her child. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Alabama has ever ruled that a medical provider, or for that matter a mother, can engage, with some blanket of constitutional protection, in negligent or reckless conduct that deforms or injures a child so long as the deformity or injury is inflicted on the child before it leaves the womb. To embrace this position as the law of the land in Alabama would give license to those who would undertake to end the life of an unborn child to do so as carelessly or recklessly as they wish without bearing any responsibility to those who are injured or deformed as a result and who are left to cope with the consequences of the provider's wrongful acts. It would be hard to imagine a more troubling development in our law.

No-one argued that Roe gave PPA the right to perform abortions with impunity. Not that anything he says here is wrong, but Murdock thought this part up on his own.

Anyway, Mom gets to sue for the injuries suffered by Child. That is an entirely proper result. Child did no wrong in this situation. That the injuries occurred because Mom wanted an abortion may be relevant to any suit by Mom, but it has nothing to do with the harms inflicted on Child. If PPA caused the injuries, they ought to pay for the them. In sum, I think this case was actually simple, but with a bunch of red herrings. Thankfully, the court got it right.

My Thoughts On Attorney General

2006-06-05T07:21:00.000-07:00

I have offered many opinions on the State Supreme Court races. However, I have been silent on the other legal office up for grabs this fall: Attorney General. That is because I am unimpressed with the A.G. candidates.

Because Larry Darby is Larry Darby, I’ll just compare his Democratic opponent John Tyson with the two Republicans – incumbent Troy King and challenger Mark Montiel.

The A.G. is the state’s lawyer. Her job is to offer legal advice to all the other state agents. She should point out constitutional problems with statutes and explain how current laws apply to new situations. The A.G. represents the state when the state gets sued. The A.G. also represents the state in appeals from criminal convictions. The A.G. has a wide range of legal responsibilities.

Which is why I do not like John Tyson or Troy King. All they have done so far is tell us how many people they are going to put in jail. Tyson’s website says he is “running for Attorney General because we can't wait any longer to save lives and property. We must fight back against crime and we must do it where it happens--in our local communities.” King’s site also contains nothing but get tough on crime rhetoric.

Law enforcement is not the A.G.’s job, it is the job of the District Attorneys. An A.G. needs to be a very competent general practitioner. Nothing these guys have said thus far convinces me they have that general competency. They’ve assured me they will be tough on crime, but that is a small part of the job.

I don’t think Tyson or King have even proposed a solution to the state’s overcrowded prisons. If your claim to fame is throwing people into jail, shouldn’t you at least tell us how you are going to do that without compounding the prison problem? I’m sure prison commissioner Richard Allen, who is facing contempt charges because of the overcrowding, would like to know. This is a legal problem, the A.G. needs to help solve it, not make it worse.

There are more problems with King. First you need to read the editorials he wrote while a law student at Alabama in the early nineties. Here are some quotes:

“The existence of the Gay/Lesbian alliance on this campus is an affront to the state of Alabama, its citizenry, this diversity and its students. However, it is also an outrage to compel those students with both moral and religious objections to the activities and ideas espoused by this organization to contribute money, via student fees, to subsidize these activities. One has but to look at the forces which the controversy has united--from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Organization of Women to the Queer Nation just to name a few--to clearly see how corrupt a cause this truly is.”

“I often hear the argument that homosexuals who live together create a loving, caring family environment, perhaps an environment which is even superior to that which can be provided by a heterosexual couple. In this day of rampant decadence, many homosexuals would mislead society into believing that three men, an armadillo and a houseplant create a functional family. This is clearly flawed reasoning, which will wilt under scrutiny and should be dismissed as such.”

"Currently, AIDS is the most behavior-oriented disease known to mankind. If this nation's current purveyors of perversion would refrain from committing sodomy they would unquestioningly be spared the ravages of the disease.”

His views in 2004?

"If I were writing editorials about these issues today, I would probably use different words, more judicious words."

This editorial, written after King vowed to wear an electronic tracking device until the legislature passed a law requiring sex offenders to do so, sums up the problem with King:

Like George Wallace and Alabama's current uber-demagogue, Roy Moore, King's grandiloquence is meant to appeal to the "Praise Jesus, but get off my property, boy" values the atypical Alabama voter is perceived to stroke, along with their gun, while sitting on their front porch. . . .

His demagoguery always runs on high and he rarely turns it off - and that's the problem: his stint as Alabama attorney general has pretty much been more of a big Old South campaign for attorney general than about being attorney general.

When King put on the tracking device last week, he completely overshadowed the important legislation he was pushing with his own self-promotion. He debased the image and standards of his office by trying so hard to be ‘that crazy conservative guy.’

(A big H/T to Poser for all of this material on King.)

But a lack of decorum is not King's only failing. His zealotry is bad for his 'client' - the State of Alabama. I’ve said before you should never hire an attorney who thinks they are doing God’s work because if the choice comes down to your interests or God’s, you are going to lose. Troy King thinks he is doing God’s work, and we all lose as a result.

For example, he decided to appeal the Adams case. That was a cut and dry case. The defendant was under eighteen at the time of the crime. Last year Scotus prohibited executing people who were under eighteen at the time of the crime. Hence, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the death penalty. At this point, a responsible attorney would have balanced the costs of the appeal - high - against its chances of success – none - and dropped the issue. Nevertheless, King decided to appeal. In the private sector, sometimes you file stupid appeals because your client insists on jousting with windmills. King, however, is using OUR resources to carry out his joust. He is letting his personal views negatively impact the rest of us.

What about Mark Montiel? That he was a judge tells me he is familiar with a wide section of the law. It also tells me he knows how to consider all sides of an issue before making a decision. Other than that, though, I don’t know much about him.

In sum, I can’t really endorse anyone. I can reject King and Darby. As for the remaining two, Montiel seems like the better choice.

"It Ain't No Sin To Be Glad You're Alive"

2006-06-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

"The body of Christ," the Deacon says to me. "Amen," I respond as he places the wafer in my left hand. It's the same as it is in every mass, but this time I look at him and chuckle inside. Let me explain why.

Saturday evening I got a hankering for a mint julep. Having no bourbon, this meant a run to the store. On the door to the liquor store is a sign saying something like "We I.D. everyone who appears younger than thirty." So I am pretty excited when the cashier asks for my I.D. I tell her so, and she looks at me quizzically. I mention the sign, and she says "Oh, I just needed to see it because you paid with a debit card." Sigh.

Anyway, then it was off to the grocery store. We wanted to grill some burgers and I needed to get buns, tomatoes, beer and other essentials. I entered the beer isle and with great joy saw that for the first time this year they had Sam Adam's summer ale, and even on sale! Excitedly I reached for the six pack. As I grabbed it I looked to the left and there was the Deacon from our church, likewise placing beer in his cart.

To fully appreciate this you need to know two things. One, I'm Catholic but I used to be a Baptist. Two, for a Baptist to run into one of his church's deacons in the beer isle would be kind of like Roy Moore and Tom Parker seeing each other at an ACLU gathering. Alcohol is a big no-no for baptists, at least the southern type. So that is why I chuckled this morning when that same Deacon handed me the Body of Christ.

But I did more than chuckle. When I got back from my errands last night I made that mint julep. I sat on my front porch and spent half an hour nursing it. The sun slowly set, revealing all the colors of the yard, trees, and flowers. The little family of finches in our birdhouse chirped. The breeze blew. My dog slept at my feet. Neighbors strolled by. Transubstantiation is what they say happens to that wafer. What it means, in my mind anyway, is that the world can be a good place. Maybe not most of the time. Maybe only occasionally. But when it is, like it was while I sipped that drink, it is very good. So when I took the wafer this morning I also thought about how many different ways we experience the divine every day.

That's not to be naive. The world is an ugly place, by and large. But neither inherently nor eternally so. And in the meanwhile, I'll enjoy the good to the fullest.

It Is Too Nice Outside

2006-06-03T10:21:00.000-07:00

To spend time reading the news today. This being Alabama in late May, there won't be many more days like this, so I'm going to enjoy as much of it as I can.

I will, however provide Bob Riley's response to Don Siegelman's new ad:

"Think of it this way," Riley said, "If he didn't say that, what would he say?

"In politics, you get known by who your friends are and who your enemies are, and every time he attacks me, I wear it like a badge of honor."

Is B'ham Safe?

2006-06-02T11:51:00.000-07:00

By now everyone has heard about, and is probably forgetting about, the lawyer who was kidnapped from in front of her downtown apartment on Wednesday. The police rescued her later on the same day, and she was relatively unharmed.

So now the issue becomes whether downtown B'ham is safe. It is. You have just as much reason to fear being abducted in the Little Kingdom (for non-locals, that is the Alabama's wealthiest town, the B'ham burb of Mountain Brook) as you do in downtown B'ham.

That does not mean the city center is without problems. Consider the debates over the soon to be begun railroad park:

Balancing the needs of loft dwellers who want to see an urban farm, dog park and, skulling course with the desires of traditional downtown residents who would like to see covered benches, fire barrels, and a plasma center has been difficult.

Or, seriously, this complaint from Edd Dover (related to Ben?), a former resident of the building in which the kidnapped attorney lives:

"In that part of downtown, there's barely any police presence," said Dover, who said he moved out partly because of vandalism and vagrants in that apartment's parking lot. "I'm 6 feet 5, but I was always on guard. There were people in the Dumpster when I'd go take my garbage out, and people asking me for money when I'd walk my dog at 5:30 in the morning. Everybody wants this downtown to succeed, but until they clean it up, it won't work."

The sad fact is that downtown B'ham has a large population of bums. I frequently ride my bike through downtown. Several of my favorite running routes take me through there. I'm an attorney; the courts are downtown. So I see these folks all the time and at all hours of the day.

They are harmless. They may give me a "Hey Lance!" shout when I ride past them. Or tell me how they would be out running with me, but they got this bad knee. Or, when I'm in the lawyer uniform, ask me for money. At no time have I ever felt threatened.

They are well fed. There are several shelters for both men and women. On just about any weekend morning you will see church groups providing food and clothes.

They are also a major annoyance. No-one likes being asked for money, especially by an unkempt stranger. No business owner or condo resident wants to find human excrement in their doorway. Some folks might have a heart attack if they opened their dumpster and found a person. Rightly or wrongly, for these reasons, some people will avoid downtown.

What to do about it? I don't know. Certainly not point fingers and get all high and mighty. Definitely not throw people in jail. Maybe sit down and have a rational discussion so that somehow or another everyone can win.

Moore, Riley Grandstand Before Supreme Court

2006-06-02T07:18:00.000-07:00

Back in January, Circuit Judge Scott Vowell correctly decided that the "Sweepstakes" machines at the Birmingham Race Course are legal. The case is now before the state Supreme Court. Moore and Riley have filed briefs asking the court to reverse.

Here is Judge Vowell's opinion. I'll summarize it for you in case you don't want to read it. In Alabama, lotteries are illegal. The law defines a lottery as a contest where the contestant gives something of value for the chance to win a prize. Gambling devices are also illegal. The key element is that the outcome depends on chance or a future contingent event.

Here, basically, the race course had a bunch of machines that looked like slot machines. They also had a room with a bunch of computers hooked up to the internet. The course was selling access to the internet. Anyone who purchased the access also received a card, which was swiped through the "slot machine." The machine would read the card as either a winner or a loser, but the status of the card as winner or loser was determined before it was purchased. The machine only read it; it did not decide who won and lost. The winners and losers were pre-ordained. Finally, anyone who wanted to play the machines but did not want to pay for the internet access could get a card for free through the mail.

Do you see why this set up is perfectly legal?

It is not a lottery because the customer does not give anything of value for the card. They paid for the internet access and got the card along with it. The card is even available for free. The only value given was for the internet access. Think about it like those coke bottles with "free coke" under the cap. You are not paying for the opportunity to win a free coke; you are paying for the coke. It is the same here.

It is not a gambling device because the result does not depend on chance or a future contingent event. The cards are either winners or losers from the moment the customer receives it. The machine only reads it. There is no chance involved with the machine.

Judge Vowell applied the law fairly and accurately, but that is not good enough for Bob Riley and Roy Moore, who are now asking the State Supreme Court to reverse the decision. I have two complaints about this.

First, it looks like the correct decision. If these two are not happy about the results, the answer is to go to the legislature and ask them to change the law. They may not like the sweepstakes machines, but the sweepstakes machines are legal.

Second, they are both grandstanding. The case was between the race course and the sheriff of Jefferson County. Moore and Riley have filed amicus briefs, which should only be done when you have some special insight to offer. Here is what Moore's brief has to say: "Our law should not be held captive to the devious scheme of certain individuals who wish to promote gambling in the state." Maybe it shouldn't, but the law does not prohibit what the race course is doing. Riley's brief is not much better: "The public policy against lotteries could not be more clearly and unequivocally expressed." No, it could not, but this is not a lottery. Neither of them is a party in the case, neither has any expertise in the area, so the only reason for them to file the briefs is to preen in front of the voters.

Good politics? Yes. Responsible use of resources (and in Riley's case OUR resources)? No.

Mo' Money

2006-06-02T06:08:00.000-07:00

From today's B'Ham news:

The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday that Jefferson County schools will receive a $993,888 grant to improve the quality of American history education.

Why it needs improvement:

While history is a core academic subject under the No Child Left Behind Act, the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that less than 25 percent of students in fourth, eighth and 12th grades are proficient in American history, according to the U.S. Department of Education's news release.

The money will provide training in history to the area's teachers.

This is good given the current situation, but it could have been avoided. The reason kids don't learn history is that when a prospective teacher interviews for a social studies job, the first question asked is "what do you coach?" If, instead, schools focused on the teacher's academic qualifications during the hiring process there would be no need for million dollar grants to teach the teachers things they should have known before they began teaching. Only academically qualified teachers would be hired, hence no need to spend money bringing them up to par.

The Best (And Worst) Thing About Elections

2006-06-01T17:47:00.000-07:00

I watched the evening news tonight just so I could see the latest political ads. Mini-Moore and Justice Nabers do not disappoint. Particulary entertaining is the picture of Justice Nabers face on a hundred dollar bill. Though I guess we can't vote for either of them, seeing as how they are both flaming liberals. Big Luther and little George are likewise exchanging the "L" word. Troy King is making sure your kids are safe. And don't buy any cars from Jim Preuitt.

But I think my favorite is Don Siegelman's. I missed most of it because I laughed too hard at the first line, which went something like this: "The charges against me originated with Bob Riley's wife's sister's former roomate's ex-husband's cousin." I'd link to it so you could hear for yourself, but it is not on his website. So you'll have to trust me when I say this tops Roy Moore's mad cow as best conspiracy theory of the year.

Of course, this would all be much more funny if people did not actually make decisions based on these ads.

Mr. Moore Goes To Washington

2006-06-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

In spirit, at least:

A D.C.-based evangelical Christian group has a new idea for promoting the Ten Commandments: putting a monument to the stone tablets across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Faith and Action says on its Web site that it plans to unveil the waist-high, 850-pound granite sculpture Saturday on the front lawn of the rowhouse on Second Street NE where the national group's offices are. But the group apparently doesn't have the approval it needs from at least two agencies, city officials and neighborhood activists said.

