Truth, Justice & Peace

Happy Halloween

2009-10-31T20:06:00.003-04:00

"Rambling Rogue"
Gone . . .
But not forgotten!!

* * *
Trick or Treat,
You betcha!!

Cartoon of the Day

2009-09-07T07:06:00.002-04:00

Presumed Guilty

2009-09-07T05:20:00.000-04:00

On several occasions, I found myself putting down my book -- The Innocent Man by John Grisham -- and shaking my head, declaring that the story was just too outlandish. Who would ever believe such a ridiculous tale, I mumbled? If this had been a novel, it certainly would have been panned for being unbelievable.

Yet the miscarriage of justice not only happened, it was compounded over and over during the course of the history of this case that spanned almost a dozen years.

The Innocent Man is Grisham's version of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. As noted in the Washington Post review:

Many wild and crazy things take place in the 15 novels John Grisham has published about the law and those who play fast and loose with it, but, as he says, "not in my most creative moment could I conjure up a story as rich and as layered" as the one he tells in The Innocent Man. It is nonfiction, a detailed examination of the story of Ronald Keith Williamson, who was wrongfully convicted of a murder in 1988 and who was saved from death by lethal injection only through the intervention of men and women who believed in his innocence and were able to obtain the DNA report that cleared him.

I decided to read Grisham's book after following the Troy Davis case, the Georgia man whose conviction for killing a policemen has been called into question. See Death is Final. In fact, the Supreme Court recently took the unusual step of ordering a hearing into Davis' Claims of Innocence.

Like me, Hilde of wrongful-convictions just finished the book and our opinion of the book is similar:

The book tells the story of Ron Williamson of tiny Ada, Oklahoma. A washed-up minor league baseball player with delusions of grandeur, Williamson was a somewhat unpleasant character who is eventually convicted of murder and sentenced to death because of shoddy police work, tunnel vision, lackluster defense counsel, forensic fraud, and the abject failure of the court to ensure a fair trail. The book could read as a Cliff’s Notes guide to wrongful convictions if it could be boiled down to 10 pages, but that would do it an injustice.

The book’s reputation proceeds it, and it lives up to every word of the praise that has been heaped on it since it was published three years ago. “Meticulously researched,” is a common refrain among reviewers, and they’re dead on. I found it hard to believe, at times, that Grisham was intricately describing reality – dozens of interviews, thousands of pages of documents – rather than crafting a world of his own: his creation is so complete as to be completely engulfing.

Death penalty proponents argue that the system is fair and prevents an innocent person being put to death. However, cases like Williamson's make a mockery of those claims. Another case was detailed in the current issue of the New Yorker, where it is likely that the man put to death for a fire that killed his children was not arson, as had been claimed by the "experts" who testified at trial. See Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty.

Unfortunately, despite the so-called presumption of innocence in a criminal case, many of those involved in the criminal justice system do not share that belief. Too often, "gut feelings" and biases are involved in the process. The arrogant and dogmatic personality of many prosecutors and officers does not allow them to deviate from the course they are following once they have focused on a suspect, despite indications to the contrary. Naturally, this generalization does not apply across the spectrum, but it happens often enough to be a serious problem -- especially when liberty and life is at stake. As Hilde observes:

And so continues the portrait of America’s criminal justice system that Grisham paints: full of unintentional yet overwhelming absurdity, laced with vengeance, spite, dehumanization, and utterly confusing and overwhelming for whomever should become ensnarled in the maelstrom.

Except for the cruel & hard-hearted, such as some of the very characters that were involved in the prosecution of the case highlighted in the book, this true story of a wrongful conviction in a small town in Oklahoma should be used to establish that the death penalty is too risky for a civilized nation to use. Last I checked, the US is still on the list of civilized countries.

Nineteenth on Grisham’s list of publications, the book aligns with Grisham’s well-known theme of legal drama but takes one major detour from his past work: it is nonfiction. The project forced Grisham to take a hard look at a troubled system in which the consequences of a lost court case are all too real.

“Even if you support the death penalty, you cannot support the death penalty system as it stands in the U.S.,” Grisham said. “My one hope is that people realize this system we have is simply too unfair to continue.”

From a summary of the book at speech at University of Virginia School of Law, Author John Grisham Finds Troubled Story Behind “Innocent Man”.