It's a historic neighborhood, with tight restrictions on what residents can and can not put in their yards. So they need a permit from the historical commission. The area is also a public space, so they need another permit to obstruct it.

This could be great if it ends up in court: Property rights and religious freedom v. incidental and neutral restrictions on land use. I can't wait.

A Pre-Emptive Amendment

2006-06-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

That is how Prof. Dale Carpenter describes the Federal ~~We Hate Fags~~ Marriage Amendment in this Cato Institute Policy Analysis, entitled "The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic." (There is more from the author here.). From the paper:

In short, the fear of court-imposed, nationwide gay marriage is exaggerated and hypothetical. To amend the Constitution now to prevent it would be to do so on the basis of fear of a future, hypothetical adverse decision by the Supreme Court. Proponents of the FMA are asking the nation to amend the Constitution preemptively, something we have never before done. . . .

The Constitution should not be tampered with to deal with hypothetical questions as if it were part of a national law school classroom. It should be altered only to deal with some clear and present problem that cannot be addressed in any other way. We are nowhere near that point on the subject of same-sex marriage. The “problem” of nationwide same-sex marriage is neither clear nor present. At the very least, we should wait until an issue calling for a national solution actually arises before we address it by changing the Constitution.

(Now is when I would like to say something about how well things worked out the last time we solved a future adverse hypothetical problem with a pre-emptive strike. But that would be irrelevent to the issue at hand, and might make you so mad at me that you would not read the rest of the paper. So I won't say it.)

Read the whole thing. Whatever you think about gay marriage, the amendment is a bad idea, and this paper is a succinct and well reasoned explanation of the reasons the amendment ought to die. Here is one more quote, the author's summary:

To summarize the four main points: First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered, nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. Therefore, an amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation’s founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation’s founding commitment to federalism.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation’s traditions and history.

A Match Made In Heaven

2006-06-01T11:34:00.000-07:00

If you were to total the hours I have spent watching television and catalogue the results by program, I am sure numbers one and two most watched would be the Simpsons and college football. Which is why I think this post, comparing college football programs to Simpons characters is one of the best I have seen this year. (H/T Southern Appeal).

My favorites:

Tennessee: Sideshow Bob
Both Sideshow Bob and Big Orange Nation are convinced of their own superiority, though there's not much backing either of them up these days. Sideshow Bob has been spending most of his time in jail, while the Vols have been sucking wind on a 5-6 season (and spending a lot of time in jail, now that I think about it). Two of the most easily dislikeable characters in their respective neighborhoods.

Ole Miss and Mississippi State: Lenny and Carl, respectively
Perpetual sidekicks, occasionally good for a laugh, but they're almost certain to never make their way into the limelight. However, the Rebels and Bulldogs have a grand total of one appearance in the SEC championship game. Even Lenny and Carl can count on at least a little screen time in each episode.

Arkansas: Groundskeeper Willie
A loner, an outsider, a funny-talkin' sort who comes off as just plain weird to most other people. Yet there's just something indescribably dangerous about them that can be counted on to rear its ugly head every once in a while.

Plenty more where that came from: Florida State is Chief Wiggum; Ohio State is Drederick Tatum; Notre Dame is Mr Burns while Boston College is Smithers. Go read the whole thing.

Who Is The Real American?

2006-06-01T10:28:00.000-07:00

The musician who says "Just so you know we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."

Or the person who responds to the artist by boycotting her and threatening her with death?

I think the answer is obvious, you may disagree, and that's fine. In any event, here is an editorial in the Tuscaloosa News about the Dixie Chicks. According to the author, Catfish 102.9 is the only Alabama station playing songs from their new album. (You can listen to three songs, and an interview, here). However, the only Dixie Chicks song I have ever heard was played on the best radio show in Alabama: Reg's Coffee House on WRAX. So that means two stations will play the song.

Three years ago they - gasp - criticized the president. That such an innocuous remark created such outrage is remarkable. That the anger exists three years later is even more disapointing. I guess we need to put Dubya on the list with Muhammed as men who must not be mocked.

Will The Real Liberals Please Stand Up?

2006-06-01T09:22:00.000-07:00

Lee and Politics in Alabama have already commented on Tom Parker's newest add, but I'm going to give you my two cents anyway.

First, I've heard "fundamentalist" defined as someone who thinks Billy Graham is a liberal. In the same way, Parker calling Justice Nabers a "Jimmy Carter style liberal" tells us way more about Mini-Moore than it does Nabers.

Two, not only does Mini-Moore call Nabers a liberal, but another add calls Mini-Moore a liberal:

The sleek flyer arriving in mailboxes throughout Alabama contains a provocative question and an even more provocative answer.

"What do these politicians have in common?" it asks, with pictures of Republican Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker and Democratic U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

Answer? "They are all bankrolled by liberal trial lawyers," according to the mailer, which was produced by the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, a coalition of business groups formed to fight "lawsuit abuse."

You read it right: A vote for Tom Parker is a vote for Ted Kennedy.

All I can say in response is stop this madness, please. There are NO liberal candidates for the Alabama Supreme Court. They all despise Roe. They all love the death penalty. Their idea of 'foreign law' is a decision from Georgia. And if you think any one of these candidates would even consider interpreting our state constitution so as to require gay marriage, you need to start selling whatever it is you are smoking. The choice is not between liberal and conservative; it is between very conservative and very, very conservative.

I'll let you decide what that choice says about us.

There He Stands

2006-05-31T14:14:00.000-07:00

As an outcast. Tom Parker is running against Drayton Nabers for Chief Justice. Yet today at a news conference Associate Justice Mike Bolin said:

While Tom Parker's tenure has been marked by divisiveness, an activist judicial philosophy and an inability to do his job, Chief Justice Nabers is a hard worker and strong conservative leader who runs the court fairly, effectively and with integrity.

I do not have to tell you how remarkable it is for a sitting justice - one not involved in any election this year - to so strongly endorse a judicial candidate. Justice Bolin explains:

"I am not a press conference happy jurist," Bolin said, but he said the race for chief justice is too important to stay silent.

As for Mini-Moore's call to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court:

"I wouldn't let someone like the San Francisco mayor ignore the rule of law and pick and choose which laws to follow, and I'm not willing to let Tom Parker do it either," Bolin said.

Mini-Moore says he believes in the rule of law, but he thinks

the rule of law is the Constitution.

No doubt it is. The question, though, is who gets to decide what it means. When is a search unreasonable? Or a punishment cruel and unusual? What is due process? No two people will provide the same answers to these questions. Every court that considers them will come to a different conclusion. Hence, someone has to have the final word. That word may not be correct, but it is essential if we want coherent laws.

As evidence, I again ask you to compare Mini-Moore's jurisprudence:

a judge takes an oath to support the constitution -- not to automatically follow activist justices who believe their own devolving standards of decency trump the text of the constitution. Thus, faithful adherence to the judicial oath requires resistance to such activism

To Martin Luther's theology:

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

I see no difference between the two theories. Thus, applying Mini-Moore's would cause the same problem as does the application of Luther's: Schism.

Unintended Consequences

2006-05-31T07:07:00.000-07:00

The Decatur Daily asks today whether Alabama's new anti-gay people amendment will unintentionally undermine domestic violence prosecutions. That was the result when Ohio decided to write homophobia into its constitution. In this decision, an Ohio Appellate Court held that the amendment prohibited prosecuting non-married people for domestic violence.

Ohio's condemnatory Amendment states:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage

The Domestic Violence statute protected anyone "living as a spouse." The statute defined "person living as a spouse" as:

a person who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.

The court held that this expansive definition created a "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." The defendant and the victim were not legally married; they were quasi-spouses. The victim in the case was protected soley by virtue of being a quasi-spouse. Because the amendment prohibited treating quasi-spouses like spouses, the amendment prohibited the domestic violence prosecution.

Here is Alabama's proposed gay-people-are-gross amendment:

No marriage license shall be issued in Alabama to parties of the same sex and that the state shall not recognize a marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred as a result of the law of any other jurisdiction

This ignorance is already codified at Section 30-1-19 of the Alabama Code:

(a)This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Alabama Marriage Protection Act."

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

You can already see that Alabama's hostility towards gay people will not affect our domestic violence laws. The key to the Ohio decision was the prohibition of any legal status for quasi-marriages. Because the domestic violence statute protected quasi-marriages, it violated the amendment. Alabama, to its credit, does not go so far. All we prohibit is gay marriage itself. There is no ban on creating legal relationships similar to marriage. Hence, it does not matter whether or not Alabama's domestic violence law grants quasi-marital status to non-married people.

No, the only result of our soon to be enacted amendment is the intended one: Letting gay people know we do not want them around. The sponsor of the Amendment, Sen. Hinton Mitchem, D-Albertville, puts it best:

"I do not wear my religion on my sleeve," Mitchem said. "I [introduced the amendment] after a trip to San Francisco where I saw ~~a black man and a white woman~~ two men on television in a public place kissing deeply. I do not think it is appropriate for children to grow up in a home where they see that."

Right. The law has no higher purpose than preventing public displays of affection.

Objection, Your Honor, Relevance?

2006-05-31T06:17:00.000-07:00

I almost wholeheartedly agree with this statement by the Montgomery Advertiser:

Voters in the Democratic [Attorney General] primary have one of the all-time political no-brainers in this contest. John Tyson, veteran district attorney in Mobile County, is a proven prosecutor with proposals to fight crime that are tough in practice, not just in talk. Tyson, who served 14 years on the state Board of Education before becoming district attorney, would stand out in any field, but in this one his fitness for the office outshines that of his opponent by light-years.

Tyson's opponent in the primary, Larry Darby, once served as a spokesman for the state's atheist organization. He has since moved to the most distant fringes of political thought -- denying the Holocaust occurred, calling for the declaration of martial law to address immigration issues, blasting the federal government as a tool to "advance the interests of the subversive state of Israel" and vowing to attack "subversive interests" such as Alabama newspapers owned by "foreign corporations" he says "appear complicit in treason against Alabama."

Darby does not merit the serious consideration of any voter.

I agree with the conclusion, but that Darby is an atheist is irrelevant to it. He believes there is no god. O.K., how will that change the way he performs his duties as A.G.? What does his atheism tell voters about his legal abilities? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, a candidate's choice of a deity is as relevant to their job as my choice in sports teams is relevant to mine. There was no reason to include Darby's theology in this summary of his lunacy. It is neither a reason to vote for Darby, nor a reason to vote against Darby. Including his atheism in this list was error, harmless error because removing it does not change the result, but error nonetheless.

Tom Parker Hates Your Family

2006-05-30T17:09:00.000-07:00

Have you seen the newest anti-Parker add? You can read about it, and see parts of it, here. Basically it says he hid donations made by trial lawyers to his 2004 campaign.

What bothers me is why the add says that is a bad thing. If they wanted to attack Mini-Moore for ignoring the reporting laws, fine. If the creators think concerns about vague and attenuated negative consequences for the economy should trump an individual's right to their day in court, and the adds are evidence Mini-Moore disagrees, fine. But what the add asserts is that trial lawyers are out to destroy families.

That is just plain stupid. First of all, let's get the terms straight. Just about every lawyer will end up in court some day. Hence all of them are potentially trial lawyers. Presumably, though, what dopes like the creators of this add mean by trial lawyers is lawyers who usually represent injured individuals in lawsuits against businesses.

But in that battle, who is anti-family? The attorney who represents the bread winner who got run over by the negligent truck driver? Or the guy defending the truck driver's insurer, who drags the litigation on as long as possible in order to pad his own bill and encourage the plaintiff to settle for less than the full value of the claim?

I am not saying civil defense attorneys are evil, all I am doing is pointing out the obvious: Every attorney will do things that could be labeled "anti-family." That is because our loyalties are to our clients, not to someone else's social agenda. No group of attorneys is more family friendly than another.

Sure, lawyers who typically sue businesses are bad for businesses. Opposing a candidate because he is unduly favorable to those lawyers is perfectly fine if you want to support the businesses. Just be honest about the reasons. Don't give us this crap about family values.

The Clones And Abortion

2006-05-30T09:03:00.000-07:00

In Alabama,

no person shall perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless he or his agent first obtains the written consent of either parent or the legal guardian of the minor. (Ala.Code 26-21-3(a)).

There are two exceptions. First, if the pregnancy is the result of incest, "written notice to the minor's mother by certified mail shall be sufficient." (Ala.Code 26-21-3(b). Second:

A minor who elects not to seek or does not or cannot for any reason, including unavailability or refusal by either or both parents or legal guardian, obtain consent from either of her parents or legal guardian under this section, may petition, on her own behalf, the juvenile court, or court of equal standing, in the county in which the minor resides or in the county in which the abortion is to be performed for a waiver of the consent requirement. (Ala.Code26-21-3(e)).

Section 26-21-4 provides the standard the court is to use in deciding whether to waive the parental consent requirement:

The required consent shall be waived if the court finds either:

(1) That the minor is mature and well-informed enough to make the abortion decision on her own; or

(2) That performance of the abortion would be in the best interest of the minor.

I mention this for two reasons. First, you sometimes hear folks say that we have "abortion on demand" in this country. I think these statutes refute that claim, for minors at least. The result of the statute is that women under eighteen do NOT have a right to an abortion. They have a right to ask their parents or a court to let them have an abortion. Minors only get the abortion if a parent or a court allows it. That may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing, but it is not "abortion on demand."

Second, Supreme Court hopeful Ben Hand is ignoring the law and the facts when he attacks Justice Lyons for "showing insufficient sensitivity to the lives of unborn children." Hand is mad that on two occasions Justice Lyons voted to allow an abortion without parental consent. Here is Hand's position:

"To me, a life is a life, and [Lyons has] messed it up several times," he said. "I would say there should be a blanket denial to any of them. ... I believe the same Constitution that protects your right to life protects the life of an unborn child."

He may want to deny every waiver case, but the law does not allow him to do so. The law requires a case by case consideration. If the particular minor is mature and well informed or the abortion is in the best interests of the child, then the court has to allow the abortion. Hand may not like it, but that is the law.

Obviously, the waiver standard is amorphous. There will be some cases where everyone agrees the child has not met the standard; there will be some cases where everyone agrees the child has met the standard. But most of the cases could go either way. The deciding factor in those cases will be the judge's beliefs about abortion. This is where Hand ignores the facts. According to the same story, in seventy five percent of the cases Lyons has heard, Lyons has concluded that the waiver was not appropriate. Whenever he can, Lyons is ruling against the abortion. In other words, Lyons is expressing his pro-life position within the bounds of the law.

That, in sum, is the difference between Clones like Hand and Justices like Lyons. Everyone agrees that personal beliefs play a role in judicial decision making. It is unavoidable. The difference is the size of the role. The Clones beliefs are the stars of their decisions. Real judges make beliefs a small part of the supporting cast.

??????????

2006-05-30T07:09:00.000-07:00

From a description of a Roy Moore speech:

Wyndell Williams drove from his home in Cullman to hear Moore. Holding a sign with a photo of him and his Filipino wife, who has not yet been granted permission to come to the United States, Williams applauded Moore.

"He's a man of his word and a man we can trust to defend our borders," said Williams referring to the on-going immigration issue.

Williams said when his wife, whom he met by browsing through what he called "sort of a catalogue," comes to America it will be legally. "That's what Roy Moore is for, legal immigration. And so am I."

You guess is as good as mine. I just hope she isn't inflatable.

Whose Fault Is That?

2006-05-30T06:58:00.000-07:00

Recently, Roy Moore's spokesman J. Holland said:

he's tired of Moore being pigeon-holed as a one-issue candidate, saying Moore is the only candidate that has a platform. He's taken stands against accepting political action committee money, and hammered Riley and the Legislature for approving annual property tax reappraisals, which Moore says are tantamount to annual tax increases. He also wants the state Legislature to meet every other year instead of every year, and supports term limits and closing the U.S. borders to illegal aliens. "Judge Roy Moore is a well-rounded candidate," Holland said.

Sure he is. I have no idea why anyone would think of Moore as a one issue candidate. Of course, there is stuff like this:

[Yesterday] at Birmingham's Linn Park, Moore addressed more than 300 supporters, including veterans. Moore wore a black ball cap with gold lettering spelling out "Vietnam veteran." The West Point graduate, who served in Vietnam, held most of his audience spellbound as he quoted from speeches, much of it from memory, of past presidents and dead soldiers.

The speeches or parts of speeches Moore used all took him to his central point for the day - that America and Alabama were once places that acknowledged God, but are now places where that acknowledgment is under attack.

"For the last 20 years, we've seen an attack to take away our acknowledgment of God," Moore told the crowd. He criticized efforts to ban prayer in public schools. He criticized "men in black robes" who he said think they know more than God and who unlawfully order removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

If Holland does not want people to see Moore as a one issue candidate, then Moore needs to change his message. The problem is Roy Moore, not perceptions of Roy Moore.

Road Kill

2006-05-29T09:20:00.000-07:00

Having the day off, I got up early and went for a ride. This was a fairly intense effort over a thirty mile course, featuring three decent climbs. I was cooking through the whole ride, and hit my favorite section feeling very satisfied.

This part, the coolest of the ride, starts at the top of Red Mountain and ends at my doorstep. It's the last four miles of the ride and most of it is downhill. First you zip up, down and around the curvey rollers on Argyle. Then across Pawnee and up one of the last little hills before hitting Altamont. Altamont is a shaded mile on top of the mountain, flat and fast. It ends in a hairpin curve where it turns into Essex. There begins the big downhill. You fly down Essex through Forest Park, around the back of the Triangle Park and onto Clairmont. Continuing down and around Clairmont, you finally turn left at the bottom of the hill.

Almost immediately after the left, you make a right and go up a short, but steep, little rise. If you time it right, your momentum from the big downhill will shoot you about two thirds of the way up, so that you only need a few good pedal strokes to crest it and start down again.

That is what I was doing this morning. I had made the left and was approaching the rise. My outside leg was straight and stiff, keeping the tires glued to the ground. I leaned towards the turn, pressing down on the inside of the handlebars. I was going to slice through the curve and explode up the hill.

But then the dopey squirrel shot out in front of me. If the idiot had kept going it would have been fine. Instead, he scoots across my line, and as I swerve inwards to avoid him, he reverses course. You have probably used your car to do this dance. The result was the same here: Thump.

Momentum and motivation gone, I coasted up the hill and turned around to see the grizly results. No blood, but no movement either. Then he staggered to his feet, only to fall back over again. I got off the bike and picked him up. Nothing felt broken. Not knowing what else to do, I carried him over to the side of the road and placed him under some bushes. I hope he is o.k. I think maybe I just stunned him.

It could have been worse. That little vermin could have caused me to wreck my bike, which recently spent a month in the shop getting a new paint job. If that had happened, well, let's just say I would be on PETA's hit list. As it was, I think we both escaped unharmed.

A Weekend in Tupelo

2006-05-28T19:48:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting on the front porch, paying little attention to the conversation around me. There's a couple of big ol' red headed woodpeckers flying around. They attack a utility pole in a field across the road, then disappear into the weeds. They take off and fly past me over the house and maybe end up somewhere by the pond in back.

When I lose the birds, I turn my mind to the puppy asleep on my lap. She can't be more than a month old, a boxer - who looks like a bobble head doll - snoozing soundly to the rythm of my breath. I don't know her name, not that it matters. This dog will be long gone by the next time I am here. She was the runt of the litter, and already has some issues with worms, or something similar. You can count her ribs.

It's not that her owner is cruel, or even neglectful. The dog will get plenty of food and affection. She will sleep, and spend most of her time, indoors. But the idea of taking a dog to a 'doctor' is foreign here. Shots, spaying, neutering, flee baths, these are unknown. Nature will just take its course. This dog is not strong, she will not survive.

Now I hear the conversation.

"So what are you and Julie fighting about now? I mean, every time I call, I have to figure out who is not talking to who."

"Well I told her that she and Amber could stay here, but I couldn't have no thief in my house."

"Huh?"

"Ricky done stole my pain pills, and I know it 'cause Momma told me. I may be lots of things, but I ain't no thief, and I'm not havin' none in my house."

"So why does that mean you and Julie have to fight?"

"It don't. She's the one got all mad about it. I told her she could stay here."

"Right. Anyway, I like your new place."

"I'm hoping maybe to try to buy it one day, but I got to get my stuff together for now. It's got that pond out back, lots of bass in there. And two hundred acres besides. The owner don't care if we go back there either. I'm gonna borry me some money an get a pool this summer. After that I need to save so I can buy a car. Andrew done totalled mine."

"Where do the kids go to school out here?"

"Andrew don't. I'm trying to get him to get his GED. Lisa stays with her grandma in town."

Now I hear something, so I look up. It's the neighbors, across the street, loading up for church. Mom and three kids, all in Sunday clothes, piling into the Expedition. They leave, and dad appears. No shirt, belly hanging over his belt, he fires up the grill. Never too soon to start the barbeque, I guess.

I finish my coffee. The temperature is in the mid-eighties. The breeze is dying, the shade disappearing. We all agree it's time to go inside. The oven broke, so finding a hot breakfast becomes the polite reason for leaving.

We get into our car. Nothing fancy, but it cranks right up, and has no cigarette burns on the seats or food rotting on the floor. We exchange sighs as we back down the gravel and grass driveway. No one ever seems happy, but nothing ever changes.

Then again, I don't know what they say about us. Perhaps the subject is how we live in some little house in some big crime-ridden city. Or maybe they call us uppity, what with that beer I drink costing eight dollars a six pack. My fear? They could discuss how we have jobs that leave us no time to visit family.

I don't know. I never do. All I can say is that at the same time I look forward to getting home I feel guilty for leaving Mississippi.

A Little Less Talk

2006-05-27T09:02:00.000-07:00

Than usual is what there will be on the Alablawg this weekend. I'll be in the ghetto of Tupelo Mississippi, where I'll be happy to have electricity, never mind internet access. It's just one night, so don't worry too much. And I hope your weekend will provide a little more satisfaction than will mine.

The Race Card

2006-05-26T13:51:00.001-07:00

From The Hill (H/T Legal Fiction):

Furious black lawmakers, rallying behind Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), were pulled back from the brink of open revolt against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in an emergency meeting with her Wednesday evening.

The meeting with a handful of CBC members was called after Pelosi wrote the embattled lawmaker, who is at the center of a massive bribery scandal, a curt note requesting his immediate resignation from the powerful Ways and Means Committee. . . .

Pelosi’s one-sentence missive to Jefferson called on him to vacate his committee seat “in the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus.”

Jefferson promptly refused, calling her request “discriminatory.”

Yes, she is discriminating . . . against legislators who are caught on tape taking a $100,000.00 bribe from FBI informants.. No other legislator has done that. Jefferson is in a class by himself right now, and Pelosi is being lenient, if anything.

It would be legitimate for Jefferson to argue that he should keep his seat until proven guilty. To cry racism only makes him look desperate. It also trivializes the real racial issues in this country. Each false shout of wolf makes everyone else reluctant to even investigate the next shout.

Coincidence?

2006-05-26T10:29:00.000-07:00

GM recently discontinued the H1 Hummer, what had been billed as "the biggest, toughest sport-utility vehicle on the road."

The blame is primarily going to the Hummer's sub-10 miles per gallon fuel 'efficiency.' But I think less expensive alternatives are the cause of the Hummer's declining sales.

The Wait (And Waste) Continues

2006-05-26T09:34:00.000-07:00

For a ruling in the Cobb County sticker case. The Eleventh Circuit yesterday punted it back to the district court. (H/T Decision of the Day). This is the case from Georgia where the School Board put this disclaimer in the biology textbooks:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

The question is whether or not that violated the establishment clause. There being no law in that area, just random decisions, each case depends on its particular facts. Is this action more like that unconstitutional one, or yonder constitutional one? It all comes down to who acted when and for what reason they acted. In this case the Eleventh Circuit said there is not enough information in the record to decide, so they have sent it back to the district court. They include 19 "nonexclusive . . . factual issues that it probably will want to address."

Holy waste of resources batman! Granted, the school board probably acted from impure motives. This is their history, after all:

In 1995 the Cobb County School District had an official policy concerning the instruction of students on "Theories of Origin." The policy acknowledged that "some scientific accounts of the origin of human species as taught in public schools are inconsistent with the family teachings of a significant number of Cobb County citizens." It provided that "the instructional program and curriculum of the school system shall be planned and organized with respect for these family teachings."

An accompanying regulation explained how the policy was to be implemented. The 1995 regulation stated that out of "respect for the family teachings of a significant number of Cobb County citizens," the subject of the origin of human species would not be taught in the elementary and middle schools, and instruction in it would not be mandatory in the district's high schools. The regulation did state that elective courses on alternative theories of the origin of human species, including creation theory, would be offered to high school students and noted in curriculum catalogs and listings. In compliance with the 1995 policy and regulation, the school district provided students with science textbooks only after any section containing material on evolution had been torn out of the books.

Yes, heaven forbid the truth should affect anyone's convictions. And "Family teachings?" Come on, at least be honest: "Some families don't like evolution because they think it conflicts with the Bible. We answer to these people at the polls, so, education be darned, we are doing what they want."

This is no longer the policy, but it is the context for the stickers. I have no doubt the stickers arose from religious motivations and acted to mollify religious concerns.

That said, this is a stupid case. Nothing in these stickers is harmful, or even untrue. I certainly do not think they are going to cause anyone to reject evolution, or feel excluded because of differing religious beliefs. Really, they sound to me like a good way to encourage the anti-evolution crowd to open their minds. If the goal is good science, these stickers probably achieve the goal, especially in light of the district's previous treatment of evolution. So, rather than requiring everyone to spend more time and money on the case, I wish the Eleventh Circuit had just ruled one way or the other.

Another Reason Vote Ed Packard S.O.S.

2006-05-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

Poser has plenty of others here. Today, a reader e-mailed me a link to this statement on Packard's blog:

Alabama's ballot access requirements are too severe and are punitive by their very nature. I think the Legislature should review the requirements and take steps to expand the ballot choices offered to Alabamians. The Secretary of State, as the Chief Election Official, should be the advocate pushing for these changes.

He is dead right. Yes, we need some way to limit access to the ballot; we don't want to read the phone book in the voting booth. But the current cure - requiring 42,000 signatures - is worse than the disease. It solves the problem but it also makes this a de facto two party state. The result? You can vote for Joe Copeland for governor (or Larry Darby for A.G.), but not Loretta Nall for governor.

If you want to fix the problem short term, print, sign and mail Nall's petition today. If you want to solve it long term, vote for Packard as Secretary of State.

Btw, here is Nall on her most 'outrageous' position:

I think we can all agree that the drug war has failed. We all want the same things. We want safe neighborhoods where there are no gangs, no violence, no people selling drugs to any kid that wants them in an unregulated market. We want to keep families together. If I were to sit down with our law enforcement officials today and have a rational discussion about the drug war you would see that we are all really on the same page. I am not anti-cop but I do readily admit that the drug war has fostered disrespect and contempt for law enforcement. I want our officers to be safe and to protect all of us from real crime.

If you want your court system unclogged and able to deal with crimes like rape and murder then you have to address it by ending the drug war. If you want the forensics lab to devote its time to solving violent crimes with actual victims then you have to address it by ending the drug war. The drug laws actually create the crime that they were designed to protect us from. People who smoke marijuana do not belong in jail. Marijuana should be legal and available to adults. That would solve our prison crisis as most people in prison in Alabama for drug crimes are there for marijuana. It costs us $95 million a year just to house the marijuana smokers in Alabama's prison system. That is a lot of money that we could use to make things better for our state and our communities.

Does that make sense to you? Unless the current law changes, or she gets 42,000 signatures, your answer does not matter.

Peas In A Pod

2006-05-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

Former Alabama Governor Fob James has endorsed Roy Moore for governor. No surprise there. James, most famous for dancing like a monkey to mock evolution, ran on the same platform as do the Moore-ons. From a 1998 article on James' primary victory over Winton Blount:

James' hiring of former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed as a campaign consultant, his support for teacher-led prayer in school and the display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courtroom drew endorsements from national leaders of the religious right. . . . James campaigned on a states-rights platform that recalled the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. He has vowed to disregard Supreme Court orders on issues such as school prayer; threatened to call out the National Guard to defend a Ten Commandments display in a judge's courtroom; [and] argued that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states in matters such as freedom of speech and religion.

Sound familiar? Here is Moore, speaking yesterday at a retirement community in Opelika:

Since the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling that state-support prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, schools have been plagued by violence and killing, Moore said.

"When I was in school, the worst problem we had was chewing gum in the classroom or some kid smoking in the bathroom," he said. "As we've lost our relationship with God, we've lost our relationship with each other."

Better yet, Mini-Moore recently had this to say:

Parker said that, given the right case, he might urge the Alabama Supreme Court to ignore a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the death penalty, freedom of religion or some other issue if he believed the high court was wrong. . . . Parker said he believes federal courts did not have the authority to prohibit Moore from acknowledging God by installing the Ten Commandments monument. "This is a power they claim for themselves, but it's extra-constitutional," Parker said.

What is interesting about this is not so much the endorsement. Anyone even passingly familiar with Alabama knows James and the Moore-ons have the same beliefs about God and government. What strikes me is that James won his primary, whereas it sure looks like the Moore-ons are going to lose, and lose badly, next month.

So why the difference? James was running against a country club republican, as are Moore and the clones this time, so I don't think it is the quality of the opponent. Could it be that Alabamians are finally seeing through he rhetoric? We may not all agree that James, Moore and the clones are wrong when they say states should ignore Scotus's rulings on the Constitution, but have we all at least finally accepted that the battle is over and - rightly or wrongly - Alabama has to do what the Supreme Court tells it to do? Perhaps we have all recognized that for the same reason you don't choose a mechanic based on his politics, you should not choose a governor based on her theology. Maybe so. From that same 1998 story:

Karen Cartee, a University of Alabama political communications analyst, described the [1998] campaign as pathetic.