As Jonathan Yardley said in his Washington Post piece:

The bizarre twists and turns of this case are exceeded only by the calculated efforts by law-enforcement officers to warp and abuse the law to their own ends. Perhaps it really was the passionate conviction of the cops and the prosecutor that Williamson and Fritz murdered Debbie Carter, but what they did to win their convictions made a mockery of justice. They ignored clear evidence of Williamson's mental incompetence, they suppressed a tape recording that probably would have cleared Williamson, they sought out and employed snitches. The convictions they got were wrongful in the moral as well as the legal sense of the word, but, as Grisham says, "until the system is fixed, it could happen to anyone."

For more on Dennis Fritz, who was wrongfully convicted with Ron Williamson, see Barbara's Journey Toward Justice.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-09-06T19:04:00.000-04:00

John Cole, TheTimes-Tribune

The Persistent Pant-a-Loon Pearson

2009-09-05T06:45:00.003-04:00

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Of course, this maxim wasn't necessarily meant to apply as a litigation strategy, but apparently Roy Pearson didn't quite make the connection.

Pearson was an ALJ in DC, who first sued his dry cleaners over a lost pair of pants, then sued over the job he lost because he sued over the pair of pants. I've followed his saga for some time, gleefully chronicling his tale of legal woes. See Never Can Say Goodbye.

As Lowering the Bar explains the latest loss, in Judge Who Lost Pants Loses Another Suit:

It seems that our old friend Roy L. Pearson, Jr., he of the $65 million pants, has recovered sufficiently from losing that case to get on with losing another one. This one was a wrongful-termination lawsuit against the District of Columbia, his former boss (Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler), and other alleged miscreants.

As the Boston Globe reports, Judge who sued over lost pants loses bid to keep job:

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by Roy L. Pearson Jr., the former District of Columbia judge whose previous $54 million lawsuit against a dry-cleaning business generated international headlines.
Pearson filed the later suit in May 2008, alleging that the District of Columbia government broke the law in refusing to reappoint him to a 10-year term as an administrative law judge. The decision came after news reports about Pearson’s lawsuit against Custom Cleaners, which he said had misplaced a pair of his pants.
The district’s Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges cited Pearson’s temperament and prudence on the bench in not giving him the job.

Once again, Pearson was left holding his pants. The Court rejected his retaliation claim:

In a 37-page opinion issued last Thursday, US District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle rejected all of Pearson’s arguments. She called Pearson’s lawsuit against Custom Cleaners a “personal vendetta.’’

No wrongful termination here, said the Judge, The Pants Lawsuit: Still Not Over:

But the federal court was not buying it. Retaliation claims are only viable where an employee has been disciplined or fired for so-called "protected speech." To succeed in his case, Pearson would have to show that his speech (the pants lawsuit) involved a matter of public concern. The fact that he sued in part to compel enforcement of D.C.'s consumer-protection laws (going so far as to characterize himself as a "private attorney general" for doing so) did not impress the judge.

Looks like we won't have Pearson around to mock for much longer. But there's always someone new to fill the spot.

Speaking of lawyers behaving badly, a receptionist has sued her former law firm -- an employment law firm -- claiming that they wouldn't let her take a potty break. Her revenge: she wants to relieve the firm of some money for not letting her relieve herself. Claiming that she was fired for complaining about the lack of breaks, she's asking for $1.59M in damages, no less.

As the Washington Business Journal reports, Former receptionist sues Littler Mendelson over bathroom breaks:

Enter Rebecca Landrith, the now-former receptionist in the McLean office of employment law giant Littler Mendelson PC.

According to the July 27 lawsuit the receptionist filed — with no help from a lawyer — Littler provided no substitute receptionist, and “had no consistent policy or procedure as to when or how Landrith could take a restroom break.”

Need we go on? Oh, if we must. “Impromptu requests” for cover by employees — like attorneys — elicited mostly resentment and condescension, she alleges.

On two separate occasions, Landrith claims, she had to “wet her pants” at the desk because nobody would, well, relieve her.

The incidents caused Landrith depression, stress, anxiety and helplessness — ergo, her claim for $1.59 million for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I think the best comment about the case came from Above the Law:

Littler is one of the leading employment law defense firms in the country. It's really not surprising that a firm well-known for 'defend[ing] many of the world's leading corporations' told this lady to leave before she dripped anything on the stationery.

I think this one may be known as the case of the Potty Potty.

As the World Turns

2009-09-03T21:03:00.002-04:00

Once again, my continual refrain that Scranton is the center of the universe proves true.

As I noted before, during the recent Presidential election, almost all of the candidates visited the Electric City or touted their ties to Scranton, from Hillary Clinton to Joe Biden. Even Obama enlisted hometown boy, Senator Bob Casey, to his side early in the campaign and made several stops there with Casey by his side.

Now that the election has receded, Scranton has still managed to stay in the news for one thing or another. The latest newsworthy item is former Bishop Joseph Martino, who recently resigned after an 8 year reign of terror in the town, as I noted the other day. See Exit, Stage Right.

One of the LLWL gang returned today from a Cape Cod vacation and mentioned that she heard the news of Martino's giving up his throne while she was at the Cape. The news traveled far and wide.

Likewise, Time Magazine has also featured the story of Martino's sudden departure from the diocese of Scranton in its latest issue. They have an interesting take on what caused Martino to suddenly step down, Bishop Martino: Too Outspoken on Abortion for Vatican?:

For suddenly departing politicians and CEOs, the standard line is to "spend time with family." Now the Catholic Church may have its own version of this unconvincing, stock answer. On Aug. 31, Joseph Martino, the controversial bishop from Scranton, Pa., stunned longtime church watchers by announcing that he was resigning his post because of problems with insomnia and fatigue.

The Catholic leader, who has gained national prominence for his outspoken pro-life advocacy and aggressive criticism of pro-choice Democratic politicians, is still more than a decade away from reaching the church's automatic retirement age of 75. Martino's abrupt resignation, along with the fact that he was not reassigned to another position within the church, has some church insiders suggesting that the highly unusual move was far from voluntary — and quite possibly the work of a Vatican that has been decidedly less openly critical of the Obama Administration.

Whether Martino is leaving willingly or not, his departure means that one very vocal critic of the Administration has lost his bully pulpit.

Time suggests that Martino's constant castigation of pro-life Scrantonian Senator Casey may have been the deciding factor in the Vatican ditching Martino, particularly since the jabs were related to Casey's support of President Obama. As the piece observes:

Building bridges has also been the public posture of the Vatican when it comes to the Obama Administration. The Vatican remained silent on Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama to speak. And although Pope Benedict XVI expressed his disappointment with Obama's support for abortion rights when the two met in July, a Vatican spokesman went out of his way to state that the Holy Father was "very impressed" by the Democratic President.

With the substantial shortage of priests in the Church these days, it has to be pretty extreme for the Vatican to permit a priest to step aside for other than a very good reason. Of course, I'm glad he's gone, whatever the reason. Friends & family have long reported that the Bishop was deeply dividing the membership within the diocese. At least now the parishioners in Scranton can now begin the healing process.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-09-03T18:41:00.001-04:00

David Fitzsimmons, Arizona Daily Star

Quote of the Day

2009-09-02T07:17:00.002-04:00

It doesn't surprise me that a recent poll . . . showed that the majority of Americans are confused when it comes to what's actually in health care reform legislation. Who can blame them? The mainstream media is spending their time glorifying political he said she said and shining a spotlight on the organized efforts by a lobbyist firm to disrupt townhalls. Maybe if they'd educate the public about what is actually in health care reform legislation the poll would yield different results. That said, I do believe most Americans would agree on one thing, our health care system does not work well unless you're rich AND healthy until the day you die.

From Sardine at Eschaton

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-31T21:17:00.001-04:00

Pat Bagley, The Salt Lake Tribune

Exit, Stage Right

2009-08-31T08:40:00.005-04:00

Shrouded by the same mystery that has surrounded his tenure, Bishop Joseph Martino has resigned as Bishop of the Diocese of Scranton after a 6 year reign of terror. See Scranton's Bishop Martino stepping down.

Rumors of his departure have been rampant for some time, but the official word from Rome came this morning. Vatican accepts Bishop Martino's resignation. As the Scranton Times reported over the week-end:

Bishop Martino's resignation at the age of 63 is unusual – it comes more than a decade before the age, 75, at which bishops must submit their resignations under canon law – and caps six years of a tumultuous tenure as head of the 11-county diocese.

Sources in the diocese say the bishop stepped down because of health reasons.

Today, Martino cited his reasons for his early retirement -- by quoting from the lyrics of Kenny Rogers' song, The Gambler, “You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them." he then aptly added, "And I think it's time to move on." In other words, as noted by Whispers in the Loggia, Calming the Waves:

Bishop Joseph Martino admitted to the assembled media that 'there has not been a clear consensus regarding [his] pastoral initiatives or way of governance' of the 350,000-member diocese following parish and school closings which, however necessary due to changing demographics, caused considerable controversy in the 11-county church.

The 63 year-old prelate said that the difficulties led to bouts of insomnia and a weakened immune system which, having taken a toll on his physical vigor, led him to submit his resignation to Pope Benedict in June, nearly a year after he first mentioned to his metropolitan that 'moving on' might be the best plan for himself and the diocese.