"Once again, Alabama has managed to avoid any of the true issues facing the state and its people -- education, transportation, welfare, health care, you name it," Cartee said.

"We just keep sinking further and further behind other Southern states. The only thing you can say is this whole primary and runoff have been a trivial mess. When you've got the governor of the state debating evolution and the main candidates calling each other monkeys, it is truly a sad state of affairs."

Perhaps the difference between 1998 and today is that Alabamians have wised up. We are now more concerned with the "true issues." Hence, the Moore-ons message is falling flat. And, hopefully, Alabama will rise up because of it.

George Bush: Like A Rock,

2006-05-26T06:07:00.000-07:00

Only Dumber.

I saw that this morning on a bumper sticker. On a five series BMW of all things.

A New Trial?

2006-05-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

We just got back from the Batson hearing, and I feel pretty good.

Here's how these things work. Batson prohibits the state from striking jurors because of race. Winning a Batson challenge is a three step process. First, you convince the court that there is a pretty good chance the state is misbehaving. Then the state gets to respond with race-neutral reasons for the strikes. Finally, you say those reasons are b.s. The court then decides whether the race-neutral reasons were the actual cause of the strike. If not, you win.

Our case is an appeal. The trial attorney never even took the first step; he failed to object on Batson grounds. Normally that means you can never, ever, ever, raise that objection, no matter how obvious and harmful the error. However, in a death penalty case, you are allowed to raise on appeal errors to which there was no objection at trial, and the court will grant relief if the error is obvious and harmful. The court in this death penalty case said there was a very good chance that the state was misbehaving. So even though there was no objection, they considered the Batson issue.

What we did today was steps two and three. The Court of Criminal Appeals sent the case back to the trial court so the state would have a chance to explain its strikes. We argued and fussed for an hour or so, but it all boils down to this:

Us: Judge, Juror Jones has a relative who is a cop. He knew the victim in this case. His own son was murdered, and he admitted that he did not think he could put that out of his mind as he heard this case. In short, he was a perfect juror for the state. They struck him because he is black.

The State: No, we struck him because he has a conviction for writing a bad check.

Us: Well, so does Juror Smith, who is white. They did not strike Juror Smith.

The State: Um, er, uh, let me see here, well we were unaware of Juror Smith's conviction.

Us: It happened right here in Dothan, all you had to do was check with the clerk's office. You checked on Juror Jones.

The State: We can't check everyone, we don't have the resources.

Us: So you just investigate the black jurors?

No doubt this guy had the conviction. The question is whether that was the actual reason for the strike. I say no, because another juror had the same conviction. Race was the only difference between the two. I don't buy the ignorance excuse, either. It takes no time or effort to find out whether or not a potential juror has a criminal record. If they were ignorant, it was willful. Also, saying they only investigate some jurors just pushes the problem back. The result, though, is the same. They only investigate blacks, so only blacks get struck for crimes.

So anyway, I'm sure the trial judge will rule against us. We did not make a real good impression on him. But the purpose of the hearing was to get the facts in the record for the Court of Criminal Appeals. They are not known for being fair minded, but this may be one of those cases where they have to rule for the defense. I'll be sure to let you know either way.

Light Blogging

2006-05-24T19:47:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow. I'll be in Dothan for a Batson hearing. Batson's the case saying you can't strike jurors based on race. In this capital appeal we say the state violated Batson, the state says they did not, and the Court of Criminal Appeals said there is not enough information in the record for them to decide, so go have a hearing on the issue.

Clash Of The Titans

2006-05-24T15:11:00.000-07:00

Some land use issues are clear cut. It's easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Kelo, for instance. No doubting the wickedness of the local officials who decided to bulldoze a vibrant neighborhood in favor of Big Rich Corporation. Or Jim Naugle the mayor of Ft. Lauderdale, who had this to say about a tax that would help create affordable housing in his city:

"I'm supposed to subsidize some schlock sitting on the sofa and drinking a beer, who won't work more than 40 hours a week?" he asked. "I deny that there is a problem. You can buy condos all day for $160,000. . . . The concept of this ordinance is from each according to his ability, to each according to need, which is the Communist Manifesto."

Maybe he is right on the economics, but he is still a major jackass.

Sometimes, however, you don't know who the good guys are. Take this situation in California:

A San Francisco suburb voted Tuesday to use the power of eminent domain to prevent Wal-Mart Stores Inc. from setting up shop after hearing from dozens of residents opposed to the big-box retailer. . . . The overflow crowd that packed into tiny City Hall cheered after the City Council decision to seize 17 acres where Wal-Mart intended to build a shopping complex. . . .

Some residents and Hercules city officials say the land, which is currently open space, would be better suited for upscale stores that attract affluent shoppers and give the suburb a classy touch. . . . A handful of residents said Wal-Mart could provide a much-needed place to purchase inexpensive goods, particularly for residents who can't drive out of town. "I know I can go there and get a fair price for a good product," said Glenna Phillips, who has lived in Hercules for 26 years.

So it's the Beast of Bentonville v. Hercules. Only Hercules is not the ancient Roman hero, but a bunch of hoity-toity Californians. For whom do you cheer? It's like sitting in front of the tube on a fall afternoon watching the Gators play the Vols: You wish there was some way they could both lose.

Another Thing I Like About Blogging

2006-05-24T12:28:00.000-07:00

Is that it forces you to at least try and be consistent. You're putting stuff in print, for people to read, so you ought to try to treat like things alike.

That said, I've struggled with two recent posts. I like the results of each, but I fear I may have embraced conflicting rationales to reach those results.

In one, I approvingly quote a story that probably is an ad hominem attack on Jeff Sessions. In the other post, I disapproved of a story largely because I thought it was an ad-hominem attack against atheists and Intelligent Design opponents; it did no more than state that noted holocaust denier Larry Darby is also an atheist and Intelligent Design opponent. So am I a hypocrite? One who hides petty personal choices behind high sounding principles?

Here is my theory. Ad hominem attacks are sometimes valid. Suppose, for example, the plaintiff calls a witness to the stand in a lawsuit over a car crash. The witness testifies that the defendant ran a red light when he hit the plaintiff. The defendant then wants to tell the jury that the witness frequently and savagely beats her dog.

That is an ad hominem attack on the witness, no doubt. Should it be allowed? No, because it tells us nothing about the facts at issue. It has no apparent relevance to the case.

What if the defendant wants to tell the jury that the witness has been convicted of perjury? Should it be allowed? Well, it's an ad hominem attack, but it also tells us quite a bit about the trustworthiness of the witness.

In my mind, the Darby story is like the first situation. That Darby denies the Holocaust has no apparent relevance to atheism or opposing ID in science classes. Putting the three together, with no argument what-so-ever, was a pure smear job against atheists and ID opponents.

The Sessions story is like the second situation. Sessions has an abysmal history on racial issues. So, when he stands up to 'testify' about the horrors of immigration -legal or illegal - my reaction is consider the source. Because he is who he is, I do not trust anything he says on racial matters. He has no credibility.

That's my justification, anyway.

TGFM

2006-05-24T11:57:00.000-07:00

Thank God For Mississippi. Like Alabama, in days gone by our neighbor to the ~~East~~ (well, eventually it is) West often used the criminal "justice" system to punish people who thought Blacks and Whites ought to be treated equally. As are many people in Alabama, many people in Mississippi are now ashamed of those injustices. After Governor Haley Barbour refused to pardon one such unjustly convicted civil rights worker, Circuit Court Judge Bob Helfrich vacated the conviction. (The whole story is here).

Now Mississippi attorney and racist Richard Barrett wants the judge to withdraw his decision.

Barrett's reasons for trying to block the exoneration could reach far beyond the Kennard case. He feared that actions such as Helfrich's could prompt the state to distance itself from segregationist leaders of the past.

Forrest County stands to lose its name, Barrett said, because its namesake is Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest - founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

That would be truly horrible.

Much to his credit, Federal Judge Charles Pickering opposes Barrett, and filed a response to Barrett's motion.

Pickering, whose family has been in Mississippi seven generations, said no one takes more pride in the state's history than he. The former judge said he was trying to correct an injustice.

"People who cannot win on reason and logic try to enflame the emotions of the people," he added. "Richard Barrett has made a career of doing that."

Sore Loser

2006-05-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post today has a great article on Alabama's own Jeff Sessions. (H/T Locust Fork News). You need to read the whole thing, but here are some quotes.

Sessions on his Southern heritage:

Alabama's Jeff Sessions sure knows how to nurse a grudge. Talking about his family earlier this year, the Republican senator recalled that "Lincoln killed one of them at Antietam."

Sessions on the current immigration bill:

"This bill is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come before the Senate," he proclaimed at a news conference yesterday, his second on the topic in as many weeks. He paused, unsatisfied with that superlative. "It's the worst piece of legislation to come before the Senate since I've been here."

A stream of epithets about the legislation flowed from his mouth and those of the two conservative scholars he brought with him. "Colossal error . . . absolute scandal . . . budget buster . . . fiscal disaster . . . catastrophe."

Linda Scott of PBS's "NewsHour" pointed out that the Alabama Farmers Federation takes the opposite view.

The senator fired back: "They want cheap labor and they're not considering the interest of the United States of America."

Sessions on the problems of legal immigration:

Forecasting a mass immigration of 73 million to 92 million over the next 20 years [for those keeping score at home, that would be pretty much the entire population of Mexico], Sessions described the process in extraordinary detail: "The nuclear family that we bring in after five years, they become citizens, they bring in their parents. . . . The parents can bring in their parents if they're still alive. They really can. Maybe they're 90. They can bring in others -- their brothers and sisters. The uncles, all the uncles can come in with this through the parents here. And the wife can bring in brothers and sisters and then the wife brings in her brother, who brings in his wife and two children and she brings in her parents. And it just goes on."

And don't forget his sterling history as a humanitarian:

Sessions was one of just nine senators to oppose a ban on torture. He has raised objections about renewing the Voting Rights Act. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, according to Time magazine, Sessions, pushing for repeal of the estate tax, called a former law professor to see if he knew of any business owner who died in the storm.

And if his current fight in the Senate appears unwinnable, Sessions also knows how to turn defeat into victory. He sits on the same Judiciary Committee that in 1986 rejected him for a federal judgeship; opponents at the time cited his labeling of groups such as the NAACP as "un-American" and his prosecution of civil rights activists for voting fraud.

He makes us all so proud.

The Eternal GWOT

2006-05-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

Decision of the Day highlights an interesting case from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It was two cases consolidated on appeal. Both plaintiffs are internet service providers who received "national security letters" from the FBI. As the court explains,

An NSL is an administrative subpoena that allows the FBI to gain access to, inter alia, "subscriber information . . . or electronic communication transactional records" held by internet service providers, when this information is "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities . . . ." 18 U.S.C. §§ 2709(a) & (b)(2).

Initially, the FBI could send an NSA totally on its own; no court had to approve the letter. Also, if you got one you could not tell anyone about it, ever. Not even your lawyer.

Not surprisingly, the plaintiff's challenged the letter on several First and Fourth Amendment theories. Since then the law has changed, so the Second Circuit remanded the cases for re-consideration in light of the changes.

Now for the interesting part. The government still argues that it can permanently ban any speech about the letters. According to their view, if you get one of these letters, you can never tell anyone. Judge Cardamone explains the government's arguments in his dissent. Their rationale is the truly scary part:

The government advanced the "mosaic theory" as one of the reasons to support a permanent ban on speech. That theory envisions thousands of bits and pieces of apparently innocuous information, which when properly assembled create a picture. At bottom the government's assertion is simply that antiterrorism investigations are different from other investigations in that they are derivative of prior or concurrent investigations. Thus, permanent non-disclosure is necessary because, implicitly in the government's view, all terrorism investigations are permanent and unending.

Two things frighten me. First, the mosaic theory means they are operating without any individualized suspicion. They do not have in mind any particular person, place, or threat. They just need all the "apparently innocuous information." That means everyone in the country is a potential subject of the investigation.

Second, the government may not have explicitly reached it in this case, but here is the logical outcome of their assertions: We can "suspend" your rights while we fight terror. We will be fighting terror forever. Therefore, we can suspend your rights forever.

Too bad Alabama does not currently have anyone to fight for our rights as did our own Justice Hugo Black, who Judge Cardamone quotes:

As Justice Black wrote in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971): "The word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic."

Death Penalty Appeals

2006-05-24T06:44:00.000-07:00

The B'Ham news recently interviewed the guber candidates (the state sanctioned ones anyway) about their views on sentencing, including capital sentencing. More than one blogger has already pointed out how homogeneous the answers were. I am only going to comment on Roy Moore's opinion about the appellate process in death penalty cases:

"I don't think there are too many avenues of appeal; I think there are too many frivolous appeals. I think sometimes these appeals are frivolous and should be ruled on very quickly. There are some on death row right now (that) we tried when I was an attorney, and that was a long time ago."

I agree with him that in the average death penalty appellate brief, the majority of the issues presented are frivolous. By frivolous, I mean the attorney who presents them knows they have little to no chance of success. What I want to do is explain why we present frivolous issues on appeal.

There are lots of reasons not to present weak issues. They distract the court from the strong issues. They undercut the attorney's credibility. They waste the court's time, and as an officer of the court the attorney ought not waste the court's time. They use up the attorney's time and pages, resources the attorney could better use on the strong issues. So, in a civil case, or a non-capital criminal case, good appellate attorneys will cut out the weak issues in favor of two or three strong ones.

But death, as they say, is different. Your client is going to lose much more than just money, or freedom. He is going to lose his life. Hence, when an issue is borderline, you'll err on the side of inclusion. That is not all. Issues not presented in the first brief are forever waived. You want to preserve every possible argument. You never know when Scotus may do something crazy, suddenly making what was a weak issue strong. So you throw them all in, hoping the law may change during the appeal.

There is also the bigger picture. Maybe you don't oppose the death penalty itself, but you think it ought to be used very carefully. So you force the appellate courts to sift through every possible error, ensuring that the process was fair. Doing so also increases the costs to the state, giving them reason to refrain from bringing capital charges unless the crime truly deserves it.

And I should be honest, sometimes the goal is simply to keep the client alive as long as possible. You, the attorney, were not there when the crime occurred. Probably you did not represent the client at trial, so your knowledge of that comes from the record. You do know the client, you've sat with him in jail, talked to him, shook his hand. You've met his family, heard them cry. You look at this guy and think, but for the grace of God. You realize he has no shot at winning the appeal, but you want these folks to have some hope. Manipulating the system? Sure. Excusable? You decide.

Atheism, Materialism Make You Stupid, Evil

2006-05-23T13:32:00.000-07:00

That seems to be the point of this post on Evolution News and Views. The subject is Larry Darby and his opposition to Alabama's attempts to introduce ID into science classes.