Of course, his critics (and there are legions of those) believe that "health reasons" is just a cover for the fact that he got the boot by the pontiff for his heavy-handed administration of the diocese. With the reign of Martino, who knows what the truth is. And with the closed world of the Catholic Church, who knows if we'll ever find out. Turns out that he tendered his resignation in June, which was accepted by the Pope in July. However, it was only disclosed after the rumors started when Martino was seen moving out of the Scranton rectory that is the home to the Bishop of Scranton.

Yet, one thing is for sure -- the resignation is very unusual. In fact, according to Clerical Whispers, "The Vatican statement it noted that the pope had accepted the resignation under a provision of church law in which a bishop due to illness or "some other grave reason, has become unsuited" to carry out his duties." So much so that, as Rocco Palmo of Whispers in the Loggia notes, Sede Vacante: "Today's move is just the third time this decade that a Stateside red-hat has been called in to oversee a local church amid emergency circumstances."

I've written about Martino many times, observing his antagonistic, combative, hostile style. Some of the highlights are chronicled in In Scranton, the Curtain Falls:

At the helm of one of the nation's most staunch, reliable bastions of Catholicism, while the kind, bookish cleric's fierce advocacy for the pro-life cause has won him fervent admiration from church conservatives nationwide, the quarter-million member Scranton church has been roiled since Martino's 2003 arrival by swaths of contentious parish and school closings, strained relations with the presbyterate, a perceived indifference to the media, clashes over the diocese's de-recognition of the local union for Catholic high school teachers (a move upheld by the Vatican) and, most famously, a steady stream of statements on politics, parades and public officials which served to draw lines in the sand in the socially conservative, heavily-Democratic area, home to both the revered Casey clan and, in his boyhood, Vice-President Joe Biden.

No doubt, Martino was brought to Scranton to handle a difficult job, to oversee the consolidation and closure of various schools and Churches in this diocese with a dwindling number of parishioners and priests. No one would have been loved after implementing those difficult changes, especially in a city as traditional as Scranton and its surrounding towns. While Martino was brought to town to be the henchman, to chop the excess, he just didn't need to be such an aloof, dictatorial in his carrying out his mandate. A bit of compassion -- need I say, empathy, would have perhaps made parishioners feel that the Church understood their pain, instead of looking like they frankly didn't give a damn.

In an excellent essay on the reign & departure of Martino, David Gibson of Politics Daily observes, Scranton Bishop Joseph Martino, Biden's Nemesis, Resigns Under Cloud:

But church insiders say Martino had also worn out his welcome with his brother bishops and the Vatican. So his resignation may be further evidence that the U.S. hierarchy is divided between moderate voices and a more strident conservative minority that is struggling in the wake of Obama's success with Catholic voters.
* * * *
The chief cause of Martino's local problems was his controversial plan in 2007 to close and consolidate Catholic schools in the diocese, which have been struggling with declining attendance, and declining donations. Closing schools is never popular, yet the need to do something is a harsh fact of life for many bishops, especially in the Northeast. But Martino's peremptory style did not help matters, and growing protests were followed by still steeper declines in church attendance and donations, a dropoff clearly exacerbated by the recession, which has ravaged the Scranton area. Then in February of this year, Martino announced that he was closing 91 of the diocese's 209 parishes, cutting the number of Catholic churches in this storied Catholic community by almost half.

But it was the presidential campaign last year that brought Martino to national prominence, and seemed to bring out the more volatile aspects of his personality.
In September, as Biden was barnstorming Pennsylvania -- the vice-president was born and baptized Catholic in Scranton before moving to Delaware later in life -- Martino declared that Biden would be denied communion if he tried to receive at a church in the Scranton diocese. "I will be truly vigilant on this point," Martino said. It was a step not even Biden's own bishop in Delaware would take.

Then in October, Martino had priests read a letter during all Sunday masses in the diocese telling Catholics that voting for a pro-choice politician was equivalent to endorsing "homicide."
* * * *
But it was an event in late October last year, on the eve of the presidential vote, as religious rhetoric was growing white-hot, that may have pushed Martino over the line in the eyes of many.

A parish was holding a regular voter-education forum on the election, featuring discussion of a document, "Faithful Citizenship," the election guide endorsed almost unanimously by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB. Martino showed up at the parish hall unannounced, causing a stir. Then he took the microphone and proceeded to critique the organizers for not using his own letter on abortion as the basis of the discussion.

When a nun at the forum reminded Martino about the document of the enitre bishops conference Martino responded, "No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn't speak for me," Martino declared. "The only relevant document ... is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable."

It was a bizarre episode and one that not only capped Martino's reputation as a divisive figure, but also seemed to set him against his other bishops -- a stance that may have been the ultimate cause of his downfall.

As Gibson concludes:

Whatever the ins and outs of the internal church maneuvering, the upshot is that a leading voice in the anti-Obama wing of the church hierarchy has been silenced while both Obama and Biden continue to take center stage.

And I can certainly say Amen to that.

Go South, Young Woman

2009-08-30T08:59:00.004-04:00

It's that time again. Time for our daughter to head back to college. We came to South Florida on Thursday, visited my brother & his family for a few days and my daughter moved into her dorm yesterday.

Last year was a difficult transition for us all, with our daughter starting college in Miami. As I noted back then, she had never been away from home much, so the idea of leaving home was both exciting and terrifying for her. This year, not so much. There was still a little trepidation on her part because she had such a good summer, so having to leave friends and family to go so far away caused some angst. It didn't help that a few of her close friends transferred to schools in or around Philly. On our end, it's also been a little easier and harder. Her summer job (selling kitchen knives, no less) ended up being a wonderful experience for her and we saw her mature and gain confidence in herself as she honed her sales skills. We had a good summer together, so it's sad to see summer end and her leave. On the other hand, it's easier to say good-bye, knowing she's better able to handle herself on her own.

While we were here, we got to see (sort of) the Discovery shuttle launch the other night. We headed outside at midnight, to see the sky light up after the launch and hear the lift off -- even though we're almost 2 hours away. That was an unexpected treat.

I'm also staying a few extra days to hang out, while my husband left for a trip to NYC with his brother & brother-in-law to see an Earth, Wind & Fire & Chicago concert and then head to the US Open tomorrow. Before the concert, he's having dinner with EWF -- our brother-in-law, who's from LA, knows a few of the musicians in the group. If I'm nice, my daughter will let me take her shopping for a few forgotten items and take her to lunch.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-25T07:13:00.001-04:00

August J. Pollak, Some Guy With a Website

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-23T16:35:00.001-04:00

David Horsey, Seattle Post Intelligencer

Both Sides Now

2009-08-23T08:11:00.003-04:00

Like Judy Collins, Robert Simels could say that he's looked at life from both sides now. He's gone from criminal lawyer to criminal. The prominent New York criminal defense lawyer was convicted of plotting to kill witnesses last week. N.Y. Defense Attorney Found Guilty of Bribery, Attempted Witness Tampering:

Attorney Robert Simels was convicted Thursday of 12 felony counts -- including bribery of a witness, attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering -- stemming from his efforts to prevent potential witnesses from testifying against his client, Guyanese drug-smuggler Shaheed "Roger" Khan.

Simels was acquitted of only the least-serious charge against him, making a false statement to a corrections officer in order to visit an inmate.
* * * *
"The defendants' crimes were an affront to the criminal justice system," Eastern District U.S. Attorney Benton J. Campbell said in a written statement Thursday. "This case demonstrates that those who seek to use their license to practice law as license to commit crimes will be brought to justice."

When Simels was indicted last September, he ranked among the city's better-known defense attorneys, with a roster of clients that had included mobster Henry Hill (of "GoodFellas" fame), drug-trafficker Kenneth "Supreme" McGriff and former New York Jet Mark Gastineau.

As Jonathan Turley explained, Two New York Criminal Defense Attorneys Convicted of Witness Tampering:

Simels is a former prosecutor who often appeared on Fox and CNN as a legal expert. The charges stem from his representation of Shaheed (Roger) Khan, a major cocaine trafficker from Guyana. He was convicted of tampering with eight witnesses and both Simels and Khan were convicted of possessing illegal eavesdropping equipment.

Much of the trial focused on Simels taped statements boasting to a gang member. He is heard saying such things as planning to “neutralize,” “eliminate” and “destroy” a government witness against Khan. Simels insisted that he was just talking “street” to a lowlife (who proved to be a government informant): “Guyana is a Third World country. They sometimes speak in a very unappealing fashion, so I spoke down in a manner he would appreciate.”

On his website, Simels tell prospective clients: “I have been providing personalized legal services to individual and corporate clients in criminal and civil matters for more than 30 years. My exceptional success as a litigator has earned me a renowned reputation in the legal community.” Prosecutors insist that it became a bit too personalized in this case and crossed over into criminal acts.

It's more than a truism to say that lawyers like to win. From my days practicing as a young lawyer at a large firm, I can recall the senior attorneys preaching a "scorched earth" view of litigation. That is, in order to be a really good attorney, it wasn't enough just to win. You had to destroy your opponent as well.