As for Alabama's attempted 'Academic Freedom' bills, I've commented on them here. Darby, as we all know by now, is the holocaust denying wacko running as a Democrat for A.G.

The post describes Darby:

Increased attention has been paid to Mr. Darby because of his campaign to become Attorney General of Alabama. Most of the spotlight has been on his outrageous views about the Holocaust. According to "Candidate: Holocaust didn't happen" (by Jay Reeves [Associated Press], Montgomery Advertiser, May 13, 2006), Mr. Darby apparently claims that only 140,000 Jews died in the Holocaust, and that most of those deaths resulted from typhus. This is Holocaust denial in all its ugly un-glory. Previously, Mr. Darby had made national headlines for calling AL Governor Bob Riley's prayer meetings "Christian terrorism."

The very next sentence states:

But through it all, Mr. Darby's die-hard commitment to philosophical materialism has made him one of the fiercest critics of Alabama's Academic Freedom Act. "Science deals with materialism," he reportedly said at that 2004 House Committee hearing.

Although the Alabama Academic Freedom Bill does not mandate or call for the teaching of the theory of intelligent design, Mr. Darby has been a staunch critic of ID all along. He has been a featured speaker and participant at events sponsored by the "Atheist Alliance" that included emphatic denunciations of ID. Most interesting is Mr. Darby's appearance at the Alabama "Rally for Reason," alongside Jeffrey Selman. The rally was sponsored by the Atheist Law Center, of which Mr. Darby is apparently past-president.

So what does the first quote have to do with the second? Is Evolution News & Views telling us that holocaust denial, atheism and opposition to teaching ID are morally and intellectually equivalent? Or that the three are inherently related? Or both? Your guess is as good as mine.

The post never explains how the three are related. All it tells us is that one guy happens to hold to all three positions. From that, I suppose, we are to infer that the three are somehow causally connected.

But that a person holds two ideas simultaneously does not necessarily mean those ideas are related at all, never mind causally related. Darby, for example, in addition to denying the holocaust wants to put National Guard Troops on the border to control immigration. Does that necessarily mean that if you want troops on the border you are also a holocaust denier? Darby also probably believes two and two equals four. Does that mean holocaust denial has anything to do with basic math?

Besides, in practice I'm sure about 99.9% of atheists and ID opponents would strongly condemn Darby for his holocaust denial. Evolution News & Views ought to be ashamed of itself for so irresponsibly trying to tar people who disagree with its views on creation. At the least, they could have tried to support the charges with some arguments.

A Proposed Solution

2006-05-23T10:01:00.000-07:00

To the immigration and homosexual problems. I got the idea here. To make everyone happy, we let immigrants and homosexuals live in this country, but also make the following additions (in bold) and alterations (strikes through the original language) to the constitution:

The Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare of Conservative Christian Straight White American Males (CCSWAM) , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ~~ourselves~~ CCSWAM and ~~our~~ CCSWAM’s CCSWAM Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, § 2:

Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of ~~free Persons~~ CCSWAM, . . . , three fifths of ~~all other Persons~~. homosexuals and immigrants.

Article I, § 8:

The Congress shall have Power . . . to protect the sanctity of marriage by illegalizing homersexual relations, and to protect us from foreigners by building a thirty foot high wall along our borders, topped with razor wire. And a moat also. With alligators in it..

Article III, § 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. which a majority of CCSWAM agree to let the court hear, provided that those states or individual CCSWAM who don't like the result do not have to follow it.

Article IV, § 2

No ~~Person held to Service or Labour~~ homosexual or immigrant deprived of rights in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation or court decision therein, be ~~discharged from such Service or Labour~~, granted any rights but shall ~~be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due~~ remain a legal non-person.

Article V

no Amendment which may be made prior to ~~the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight~~ the rapture (after that all CCSWAM will be gone, so who cares what the rest of you do) shall in any Manner ~~affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article~~ grant any rights to immigrants or homosexuals and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Unless it tries to grant rights to immigrants or homosexuals.

Anyway, those are some suggestions.

No Returns

2006-05-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

According to this story, earlier this month, a couple visited an "adult toy store" in Decatur, "stealing enhancement pills and a 'king size' rubber sex toy resembling a part of the male anatomy." A few weeks later, local police caught the bandits.

[The cops] found the lifelike, 9-inch toy stolen three weeks earlier. The $50 device was no longer in its package, said Detective George Silvestri.

"Well, we kind of recovered the stolen property," said [a detective]. "But basically, the store manager declined taking it back."

Gee, why wouldn't he take it back?

Btw, selling "adult toys" is a crime in Alabama. Alabama Code 13A-12-200.2 states in part:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value.

Roy Moore To Scotus: Abortion Violates Equal Protection Clause

2006-05-23T07:17:00.000-07:00

A major hat tip to Lee at Bama Blog (he is going to get my reporter of the year award) for this story. Roy Moore has filed an Amicus Brief in the Scotus case of Gonzales v. Carhart. That case is about the federal partial birth abortion act. So far both the district court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals have held it unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception for the health of the mother. Moore, as you might guess, is arguing that the act is constitutional. Not only that, he also argues that abortion violates the Fourteenth Amendment. According to Moore, every state is constitutionally required to prohibit the abortion of post-twenty week fetuses.

The brief begins by stating the obvious:

the words of this Constitution and the solemn oath thereto are still relevant today and should control, above all other competing powers and influences, the decisions of federal courts.

No doubt. The problem is defining those words and then applying the definitions to particular cases.

The problem is illustrated by Moore's brief in this case. Moore's argument will rely on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:

No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So does "person" include a fetus still developing in a woman's womb? Good luck finding an answer in "the words of this Constitution." In fact, Moore's brief does not find the answer in the Constitution, rather relying on state laws like Alabama's that declare a fetus a person for purposes of homicide prosecutions, and also on a quote from William Blackstone. But other textual and non-textual sources indicate a fetus is not a person. The same question arose in Roe v. Wade, this is the Court's response:

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

The point here is not that a fetus is (or is not) a person. The point is that constitutional decision making is more complicated than Moore wants us to believe. Deciding what the text means and how to apply it involves extra-textual sources. Cases making these decisions then guide future cases. That way Scotus does not have to re-invent the wheel with every case or controversy. Which is exactly what Moore's brief does in this case. As the quote from Roe indicates, that 'person' does not include the unborn is already settled law. Scotus has already heard both sides of the issue and settled on a meaning. Moore's argument is a re-tread.

Anyway, leaving aside methodological truisms, we get to the heart of Moore's argument.

because the persons subjected to the procedure of partial-birth abortion are living human beings, the states are denying the fetuses equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to protect them in the same manner the states protect other living human beings.

I do not think he is arguing that the constitutional duty to protect begins at conception. The brief goes on to state that 20 week old fetuses "are virtually the same as newborn infants." It makes no mention of anything younger. So, apparently, the duty arises at 20 weeks.

Now, the brief only argues that the Constitutional duty empowers Congress "to remedy this 'oppression of inequality' against these living human beings." But if Moore is correct - if beginning at 20 weeks fetuses are persons entitled by the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection under the laws - then there is no need for federal legislation. The constitution itself would prohibit abortions of those fetuses. So long as states prohibit killing born children, they would also have to prohibit aborting fetuses after those fetuses reach 20 weeks.

Whatever you think about the persuasiveness of the argument, I think two things are true. First, it is nothing new. Scotus rejected it in Roe. Second, it's probably bad politics. I think many people would be fine with getting rid of Roe provided that left the issue to the states. Moore's argument, however, would largely take the states out of the equation. As does Roe it would take a debatable issue off the floor and impose an absolute rule. If that is the alternative, I think many moderate Roe opponents would become Roe supporters.

An Update

2006-05-22T11:46:00.000-07:00

To the previous post.

First, ACS Blog has some comments made by Prof. Geoffrey Stone about criminalizing the publication of classified information. An excerpt:

Should the United States criminally punish the press for publishing classified information? This inquiry poses a prospect unprecedented in American history. For more than 215 years, the United States has managed to flourish in the absence of any federal legislation directly prohibiting the press from publishing government secrets. The absence of such legislation is no accident. It clearly fulfills the promise of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press." . . .

Would it be good public policy to enact such a law? On balance, I think not. Once again, I return to the lessons of history. Even if such a law is constitutional, it is neither necessary nor wise. In more than two centuries of experience, the problem addressed by this "law" [i.e. publishing a secret actually causing harm to the country] has never actually arisen. This would be a law in search of a problem. This is never a sound basis for legislation, and certainly not when dealing with a freedom as precious as the freedom of the press.

Second, those noted anti-american liberals at the Cato Institute have a new report on Dubya's constitutional record. (H/T Talk Left). When you are deciding whether or not to entrust your freedom to King George, keep the report in mind:

With five years of the Bush administration behind us, we have more than enough evidence to make an assessment about the president’s commitment to our fundamental legal charter. Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes

• a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and restrict it
greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;

• a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;

• a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror—in other words, perhaps forever; and

• a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush’s constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers.

Be Afraid

2006-05-22T08:52:00.000-07:00

First, from a propaganda piece in Sundays B'ham News:

Assorted critics, taking a break from castigating the Bush administration for doing too little to protect the homeland, are now castigating it for doing too much. How dare the NSA receive without benefit of a court order telephone logs from AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon? Even though the records were anonymous and did not include the contents of any calls (Verizon and BellSouth have now denied offering any information at all), hyperventilating worrywarts fret that fascism has descended.

Second, from CNN today:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. . . ." It can't be the case that [the right to freedom of the press] trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," Gonzales said.

So, would a country where the government prosecutes as criminals news papers that publish unfavorable stories be more like a democracy? Or a fascist state, a state "marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism?" In your answer, be sure to account for the following quote from Thomas Jefferson:

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Sure they say the prosecutions would only be for publishing stuff that threatens national security, but think about how well the administration has evaluated previous threats. For example, "The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says." The FBI considers peace activists to be threats to national security. If you criticize the president, you might be a traitor. Finally, here is Dubya himself on how well the administration evaluated the threat posed by Iraq: "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

But, hey, Iraq has worked out fine anyway. So who cares if the administration similarly evaluates the threat posed by newspapers. We can trust them with the power to censor the press. They are honest and competent. And every subsequent administration will also be trustworthy, right? I mean, even if HRC wins in '08, we can feel safe. We have nothing to fear. This is the government, they know what is best, and most importantly, they are here to help.

Summit Medical Center

2006-05-22T07:00:00.000-07:00

Lee at Bama Blog has collected the news and offers his opinion here, here, here, here, and here. Kathy at B'Ham blues comments here. Poser's take is here.

Long story short, non-Doctors at said clinic told a patient she was six weeks pregnant and then gave her an abortion-inducing drug. Less than a week later, the woman gave birth to a six pound four ounce stillborn child. While this is the most tragic incident, the investigation of it has uncovered plenty of other problems.

All I'll say now is that, contrary to the assertions of some bloggers, what occured at Summitt was almost certainly a felony.

Here, from Stenberg v. Carhart, is the general constitutional framework (internal citations omitted):

We again consider the right to an abortion. We understand the controversial nature of the problem. Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing the death of an innocent child; they recoil at the thought of a law that would permit it. Other millions fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity, depriving them of equal liberty and leading those with least resources to undergo illegal abortions with the attendant risks of death and suffering. Taking account of these virtually irreconcilable points of view, aware that constitutional law must govern a society whose different members sincerely hold directly opposing views, and considering the matter in light of the Constitution's guarantees of fundamental individual liberty, this Court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic protection to the woman's right to choose. . . . We shall not revisit those legal principles. Rather, we apply them to the circumstances of this case.

Three established principles determine the issue before us. . . . First, before “viability the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.” . . . .

Second, “a law designed to further the State's interest in fetal life which imposes an undue burden on the woman's decision before fetal viability” is unconstitutional. . . . An “undue burden is . . . shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” . . . .

Third, “ ‘subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’"

In accord with the constitution, Alabama has chosen to proscribe post-viability abortions. Section 26-22-3 of the Alabama Code states:

no person shall intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly perform or induce an abortion when the unborn child is viable.

Doing so is a Class A felony, unless:

[The] abortion is performed by a physician and that physician reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent either the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman.

So, it appears that someone at Summitt has committed a felony. A non-Doctor performed the abortion, so the exception does not apply. Viability seems to be a given. To satisy the mental element of the statute ("intentionally, knowingly or recklessly") whoever provided the drug must have had some idea that the fetus was viable, or else whoever provided the drug ignored procedures that would have provided that knowledge. In my mind, the only way anyone could have 'mistaken' a fully grown baby for a six week old fetus is if they ignored procedures or else just did not care. In other words, if they acted "intentionally knowingly or recklessly."

The question is going to be how many people were involved? Was this just some assistant? Or was their a conspiracy with the Docs? Perhaps trying to evade the requirements of Section 26-22-3? I'm sure we will find the answer to these questions, and much more, as the investigation (during an election year) continues.

Sorry For The Lack Of Posts

2006-05-22T05:56:00.000-07:00

This weekend, but I could not bring myself to look at either the news or my computer. Great food, two outstanding rides - road and mountain -, Do Dah Day, fantastic meals, naps, several hours by the pool reading "Marley and Me," time with friends: It was like a vacation in my own neighborhood.

Anyway, the news looks promising this morning, so I'm sure to be back at full strength today.

Nall Campaign Update

2006-05-19T13:10:00.000-07:00

From Hammer of Truth:

Sorry for not blogging anything today, but we've got a serious problem going on in Birmingham with the Loretta Nall ballot access drive in Alabama. The police are now demanding IDs and telling our petitioners they can't collect signatures on public property (in this case, a sidewalk on a state university campus). We are going to talk to the police right now and see if we can sort this out.

All I know is what you just read. And this:

There is no doubt that as a general matter peaceful picketing and leafletting are expressive activities involving speech protected by the First Amendment. . . . It is also true that public places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be public forums. In such places, the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited: the government may enforce reasonable time, place, and manner regulations as long as the restrictions are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.

The Supreme Court decision from which this quote is taken - U.S. v. Grace - held that the sidewalks abutting the Supreme Court building were public places and that a statute prohibiting "signs, banners or devices" on those sidewalks was unconstitutional.

UAB's sidewalks, like those at issue in Grace, "are indistinguishable from other public sidewalks in the city that are normally open to the conduct that is at issue here." So, unless the city comes up with a better excuse than did the government in Grace, the result ought to be the same in this situation.

"Hi, There, Energy Eaters"

2006-05-19T11:27:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen the Simpson's episode where the kids take a class trip to the power plant? They watch a cartoon about nuclear energy, in which Smilin' Joe Fission explains why nuclear energy is everyone's friend. Sure, it produces some nasty left overs, but as Smilin' Joe explains while sweeping the waste under a carpet, we can "just put it where nobody'll find it for a million years."

With that in mind, watch the new ExxonMobil commercial, the theme of which is: "Carbon Dioxide - They Call It Pollution, We Call It Life."