And I also spent some time in the DA's office, where I experienced the "win at all costs" mentality of many prosecutors first hand. This personality trait is not left behind when moving over to criminal defense work. The case of Robert Simels may be an extreme example of the line crossing that sometimes results. See Judge rips 'dark side' of attorney Simels in murder plot conviction to protect drug lord client.

Stony Olsen of Law Crossing humorously explains the difficulties and perils of crossing the line when zealous advocacy, in When Zealous Advocacy Goes Too Far:

It's important to be zealously engaged on behalf of your client. But there are lines that no attorney should ever cross. Sometimes the ethical decisions are hard. . . .

But sometimes the ethics are completely clear. It's just too bad that Robert Simels didn't think so. Simels was once a Special Assistant Attorney General for New York's Special Prosecutor Office, and thereafter he went into criminal defense.

And in that defense practice, he managed to represent some real winners. Simels claims, for example, to have represented mobster Henry Hill, whose story was retold in the movie GoodFellas. Simels also represented another drug kingpin who is now in prison for life without parole and, according to the IRS, once targeted rapper 50 Cent.

But this time Simels went too far. He was representing one Shaheed Kahn, who was facing charges of cocaine trafficking. Or rather, he was representing Kahn until the federal government arrested him on September 10th, 2008, on charges of witness tampering. Apparently, wiretaps have Simels urging various witnesses against Kahn to be ''eliminated'' or ''neutralized.''

* * * *
Now, my memory of professional responsibility in law school is admittedly a bit hazy. But, I do think that arranging to eliminate witnesses against your client is against the rules. Of course, with the kind of trouble Simels is in, I imagine his law license being yanked is the least of his worries.

Still, in case other attorneys are reading this, let me warn you that witness tampering and trying to eliminate the other side's case against your client will not be looked on favorably — not by the bar or by the authorities. So don't do it!

And like most lawyers, Simels certainly didn't help himself when he ended up taking the stand in his defense during the trial. In another instance of seeing both sides now, the former defense attorney who was known for killer cross-examinations, was crushed when he himself was on the stand. As the NY Daily News noted, Robert Simels, lawyer who defended drug kingpins, convicted of plotting to kill witnesses:

At one point, Simels' became so combative on the stand that Judge John Gleeson ordered the jury out of the courtroom and chided Simels.
"Your career is at stake, your liberty is at stake . . . but I'm not going to allow this to continue," Gleeson said. "I'm going to step on you in front of the jury, and it's not going to help your case."

As unfortunate as it is for Simels to end his career in such an ignominious fashion, it is even worse for his associate, Arienne Irving, who was convicted of five of 11 counts, including attempted witness tampering and conspiracy to commit witness tampering. Irving was a 2003 law school graduate who had been employed by Simels as an associate only since December 2006. As her lawyer noted:

The evidence, he contended, as he did throughout the trial, repeatedly showed that Irving was not present when any of Simels' crimes took place, and that she did little more for her boss than forward phone numbers and addresses to private investigators.
"It's devastating not only for her, but for any associate," Solano said. "What is someone in her position to do? Every time a boss or a partner or a supervisor tells them to do something that's totally within the realm of their employment, do they have to ask, 'What is this about?' For anyone in the legal profession this is a scary case."

Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice echoes this sentiment about Irving, Simels Goes Down:

What is troubling is that Simels associate, Arienne Irving, who has been largely forgotten in this case although she too faces life in prison, was convicted along with Simels. It's my read from the news reports that there was essentially no evidence against her, other than being Simels associate. While Simels is master of his own fate and made his own choices, I question what role she had in this fiasco, and whether her indictment was a ploy to get her to flip on Simels. Now she's convicted, and it's not clear what she did or how she shared Simels' intent to justify it.

While it's fair to rip Simels to shreds, give some though to Arienne Irving.

The final experience of both sides now will come with when the prison door closes.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-21T22:00:00.000-04:00

Steve Kelley, The Times Picayune

A Claim of Innocence

2009-08-19T19:18:00.001-04:00

Surprising. Shocking. Highly Unusual. Extraordinary. Stunning. Those are some of the reactions (the last one's mine) to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Troy Davis case.

As the NYTimes reports, Supreme Court Orders New Look at Death Row Case:

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of Troy Davis, who is on death row in state prison there for the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer.

* * * *

The Supreme Court’s decision was unsigned, only a paragraph long and in a number of respects highly unusual. It instructed the trial court to “receive testimony and make findings of fact” about whether new evidence clearly established Mr. Davis’s innocence. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the court this month, did not participate.

See also, U.S. Supreme Court orders new hearing for Troy Davis.

The SCOTUSblog explains the unusual nature of the decision, Hearing on innocence claim ordered:

The action was highly unusual, because Davis had filed what is called an original writ of habeas corpus — that is, a plea for his release, filed directly in the Supreme Court rather than in lower courts. Such claims rarely succeed. Justice Scalia noted in his dissent that the Court had not taken a similar step “in nearly 50 years.”

The action also was unusual because the Court normally does not take actions of this significance during its summer recess. The case had been ready for the Justices’ consideration near the end of their past Term, in late June, but they simply took no action at that time. There was no word on why the Court took it up again at this time, rather than waiting until a new Term had opened. The length of the two opinions released Monday, however, may have taken some time to prepare, especially with most of the Justices traveling during the summer recess.

Considering the implications of this move by the Court, the LATimes notes, Supreme Court orders new hearing for Georgia death row inmate:

In a surprising move that could indicate a more liberal stance toward death penalty appeals, the Supreme Court on Monday granted a new day in court for a Georgia death row inmate whose two-decade legal saga gained international attention after seven trial witnesses recanted their testimony against him.

The court's order was the first of its kind in nearly 50 years. The recantations have helped Troy Anthony Davis, 40, earn powerful allies in the court of public opinion, including Pope Benedict XVI and President Carter.

Davis' attorney considered the petition a long shot, but the Supreme Court instructed a federal district court to hold a hearing to determine whether Davis' innocence could be established by evidence that wasn't available in his 1991 state trial.

"The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in concurring with the order.

* * * *
Legal experts were taken aback by the rare move, which came during the court's typically sleepy summer recess. A number of experts said it could indicate that the federal justice system may be loosening its conservative position toward death penalty appeals.

Federal court rulings in recent years had been making it harder for inmates to win writs of habeas corpus, or pleas for their release. Congress also raised the bar in 1996 with the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.

I have followed the Troy Davis case for some time. After his last appeal was denied by the court of appeals in Atlanta, I did not have much hope for success in further avenues of appeal. As I said then, We Remain Unpersuaded: "Unfortunately, the news is not surprising. Even when the court granted the appeal, I noted in Hold On, that 'the remaining hurdles that Troy Davis still faces are still overwhelming. Although there is much evidence that brings his conviction into question, even getting approval to hold a hearing where such testimony would be considered is difficult. The legal standard that must be met before a hearing would be permitted is exceedingly stringent.'" With the number of conservative members on the Supreme Court, I would have expected that Davis' claim would have been denied. Luckily, I was wrong.

Of course, the decision of the Court was not unanimous. The NYTimes observed:

The decision set off a sharp debate between Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia about Supreme Court procedure, the reach of a federal law meant to limit death row appeals and the proper treatment of claims of innocence.

“The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.”

Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be “a fool’s errand,” because Mr. Davis’s factual claims were “a sure loser.”

He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr. Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence.

“This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

See also, Split Supreme Court Orders Review of Death Row Inmate's Claims That Witnesses Recanted Testimony.

Scalia & Thomas epitomize the problems of having Justices without empathy on the court. Thankfully, that was not ultimately found to be a bar for Justice Sotomayor. These two compassion-less conservatives would defer to the jury's decision on guilt -- even in a death penalty case -- despite the myriad cases where a wrongful conviction have later been established. See Two Readings of Scalia. While I understand the need to have finality in court proceeding, the considerations are obviously different when death is the penalty. As I noted before, in Hold On:

And yet, when a life is at stake, it is unconscionable to impose a standard that impairs the ability to get at the truth. I am somewhat heartened by the fact that the Court of Appeals requested that the parties address the question whether a person who may be able to establish innocence may nonetheless be denied an opportunity to establish his innocence because of a procedural requirement.

In other words, are we as a society willing to permit an innocent man to die merely to satisfy some legal rule that may prevent the truth from ever being discovered? And if so, what does that say about us?

Josh Patashnik of the Plank echoes this sentiment in The Troy Davis Case and Standards of Review:

But the problem is that . . . we generally don't think that level of certainty should be sufficient to put people to death. And this is a conflict between the way we think about the death penalty and the way the federal court system works in death penalty cases under AEDPA. Out of necessity, appellate courts grant immense deference to the factual findings of a trial court. You can't constantly be relitigating complex factual matters on appeal; the system would grind to a halt. Ordinarily, we're willing to tolerate the possibility that the trier of fact might have made a mistake, in order to provide some finality and preserve scarce judicial resources. In death penalty cases, for obvious reasons, people are inclined to throw such prudent procedural niceties out the window and say that the question of factual guilt or innocence should always be on the table in an equitable fashion, whether in state court or on habeas review in federal court, without stacking the deck in favor of the jury's verdict. But the system isn't set up that way.