For a hilarious re-working of the commercial, go here. For the facts, go here, and here.

Major Thanks To Hammer Of Truth

2006-05-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

For leading me to Jeremiah Bullfrog's explanation of why Brokeback Mountain means we need a federal anti-gay marriage amendment:

I was a fixin ta' git out the throwin stars and tear up that DVD, but I got sucked into the plot dangit! How cum that thar hunky feller wouldnt run away with that thar purty one? How could that wife jez let 'im go up to that mountain after knowin they wuz a sparkin? At the end I cried a little bit, but jez cauze that thar purty girl got left...

That thar movie jez proves that GW and his buddies need ta cum up with some way to illegalize gay marriage. Look at how sad everbody wuz in that movie! People's a' cryin and a' hollerin and fallin on each other...

You wanna know if you is able ta' marry ask James Dobson. He's the one that makes the call on stuff like that...

That is the funniest blog I have read in a while, maybe ever. For certain a new daily read. If you need another example, consider Mr. Bullfrog's explanation of why we must pre-emptively strike Mexico:

Because only three things keep Mexico from possessing one of them thar NUCULAR BOMBS!:

1) 25-50 years of intense research and plutonium accumulation,
2) 500 billion dollars, and,
3) a team of top-notch nuclear scientists that hate freedom and want to destroy GW...

Imagine that! Nukes in our hemisphere! Hell Naw!

Jes' Like when the dog tries to make it with the cat....You just gotta put a stop to it, no matter how hard that ol' dog just humps and humps....it is a abomination dangit!

Its good to know that GW is out there, findin problems before they start and puttin a end to 'em so's we dont even know they is there...pre-emptively

Just go read it, it's awesome.

The Daily Strikes Again

2006-05-19T06:24:00.000-07:00

It lacks the fireworks of their other interviews with Alabama judicial candidates, but the Decatur Daily has an interesting story on Mark Anderson, a Republican candidate for the Court of Civil Appeals. Two things.

First, like everyone else, he distances himself from the Moore-ons.

Referring to the high-profile duel between Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, he said judges are bound by an oath to follow precedents of higher courts, even if those precedents are poorly decided. . . .

An op-ed piece written by Parker in January criticized the state Supreme Court for abiding by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared the execution of minors to violate the U.S. Constitution.

Like Parker, Anderson said the U.S. Supreme Court case was poorly decided. Unlike Parker, Anderson said ignoring the precedent was not an option.

Mini-Moore likes to say his oath is to the Constitution, not to the Supreme Court Justices who interpret it. Hence, loyalty to his oath means disobeying those Justices when they "wrongly" interpret the Constitution. His words:

a judge takes an oath to support the constitution -- not to automatically follow activist justices who believe their own devolving standards of decency trump the text of the constitution. Thus, faithful adherence to the judicial oath requires resistance to such activism

That argument sounds a lot like Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

Now, whatever you think about the persuasiveness of Luther's belief that Scripture trumps Papal authority, you have to recognize that it has not worked out so well for Christian unity. Just count the number of different protestant churches you pass on the way to work. Sola Scriptura may be great in theory, but it's terrible in practice.

If we decide to follow Mini-Moore, we will end up just like the protestant church. Like the Bible, the Constitution is often vague and ambiguous. Applying it to today's world is tricky. No two people are going to read it in the same way. Hence, if the rule is Sola Constitution, every person will be a law unto herself. To avoid this, someone has to have the final interpretive authority. That someone is the United States Supreme Court.

The second interesting point from the story is this:

Anderson said left-leaning judges for years distorted law to arrive at pre-ordained results, and he fears the same is happening again, this time by right-leaning judges.

"Neither side should control the court. Lately things have smacked of activism from the right rather than activism from the left," Anderson said. "Neither is acceptable."

All most people see are the headline cases about abortion, or capital punishment. But in the normal day to day cases the situation is very different. State or federal, any appellate court hearing a criminal case is not asking which side is correct, it is asking how it can most easily rule in favor of the state. The civil side is not much better for plaintiffs. This has been the case for some time now, it's just nice to hear a Republican judge admit it.

Safe Legal And Rare

2006-05-19T06:01:00.000-07:00

Not in this case:

State health officials on Wednesday shut down a Birmingham abortion clinic after investigating a complaint that a woman was told she was six weeks pregnant and was given an abortion-inducing drug, then delivered a 6-pound, 4-ounce stillborn child at a hospital.

The rest of the story only gets worse. God, that poor woman.

No We're Not Racists!

2006-05-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, here is a World Nut Daily columnist on Monday, predicting Dubya's immigration speech:

he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

But today, the column is missing that language. Jesus' General has the full report. As for the author of the column, he has this to say:

The ludicrous accusations of my desire to round up and deport illegals, much less massacre them, serve very well to demonstrate how many bloggers leap at the chance to indulge in hysterics and moral preening. They demand an apology? They'll receive nothing but well-deserved contempt.

Right. Turning to the holocaust as inspiration for an immigration policy in no way suggests you want to 'round up and deport illegals.' How silly of us.

Road Construction

2006-05-18T12:13:00.000-07:00

Some serious allegations from the Libertarians in a press release today:

Gov. Riley will celebrate opening the last section of US280, completing four lanes from Birmingham to the GA line.

I doubt he’ll make any comment about those made homeless and otherwise damaged by misuse of eminent domain by the State of Alabama. While cases of this sort of abuse by the State Lands Division against mostly black and poor white citizens of our state were more publicized – similar abuse by ALDOT is lesser known because of the efforts of Bob Riley and friends.

Instances of this abuse took place on US280 in Congressman Riley’s district, yet he did nothing to defend civil rights of property owners impacted by this federal highway project. Specifically, owners were kicked out of their homes before they were paid (still holding legal title to their property) so that others could live in their house while owners were homeless. At least one case is still ongoing in the courts almost a decade later – no surprise given ALDOT’s history of such great disregard for civil rights.

When asked to stop this abuse, then Congressman Riley’s responded by saying, “You know the road is coming – get out of the way.” Mr. Riley may be wealthy enough to let others live his home without compensation waiting to finally be paid – but most Alabamians are not.

I don't know if any of this is accurate, but if so it would certainly be outrageous. I post it, though, because it brings to mind a related problem: The poor folks whose houses are next to the right-of-way. While their homes do not get bulldozed, that means there is no taking. Because there is no taking, the state does not have to compensate them for the noise and pollution they get to enjoy when the road opens. They end up with the worst of all worlds: Home ruined and no compensation.

If you pay attention, you see this all the time. I think I notice it more than most because cycling provides a much better view of the world than does driving. Anyway, if you want examples of this problem in the making you could start with the intersection of Old Leeds and the new Grant's Mill. Other new spots in B'ham include where Corridor X/I-22 crosses Coalburgh Road. To see the accomplished damage, get off 20/59 some time and drive through the adjoining "bad" neighborhoods, taking in the fumes and rumblings of the highway, and counting how many homes have the interstate for a backyard.

I would love to see a statute providing some type of compensation to these folks. Destroying someone's home so I can get to my destination five minutes sooner does not seem like a very fair trade.

Even More Stupidder

2006-05-18T09:42:00.000-07:00

Than state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage is the proposed federal amendment, which is now going to the full senate, and which states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

It's dumb for all the reasons I explained yesterday. Furthermore, anyone who supports this can NEVER EVER EVER again try to hide behind 'small government' or 'federalist' principles. If you support this amendment and then tell me you oppose the Voting Rights Act because VRA interferes with state's rights, I'm calling you a racist p.o.s.

This is the most outrageous example of federal over-reaching since Wickard v. Filburn. Read it, it's the federal government telling all of us how to read our own state constitutions. Good luck finding anything that has a longer history of exclusive state control than does marriage. Give me a break, whether or not Alabama recognizes gay marriage has absolutely no impact on any other state. As things stand now, no state has to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. This is asinine, and all ten of the losers who voted today to send it to the full senate ought to be flogged. As for the one guy who had the guts to call this stupid piece of base electioneering what it was:

Russ Frikin' Feingold for President!

Public Service Announcement: Avoid Gulf Shores

2006-05-18T08:40:00.000-07:00

Summer and its associated vacations are almost here. As you plan your trips, you may want to avoid coastal areas, and definitely don't go to the Pacific Northwest. Those places are unsafe because:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. . . . "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. Wednesday, he added, "there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

What do you think this guy was like as a child? "Mom, this is your last chance, if you don't let me have another serving of ice cream, God is going to strike you down!" "Oh yeah, you guys may have won this kickball game, but when you get home you'll find that God burned your house down."

Here are the top ten Pat Robertson quotes, including my favorite:

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

Ballot Access

2006-05-18T06:40:00.000-07:00

Poser's got the arguments and the links. The power to choose your leaders don't mean much if you don't get any options from which to choose. Print, sign, and mail Loretta Nall's petition today.

Class

2006-05-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

From the B'ham News today:

Hurricanes, eleventh-hour appeals from Death Row inmates, a landslide defeat at the polls, an insurgency inside his beloved GOP. You might expect Bob Riley to say that any or all of those have been the hardest part of the job of being Alabama's 62nd governor. You'd be wrong.

The hardest days? Those come every time another Alabama solider dies, and these days that usually means in Iraq or Afghanistan. With every death comes a phone call from Riley to the soldier's family.

I probably disagree with Bob Riley on about ninety percent of current social issues, but no one can do anything other than commend him for those phone calls. Even John Rogers has this to say about Riley:

he's a great politician who also happens to be likable and somebody who you'd like to have a beer with if he drank beer.

"You're An **hole"

2006-05-17T19:28:00.000-07:00

No, dear reader, you aren't. But do you remember the West Limestone High School science teacher who showed his class a video that said Dubya is? Well, he was recently fired. The teacher, not King George.

The reason was not, according to the story, the video, but the dude showing his students "sexually themed Internet videos." Either way, this fella has some serious issues.

Oh, yeah, he's also the Democratic candidate for House District 4. Larry Darby, Don Seigelman, and now this guy. Maybe the dems ought to screen their candidates or something.

A Cocktail Party By Any Other Name

2006-05-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

Based on today's content, I'm going to have to change the name of this blog to the Georgia Blawg. Nevertheless, has anyone else seen this story today:

Florida and Georgia no longer want to be known for throwing the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.

For the non-football fans among us, that's the name of the annual Georgia-Florida game. According to the story, some of the fans have - can you believe this - gotten a bit rowdy in the past. Hard to believe college students and sec fans could show such passion, but it's true.

But much more seriously:

After last fall's game, Thomas Oliver Brown, 23, was beaten to death in downtown Jacksonville. The year before, 19-year-old UF student David Ferguson died after apparently falling from the top of a parking garage.

According to the two universities, a new name for the game will prevent such tragedies. Any suggestions?

More On Georgia

2006-05-17T07:38:00.000-07:00

I baldy asserted in the last post that anti-gay marriage laws are stupid. This post offers a few reasons for that view.

Number one is the thinking behind these amendments. Here is a typical activist discussing yesterday's ruling:

"It's very disappointing that once again a court has stepped in to overrule and overturn the rule of the people," said Sadie Fields, chairman of the state Christian Coalition. "We will be back, and we will ensure that marriage in the state of Georgia is defined biblically as being between a man and a woman."

(Update: The AJC changed the story so that it no longer includes the quote, but you can still read the important part of it here.)

The problem for Ms. Fields is that not everyone accepts the Bible as authoritative. Her argument has no persuasive power over anyone who rejects the Bible. Hence, for those folks, Ms. Fields' proposed law is nothing but a fiat. It is one person's personal preferences imposed on everyone else.

I'm not saying it is wrong for Ms. Fields to be motivated by her religion. I am saying she needs to provide some reason for the ban other than her religious beliefs. Why should someone who does not accept the Bible as authoritative want to ban gay marriage? We are all adults, we ought to be governed by reason.

Which leads me to point two. I do not think there is any valid reason to deny gay people the same benefits provided to straight people.

Cries about how it will undermine marriage are just silly. Leaving aside the lack of any proof for that assertion, if we applied that criteria evenly, think of all the new crimes we would have. Ladies, no more short skirts. We don't want hubby's eyes straying. Guys, no more stopping for a beer after work, wifey needs you at the house. No more divorces. Out of town business trips? Forget about it. T.V. shows like Friends that glorify single people. Uh-Uh.

The procreation argument is also over-inclusive. Why do we let post-menopausal women get married? Or sterile people? Why do we continue providing marital benefits even when people are in their eighties? (Unless its that terror of property law, the fertile octogenarian). Encouraging procreation may be a reason the state provides benefits to married people, but the ability to procreate is not a requirement for the benefits.

Oh, but it is morally wrong, a great evil, wicked in the extreme. And? Lots of stuff is wrong, but we still let people who do that stuff get married. Even felons can get married. People in jail can get married.

And making gay marriage legal certainly does not mean churches will have to perform ceremonies for gay people. They could if they want to, but they do not have to. What we are talking about is the mundane issue of whether or not the state is going to extend the same secular benefits to gay couples as it does to heterosexual couples. That's it.

Point three, it bugs me to see such a large amount of people get amped up about punishing a group of folks whose only "sin" is their sexual status. Fine, I'll grant that homosexuality is wrong. But why? What harm does it cause? Gay people I know seem perfectly happy and no more likely to be law breakers than anyone else. Even if being gay is wrong, the reaction to it is way out of proportion to whatever harm it may cause.

Point four, these laws deny gay people a lot of benefits. In Baker v. State, the Vermont Supreme Court held that excluding gay people from marital benefits violated that state's constitution. The court included this list of benefits typically provided to married people:

While the laws relating to marriage have undergone many changes during the last century, largely toward the goal of equalizing the status of husbands and wives, the benefits of marriage have not diminished in value. On the contrary, the benefits and protections incident to a marriage license under Vermont law have never been greater. They include, for example, the right to receive a portion of the estate of a spouse who dies intestate and protection against disinheritance through elective share provisions, under 14 V.S.A. § 401-404, 551; preference in being appointed as the personal representative of a spouse who dies intestate, under 14 V.S.A. § 903; the right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a spouse, under 14 V.S.A. § 1492; the right to bring an action for loss of consortium, under 12 V.S.A. § 5431; the right to workers' compensation survivor benefits under 21 V.S.A. § 632; the right to spousal benefits statutorily guaranteed to public employees, including health, life, disability, and accident insurance, under 3 V.S.A. § 631; the opportunity to be covered as a spouse under group life insurance policies issued to an employee, under 8 V.S.A. § 3811; the opportunity to be covered as the insured's spouse under an individual health insurance policy, under 8
V.S.A. § 4063; the right to claim an evidentiary privilege for marital communications, under V.R.E. 504; homestead rights and protections, under 27 V.S.A. §§ 105-108, 141-142; the presumption of joint ownership of property and the concomitant right of survivorship, under 27 V.S.A. § 2; hospital visitation and other rights incident to the medical treatment of a family member, under 18 V.S.A. § 1852; and the right to receive, and the obligation to provide, spousal support, maintenance, and property division in the event of separation or divorce, under 15 V.S.A. §§ 751-752. Other courts and commentators have noted the collection of rights, powers, privileges, and responsibilities triggered by marriage. See generally Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 59 (Haw. 1993); D. Chambers, What If? The Legal Consequences of Marriage and the Legal Needs of Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 95 Mich. L.Rev. 447, passim; J. Robbenolt & M. Johnson, Legal Planning for UnmarriedCommitted Parties: Empirical Lessons for a Preventive and Therapeutic Approach, 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 417, passim (1999); J. Trosino, American Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Miscegenation Analogy, 73 B.U.L. Rev. 93, 96 (1993).

While other statutes could be added to this list, the point is clear. The legal benefits and protections flowing from a marriage license are of such significance that any statutory exclusion must necessarily be grounded on public concerns of sufficient weight, cogency, and authority that the justice of the deprivation cannot seriously be questioned.

The concerns of the anti-gay marriage crowd are of no weight, cogency, and non-religous authority. They serve no purpose other than to tell a large segment of society that they are unwelcome for no reason other than that the majority thinks the excluded members are gross. Imho, these laws are unjust and stupid.

New Ammunition For The Moore-Ons

2006-05-17T06:27:00.000-07:00

The stampede-like sound you hear is all the Alabama political candidates charging forward, hoping to be the first to tell you how important it is to pass our constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Why the renewed vigor? Because some god-hating judge in Georgia just struck down their equally stupid amendment.

How can a court strike down a constitutional amendment? Wasn't the whole point of the amendment to protect us and our fragile families from the tyranny of these gay-loving immoral judges?

The answer to the latter question is yes. As for the former, we underestimated their power. These wizards of wickedness cannot be controlled by mere laws. Like Mini-Moore says, judges don't have to follow laws they do not like. They rule with unchecked power (like Dubya). Their goal is to make us all just like them - godless, hopeless, evil monsters.

O.K. I'm exaggerating. In truth, it turns out the people who drafted the amendment are as dumb as its content. From the news reports, it appears Georgia has a rule limiting amendment ballots to one subject. The authors of this ballot included three subjects: No gay marriage; no civil unions; and something to do with state courts powers to settle disputes between a gay couple. 3>1, therefore the ballot was unlawful.

So Georgia has two counter-arguments. First, that because most Georgians dislike gay people, silly things like the law don't matter. Two, this is one subject: We do not like gay people. I guess the judge rejected both. Therefore, obviously, she is evil.

Kathy has more on the ruling at Birmingham Blues. If I find a copy of the opinion I'll post it later. I should also say that my conclusions may change when I read the opinion; reporters sometimes miss key issues. For now, though, I'm waiting to see who will be the first Alabama candidate to run with this. My money is on Mini-Moore.

It's Almost Here

2006-05-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

The absolute, no doubt about it, coolest event in B'ham, if not all of Alabama: Do Dah Day!

It's this Saturday, along Highland Avenue, from Rhodes Park to Caldwell Park. Beer, bands, tens of thousands of people and, more importantly, tens of thousands of dogs. Big dogs and small dogs; fat dogs and skinny dogs; long hair dogs and short hair dogs; show dogs and dogs of uncertain ancestry; smelly dogs and, well, uh, more smelly dogs. Even a parade of dogs.

The whole thing is a big party to raise money for the Humane Society and the Friends of Cats and Dogs Foundation. There is just nothing like it. Wherever you are, the drive is worth it, especially if you have a dog.

The Aladawg wholeheartedly agrees.

Let There Be Rock!

2006-05-16T12:19:00.000-07:00

No more serious stuff today. Nothing else about wiretaps, illegal aliens or wiretapping illegal aliens. Though I will note that Bell South is denying they rolled over. This does not change my general opinion of Bell South.

That said, here is the substance of this post: The new Drive By Truckers album - A Blessing and a Curse - rocks as nothing has rocked before.

If you are not familiar with DBT, they are sort of like the rock music version of a Larry Brown novel. Both Larry Brown and DBT are the best way to counter the pseudo-south seen on Turner South, or described in Southern Living. None of the characters are pretty, but if you live here long enough, you know them. If you are from the South, you are related to some of them. And you know what else? There is plenty to admire about them. I'll let the Truckers describe them.

A guy who vows to get it all together, but wakes up to find this:

The car was in the carport sideways
Big dent running down the side
Never seen anything as frightening
As when I took a look inside
Smell of musk and deception
Heel marks on the roof line
Bad music on the stereo
All the seats in recline

Or, from Southern Rock Opera, a description of the internal conflict felt by all reflective southerners:

Now Ronnie and Neil became good friends their feud was just in song
Skynyrd was a bunch of Neil Young fans and Neil he loved that song
So He wrote "Powderfinger" for Skynyrd to record
But Ronnie ended up singing "Sweet Home Alabama" to the lord

And Neil helped carry Ronnie in his casket to the ground
And to my way of thinking, us southern men need both of them around

Or my personal favorite, from Decoration Day, words from a man who may belong to the lower classes, but who has more dignity than most:

Well, I used to go out in a Mustang, a 302 Mach One in green.
Me and your Mama made you in the back and I sold it to buy her a ring.
And I learned not to say much of nothing and I figured you already know
but in case you don't or maybe forgot, I'll lay it out real nice and slow

Don't call what your wearing an outfit. Don't ever say your car is broke.
Don't worry about losing your accent, a Southern Man tells better jokes.
Have fun but stay clear of the needle. Call home on your sister's birthday.
Don't tell them you're bigger than Jesus, don't give it away.

It's a great album. They are in town on June 28, but at Oak Mountain Amphitheatre as openers for the Black Crowes. No way to avoid the crappy venue, but you could always cut out after DBT is done. Otherwise, they have a tradition of playing at the Alabama Theatre - a fantastic place for concerts, movies, or whatever - with the North Mississippi All Stars on the day after Thanksgiving.

Oh, Now I Understand

2006-05-16T10:36:00.000-07:00

If you have ever wondered what classes are like in law school, or why attorneys are the way we are, go read this discussion on Concurring Opinions.

I enjoyed law school, and classes like that discussion were a big reason why.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

2006-05-16T06:44:00.000-07:00

In other words, Democratic A.G. hopeful Larry Darby's "A" to the Montgomery Advertiser's "Q" speaks for itself (but that won't keep me from commenting on it).

The question: "What do you see as the biggest issue facing the state that the attorney general can have an impact on, and how would you address it if elected. Please explain why."

The answer:

To stop the Mexican invasion I will ask the governor to declare martial law for the purpose of using either the de-federalized National Guard troops or the activated Alabama State Defense Force.

County sheriffs and a revitalized community-based constabulary will be the first defenders used to ferret out Mexican invaders already present in Alabama. Mestizos will be treated as prisoners of war and escorted to exit points.

Forces at work in Alabama that have actively promoted open borders in the United States caused this crisis affecting all Southern states. I will declare the Southern Poverty Law Center Alabama's Public Enemy No. 1 and launch a probe into its activities since its inception with a purpose of emptying its coffers, estimated in 2005 at $193 million, and running them out of Alabama.

Major Alabama newspapers owned by foreign corporations appear complicit in treason against Alabama, as are the owners and management of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Reporters and editors continuously write articles promoting foreign and subversive ideologies that over the decades have distorted perceptions of Alabama in other parts of the United States and the world. The Code of Alabama provides for prosecution against defamation, fraud and harassment. Foreign corporations who act to dumb-down or mislead Alabamians will be scrutinized for violations of criminal and civil laws.

How many different unconstitutional activities is he advocating? Lets see. For starters, states do not have the power to throw people out of the country. States cannot declare war. Suing only the foreign corporations probably violates the commerce clause. Targeting the SPLC based on their advocacy would be a First Amendment violation. Attacking news papers because they promote "ideologies" would also violate the First Amendment. But hey, why would the Attorney General care about the law?

Especially considering the current invasion. I mean, we are in a war here; times are desperate. Just last night, in fact, I decided to watch a movie. As I settled down, pizza in one hand, beer in the other, a.c. blowing coolly through the room, do you know what happened? I had to suffer the indignity of seeing the FBI anti-piracy warning TWICE! Once in English, and then again in some demonic foreign tongue! Can you believe that. It's outrageous, just outrageous. Desperate times call for desperate men like ~~Jeff Sessions~~, er, I mean ~~John Gilchrist~~, oh, geez, uh, Larry Darby.

Be sure to read the rest of the Q&A, it only gets better. (Update: Bama Blog has a great collection of what various in and out of state bloggers have to say about Darby. Yet another wonderful ambassador for our state. sigh.).

Land For Sale - Cheap!

2006-05-16T05:48:00.000-07:00

In Mexico, and plenty of other places. It will be soon, anyway, because Sen. Jeff Sessions warns us:

Immigration legislation pending in the U.S. Senate would increase the number of legal immigrants by at least 79 million and possibly as much as 217 million over the next 20 years,

Lets assume the larger number is accurate, and work our way South. Mexico has a population of 107 million; Guatemala 12 million; Belize a quarter million; and Honduras 7.5 million. That is what, about 127 million? So where are the other 90 million coming from?

Lets look north. Canada's population is 33 million, so that gets us to 160; we still need another 57 million people.

Lets see, who has that many? Oh yeah, Italy has 58 million people.

In sum, according to Jeff Sessions, the latest immigration bill will cause the entire populations of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Canada, and Italy to leave their country and enter the United States.

Good to know our Senator is making decisions based on facts and reason, rather than passions and nativism.

Republicans United

2006-05-15T14:21:00.000-07:00

Against those nasty ol' illegals:

Republican Gov. Bob Riley and his opponent, former Chief Justice Roy Moore, voiced support Monday for President Bush's plan to use the National Guard along the Mexican border. "If we'd done this years ago, we'd have put a stop to illegal immigration," Riley said. . . .

Moore, who faces Riley in the Republican primary on June 6, has been critical of Bush's handling of the illegal immigration issue, but now thinks he's waking up to the problem. "I'm glad he's suddenly realizing the policy we've been pursuing the last five or six years has been detrimental to our society," he said. Moore, who spent five years in the active Army and one year in the Reserves, believes the Guard can handle the extra responsibility.

"It is the duty of the federal government to defend our borders from an invasion, whether it's a foreign army or a foreign nationality," Moore said.

Yes, the threat presented by people who want to come here and work to support their families is sooooo much more important than anything else the Guard might have to do:

U.S. military troops with severe psychological problems have been sent to Iraq or kept in combat, even when superiors have been aware of signs of mental illness, a newspaper reported for Sunday editions. . . .

The Army’s top mental health expert, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, acknowledged that some deployment practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome back into combat, have been driven in part by a troop shortage.

So on the one hand you have the health and safety of our troops in Iraq, while on the other you have the need to ~~secure the border~~ get re-elected. Who do you think is gonna lose that battle?

Go Ahead And Track My Phone Calls

2006-05-15T11:46:00.000-07:00

It's fine, really, because I know the information is only used for catching the terrorists. No-one would ever misuse any of this information. Certainly no one in this administration would ever think about using the phone records to snoop on reporters.

And don't forget, as Andrew Sullivan reminds us today, to keep this in perspective:

"One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this [NSA] meta-data-[gathering] is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others, extradite you to a Third World country to be tortured, ship you to a secret prison facility in Eastern Europe, or all of the above. If, having kidnapped and tortured you, the administration determines you were innocent after all, you'll be dumped without papers somewhere in Albania left to fend for yourself."

Executing The Innocent?

2006-05-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

Bob Blalock asks why the state won't take innocence claims seriously. (h/t Captain Bama). The case of Anthony Ray Hinton, which I posted about here, brought the question to mind.

Blalock is correct when he says

I cannot know with certainty Hinton didn't pull the trigger of his mother's rusted, pitted .38-special and murder two fast-food restaurant employees and shoot another, who identified Hinton as his attacker. But it's hard to believe Hinton is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - the standard the law requires.

The only evidence linking Hinton to the murders (the identification was by an assault victim at another location) was testimony by the state's expert that the bullets that killed the victims were fired from a gun owned by Hinton. At trial Hinton offered his own expert, who contradicted the state's. Hinton also provided an Alibi: He was at work during the time the crime occurred. The jury accepted the state's version of the facts and convicted Hinton.

Now, though, he has three new experts who all reject the state's conclusions about the bullets. These guys are top notch. Hinton's trial expert wasn't worth shooting. He had no credentials and the state made him look like a charlatan to the jury.

The problem now is that Hinton has not offered 'new' evidence. He already presented evidence that the bullets did not match the gun. Now he is simply offering a stronger version of his previous argument. You are not allowed to do that, and the reason is obvious. Every attorney after arguing a case thinks of all sorts of ways they could have done it better: Different questions to ask; another witness to call; objections they could have made. If strengthening your case got you a new trial, no trial would ever end.

So that is why the state is not taking the innocence claim seriously. To the state it is just the moanings of a sore loser.

But should concerns for procedural finality outweigh concerns about life? Anyone who has taken a capital case through the appellate process knows that most of the issues are resolved, like Hinton's, not on the merits but by procedural rules. Procedural rules are important, and their importance is why we uphold them even when they occasionally create an unjust result. That is acceptable in civil cases, when the only cost is money, and even in normal criminal cases when the defendant will end up in jail. But what about when the unjust result is death? Of course life ought to trump procedures.

Unfortunately, I do not know if there is a good way to resolve the occasional conflict between procedures and justice. We live with the collateral costs of procedural rules in the civil and non-capital areas, but the cost here is a man's life. Maybe the answer is to just get rid of the death penalty. I have no problem with the assertion that some crimes deserve death. The issue is how to decide which ones. Hinton's case is one of many examples of just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to resolve that issue.

Even A Blind Hog Occasionally Finds An Acorn

2006-05-15T06:18:00.000-07:00

The B'ham News has this story:

Republican candidates running for Jefferson County Commission have been asked to sign a pledge to vote only for a Republican candidate for commission president.

County Republicans want to remove Larry Langford from his leadership position and undo some of the initiatives he has pushed in recent years, including a 1 cent sales tax for school construction.

I certainly admire the goal of the pledge. But I have to agree with Langford, when he questions the wisdom of swearing loyalty to an unknown candidate:

"Even if we knew the person was a certified, card-carrying idiot, they would still support them because the party mandates it," Langford said. "If I were the Republican Party, I wouldn't want the world to know that I stooped to that level."

These types of pledges can cause a lot of trouble. If the eventual candidate is not the best qualified for the job, then the pledge signer has to either betray his pledge or vote against the best interests of the community. Thus, it is best to wait and make a decision after all the facts are available.

Of course Langford himself almost guarantees that dilemma won't arise in this situation. It would be tough to find anyone who is a bigger idiot than he is.

Happy Mother's Day

2006-05-14T08:07:00.001-07:00

Two points here.

One, to anyone who may conclude from my putting that photo in the last post that I had no upbringin', let me assure you my mother did her best to raise me with better manners than that. Unfortunately, she was limited by the material with which she had to work. So don't blame her, my faults are my own.

Two, on the importance of mothers, I offer an illustration. At the end of mass this morning, the priest asked all the mothers to come to the front for a blessing. To that point, all was calm. As the mothers got up and walked forward, however, like a chorus arose the various cries. Some were just "waaaaaaa" others were distinctly "momyyyyyyyyy" but all were very upset that their mom had departed.

Say Goodbye To Bell South

2006-05-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

Alabamians can use Qwest for long distance at least. Sign up with Total Call International.

I am almost certain they are a subsidiary of Qwest. We use Total Call for long distance, and the Bell South bill says "QWEST COMMUNICATIONS" for long distance. Qwest's respect for your privacy plus four cents per minute charges equals a big ol' single digit salute for Bell South and the NSA.

Sure, this post may have me singing the the Folsom Prison Blues from Gitmo (see below) but helping you all fight the good fight is worth it.

Viva La Resistance!

Do Not Sign Up With Qwest!

2006-05-13T09:20:00.000-07:00

Unless you want to end up in Gitmo, that is.

"Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" was excellent this morning, Tom Hanks was the celebrity guest for Not My Job, and everyone was very witty. Roy Blount Jr., for example, asked Hanks about his role in the soon to be released Da Vinci Code movie: "Did you contact Satan directly, or did his people call your people?" And there was no shortage of material, with the week's news including Dubya's Iranian pen pal, and and also Patrick Kennedy.

But, the most important part of the show was Paula Poundstone unraveling the whole NSA scandal. It is simple, really. First, all the phone companies except Qwest turned over our calling records to the feds. So Qwest is the only company whose customers can expect that their calling records will remain private. Second, terrorists want their calls to be private. Therefore, if you want your calls to be private, you are a terrorist.

Do you see it yet? It's obvious. This is a big sting operation. Qwest is the only company that keeps our calls private, so anyone who now signs up with Qwest must be a terrorist. The feds just have to sit back and wait for the new customers/terrorists to call. They probably have undercover agents working in customer service, or new accounts, waiting for you.

Thanks to Paula, though, we won't be caught in the sting. Keeping its listeners out of Gitmo, one more reason to listen to what is always a great program.

(Update: Oh m' gosh, I just realized something. Paula has published important national security secrets! Thanks to her the whole sting operation is now worthless! So she is going to Gitmo. And me as well, for spreading the information? And you, for reading this? Good heavens, what a mess. Well, if you don't hear from me for a while, you know why.)

Hey, Remember Earlier This Week

2006-05-12T12:00:00.000-07:00

When the Minutemen came through B'ham to oppose illegal immigration? You remember how they assured us that they did not welcome racists? And how they were motivate by a desire to uphold the law?

Well guess what? John Gilchrist, the leader of the border patrolling militia, is on record saying South Dakota should ignore any court order striking down its anti-abortion law.

So he will make exceptions to the rule of law, just not for illegal immigrants. He says states should ignore the Supreme Court in order to protect what some would say is not even a human life. But there is no mercy for those nasty ol' immigrants, who come here to protect and support actual walking, talking, living-outside-the-womb humans.

Gilchrist may have a reason for his hardness of heart, but it is not concern for the rule of law.

Domestic Spying Update

2006-05-12T10:12:00.000-07:00

WaPo has a poll on it. Some of the results:

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

This almost caused me to post about how far the mighty have fallen. No longer do we cry "liberty or death!", but now we whine "save us oh King, please keep us safe, we'll give you anything, just comfort us please." But, if you check out the entire poll, you can see a definite trend away from that type of thinking. Four years ago 65% of folks thought the government was doing enough to protect liberty as it sought to fight terrorism. Now that number is 53%. So maybe people are waking up.

Then again, there was this:

By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

Almost half those polled think the media should NOT have released the story?! There are some situations where secrecy may be needed, this is not one of them. What harm is going to come from the story? Maybe some people change phone companies? How will releasing it hinder the real terrorist investigations? Are they all going to stop using the phone now? Maybe we are in trouble.

For a good discussion of why we needed this story, and why the government - be it Republican controlled or Democrat controlled - should not be tracking our phone calls, read this post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Finally, whatever our views may be on the wisdom of the policy, lets not confuse the legal issue with the policy issue. People may support the spying, and the spying may be helpful, but those points are irrelevant to the question of its legality.

This Is Too Funny

2006-05-12T09:54:00.000-07:00

Politics In Alabama (this one, not this one) reports:

The courtroom isn’t the only place the action is taking place in the trial of former Gov. Don Siegelman. The outcome of Siegelman’s trial is being offered as a betting option on one of the world’s largest betting sites, www.bodog.com. People can bet up to $100 whether Siegelman will be found guilty of one of several charges brought against him - bribery, extortion, obstructing justice, fraud or racketeering.

How about bets on which state has this year’s most entertaining elections?

(Btw, Politics In Alabama – both of them – are great blogs, maybe they should join forces, seeing as how they gots the same name and stuff.)

The Power Of Understatement

2006-05-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

After listening to Mini-Moore bloviate yesterday at the Montgomery Republican Club about Chief Justice Nabers's radical judicial philosophy and secret desire to turn Alabama into a communist empire, Justice Nabers responded:

Nabers agreed with Parker that the two men have fundamental differences. Chief among them, Nabers said, is, "I believe in working hard and I believe in the rule of law."

Oooh, sometimes less is more.

Domestic Spying Update

2006-05-12T06:39:00.000-07:00

Prof. Orin Kerr has a preliminary legal analysis of the latest NSA program here, and here. Tentative conclusion: The Constitution is not implicated, but the program violates several statutes. I have two questions:

One, how about a class action suit against the companies who unlawfully released our information?

Two, Jeff Sessions has strongly opposed amnesty for illegal aliens. The reason? He says "The American people are counting on us to secure our borders and restore the rule of law to our immigration system." O.K., Beauregard, here is your chance to prove that reason is more than just a smokescreen. We have good reason to think both the administration and the telecom companies willfully broke the law. Are you going to meaningfully investigate it? Or just blow it off? If you choose the latter, than what is the real reason you oppose amnesty?

Oh Snap!

2006-05-11T19:10:00.000-07:00

Tonight was the season finale for My Name is Earl and for The Office. These shows are both great, and tonight did not disappoint.

I won't ruin it if you have not watched yet. Suffice it to say Earl had a real test of faith. And The Office, oh my, Jim, what is next? Not since "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" has a show ended on such a suspenseful note.

Really, I love both these shows. Dwight from the office and trailer park queen Joy from Earl are right up there with Homer Simpson and Ren Hoek in my list of greatest t.v. characters. Earl's theology may be ambiguous, but his determination is clear. And Michael from Dunder Mifflin, what can you say but bless his heart, which, as my mom would explain, is southern for 'you stupid idiot.'

Now we must endure the t.v. wasteland until the fall when our shows (and college football) return.

We Have An Answer

2006-05-11T15:48:00.000-07:00

I asked in the previous post "Who Will Fight For Our Rights?" Well, (as if you need me to tell you this) it won't be Alabama's own Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III. The spineless one had this to say today:

"It's not a wiretapping program, it's simply a compilation, according to the report here, of numbers that phone companies maintain,"

And because he is on record saying our concerns about wiretapping were silly, that means he is going to dismiss this as well. Way to fight Senator, you make us all proud. Wussie.

Who Will Fight For Our Rights?

2006-05-11T13:13:00.000-07:00

As we all know by now, King George has been assembling a database of all of our telephone calls. The phone companies, with one lone dissenter, willingly complied. But don't worry about your silly privacy, the King assures us the program is focused solely on terrorists.

First, Qwest, the lone dissenter, wins the steel spine award for telling the King's minions to buzz off. They did what all red blooded Americans would have done - told the soldiers if they wanted the information, they would need a warrant. The King did not get a warrant, so Qwest did not turn over the information. From the USA Today story (with my comments bracketed and in bold):

Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said. The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side [What kind of doublespeak is this? Patriotism means enabling the government in its attempts to stick its big nose into every single American's home? Holy police state Batman, we are in it deep]: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. [How nice, the feds are deciding how to spend our money not based on the competence of the company, but on whether that company is willing to rat out its customers. This is called bribery: The feds are telling the company that if it wants the contract (the quid) it must hand over the callers (the pro quo).] Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," ["We can't go to the court because they might do something unPatriotic, like apply the law to the executive branch. But we all know if the King orders it, it must be legal. So come on, how 'bout it?"] one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. [How bad must this be if they did not think Osama Bin Ashcroft would approve?] A second person confirmed this version of events.

Do I need to tell you who you should do business with in the future? How do we get these guys in Alabama?

Second, when King George tells you he is focused only on terrorists, remember what sort of facts his kind think indicate terrorist activity:

Focused and committed
Team-oriented and disciplined
Familiar with their physical environments
Employ a variety of vehicles and communicate by cell phone, email, or text messaging
Try not to draw attention to themselves
Look like students, tourists, or businesspersons
Travel in a mixed group of men, women, and children
Avoid confrontations with law enforcement
Use disguises or undergo cosmetic surgery

Do you know anyone who does NOT meet at least two or three of these criteria? Don't forget that if they do decide you are a threat, you get arrested and sent to prison. Maybe tortured. But no lawyer, no trial, no due process, those things would threaten national security.

Do you feel safe knowing the government is tracking all your calls and using criteria like this to determine whether or not you are a terrorist?

Oops.

2006-05-11T11:50:00.000-07:00

Kathy at Birmingham Blues reports that in the last election Mini-Moore somehow forgot to include $100,000.00 worth of contributions from three trial lawyer groups.

Things were already not looking good for Mini-Moore. He recently abandoned the only plank in his platform. He has failed to do his job. His fellow justices dislike him. As pointed out by an astute commentator to this post, at least one of the clones opposes him.

And now the Christian Coalition has even more evidence supporting its opposition to Mini-Moore.

The Justices on the current court do not like him, his fellow Moore clones don't support him, he has abandoned his message, the Christian Coalition is urging Christians to oppose him. Meanwhile he is taking money from those demonic trial lawyers.

Will Mini-Moore next be turning to the ACLU for support?

Tort Reform

2006-05-11T07:34:00.000-07:00

Is in the news this morning. First, from the B’ham News:

The U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2006 Report, to be released today by the California-based Pacific Research Institute, divides states into three groups of saints, sinners and salvageable. The report characterizes Alabama as among the "sinners" states that are predicted to fall in its ranking or stay at the bottom because of relatively high civil lawsuit verdicts and a failure to enact few or any comprehensive reforms.

You can get the whole study here.

The Tuscaloosa News reports on a more objective study, showing that in the med mal context “frivolous lawsuits” are really not a problem:

Many of the lawsuits analyzed contained no evidence that a medical error was committed or that the patient suffered any injury, the researchers reported.

The vast majority of those dubious cases were dismissed with no payout to the patient. However, groundless lawsuits still accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.

The study’s lead researcher, David Studdert of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings challenge the view among tort reform supporters that the legal system is riddled with frivolous claims that lead to exorbitant payouts.

The Harvard report is a big reason why we all ought to ignore groups like PRI who cry about lawsuit abuse. The system already has plenty of ways to screen out worthless cases. First, you have to actually state a claim. Then you have to convince the judge you have some evidence to prove the claim. Only after clearing these two hurdles do you get to a jury. After presenting the case, but before the jury makes its decision, the judge again gets to decide whether or not you have submitted enough evidence. Then the jury makes its decision. Next the judge decides whether the decision will stand or not. Finally you make your way through Alabama’s Big Business friendly appellate courts. Only after all of that do you get to see a dime.

All of this costs money and time, which is another barrier. No attorney is going to take the case unless she thinks it has a decent shot of giving her a return. A good attorney will also warn the client that this is an expensive and long-lasting process. If the case does not have merit, it makes no sense to bring it.

These financial costs and legal barriers more than sufficiently weed out meritless cases. What remains are arguable cases. Me, I think a group of people who represent the community are the best people to settle that argument. That is, I trust juries to make good decisions. They hear the facts of each case and make their decision based on those facts. They are white people and black people, republicans, democrats and independants, professionals and laborers, men and women. Appellate courts, legislators, and ‘think tanks’ are ususally pretty homogenous and always far removed from the facts.

If you go to the hospital for an operation, and the doctor removes the wrong organ, who is in the best position to decide the value of your pain? Some pro-business group in California? Or twelve of your ~~pears~~ peers (Yeah, I'm a collij graduate, so what about it?) who sat in the courtroom and heard all the evidence? I'll take the latter option.

Moore Backpedalling

2006-05-10T14:35:00.000-07:00

First the clones started to back away from their claim that they do not have to obey the law.

Now the original has started to change his views. According to Dr. I.Q., Moore now supports initiative and referendum. Apparently he no longer thinks voters are too stupid to govern themselves.

Plenty Of Good Stuff

2006-05-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

In the Onion today, including this item:

Pro-life advocates celebrated approval of the new anti-abortion drug UR-86 by the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, calling it a "safe and effective method" for terminating pregnant women while leaving their unborn children unharmed.

Pfizer, manufacturer of UR-86 — dubbed the "last-morning-ever pill" — said the drug is intended only for occasions when the mind-set or politics of the mother threaten the life of the fetus. . . .

Randall Terry, founder of the pro-life organization Operation Rescue, praised the new pharmaceutical for its potential use in cases of rape and incest, saying it could help end the shame and humiliation of such trauma while saving the life of the fetus.

"Victims of sexual assault can feel trapped, like they've got nowhere to turn," Terry said. "Now, they can solve their deep, internal problems once and for all, without unfairly condemning their children."

(P.S. Don't draw from this post any conclusions about my views on abortion; I just thought the story was funny.)

Larry Langford Is An Idiot

2006-05-10T08:34:00.000-07:00

First, lest anyone draw from my previous couple of posts the conclusion that I am one of those obnoxious types who thinks all criticism of minorities springs from racism, I write the current post.

Now, forget the Mohammed cartoons, the B'ham News has committed an even greater sin. On the fourth of May, they published this:

The two local officials in the cartoon are B'ham Mayor Bernard Kincaid and JeffCo Commissioner Larry Langford. How does Langford respond to this impugning of his competence? By explaining the procedures he and Mayor Kincaid have developed for dealing with a bird flu outbreak? By assuring us they are capable and ready for the problem? Oh no. Instead, He says the cartoon was

the most "racist and distasteful" work of art he's ever seen.

Alright, I was not totally fair, he did explain his plans for dealing with any pandemics:

"As opposed to worrying about who would lead you in the event of a pandemic, what they need to do is pray to God that if one happens, he spares you."

Now, based on Larry's reactions to the cartoon - crying racism and telling us that God might protect us from the bird flue - can you think of any reasons other than race that the author might have worried about Larry's ability to lead this county? If you want some more evidence of the Commissioner's incompetence, read about some of his previous work here.

Black or white, Langford is exactly what the cartoon portrays him as: A petty, loudmouthed, opinionated, finger-pointing incompetent local official. Langford is correct on one thing, though. God will have to save us if Larry Langford is responsible for handling any local pandemic.