Ultimately, the Davis case demonstrates the problems with the current law itself. In Preventing Another Troy Davis, Adam Server explains:

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to send consideration of Troy Davis' habeas case back to a federal court in Georgia for review, its worth reconsidering the law that made Davis' journey so harrowing in the first place. Despite the mountain of exculpatory evidence that emerged in the aftermath of his conviction (recanting witnesses, allegations of police coercion) and the weakness of the initial case (zero physical evidence) Davis' appeals were denied time again on legal technicalities arising from provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which limited habeas petitions from prisoners sentenced to death in most circumstances.

* * * *
In this case though, what the law did was prevent a potentially innocent man from obtaining habeas relief in a case where he almost certainly deserved it. I understand the government's interest in preventing frivolous appeals from the convicted in capitol cases, but it's not in the interest of the government or society to execute the innocent, no matter what Antonin Scalia says. It's worth revisiting the habeas provisions of this law and seeing whether it can't be amended to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Constitutional concerns about AEDPA also aren't new, even if the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past.

Into Each Life A Little Rain Must Fall

2009-08-19T06:36:00.000-04:00

The rains last night had the toads falling from the skies, or so it seemed in our back yard.

My daughter & I sat on our porch swing during the rain & lightening storm and noticed that the tree frogs were merrily wandering around the backyard after being washed out of the trees. So she tiptoed through the rain drops and scooped up a few of the frogs.

The rainy summer has also left a few other visitors behind.

It seems to have also caused some alien matter to sprout in the yard.

The Magic of Home

2009-08-18T07:14:00.006-04:00

As I observed on Twitter:

Who says you can't go home again? Weekend in Scranton. Yummy lunch @ Pappas Pizza & dinner @ Savory Maza. My Italian/Lebanese sides happy.

We spent a long week-end in Scranton, where we had a 50th anniversary party for my husband's parents. My parents are also home from Florida for the summer, so I got to visit with them as well. A family-filled week-end (and, as always, some good eats).

A perfectly timed Week-end Journal piece in last week's Philadelphia Inquirer selected Scranton as a destination point, The magic of Scranton, which provided a chuckle for the family and friends from the area.

Calling downtown compact -- about 6 square blocks, in the article may be accurate, but doesn't truly reflect what that downtown was like when I was growing up. Back in the "good old days" (or at least my memories of them), downtown was a vibrant place to be. My high school was on the edge of town, so we went downtown every day after school. To the Charlamont Restaurant at the Globe Store, for brownie a la mode, to Coney Island (mentioned in the piece) for hot dogs, shopping at the Globe and the Scranton Dry Goods Store -- as well as the Army/Navy Store -- believe it or not -- in my hippie days. Those were the days, my friend.

Because the party was held at the Scranton Hilton, I drove my daughter around center city, pointing out various points of interest from my youth. She insisted that it was the first time that she had been downtown (which I find hard to believe), and observed that it was nicer than she expected. I also have to admit that I was amazed at the revival of the downtown in the past few years. My old high school, Central, is now home to a college. The train station and courthouse have been renovated and look fabulous.

As the Inky notes of Scranton:

Mary Ann Moran Savakinus, director of the Lackawanna Historical Society, gives us the city's history in a nutshell:

"The industrial boom was fueled by the holy trinity of iron, rail, and coal." In 1847, brothers Selden T. and George W. Scranton were the first to mass-produce iron rails in America. Their iron-manufacturing business was short-lived, but coal stayed hot. With local fields containing 85 percent of the world's anthracite coal, the family shifted to railroading to transport those "black diamonds" around the country.

By 1900, Scranton had grown into the 38th-largest city in the country, with a population of more than 100,000, and families such as the Scrantons had joined the so-called robber barons of the era.

But the city's story is not just about the wealthy. Industrial growth required labor, and immigrants poured into the city to fill the jobs. The Irish and the Welsh were among the earliest arrivals, followed by Eastern Europeans and Italians.

"Having mined anthracite coal in their native country, the Welsh were a perfect match for the Pennsylvania mines," Moran Savakinus says. "Back then, Scranton had the largest Welsh population outside of Wales itself."

After World War II, coal was displaced by cheaper fuels - oil and natural gas - and the city's fortunes faded.

Its fortunes faded and many of its inhabitants migrated elsewhere (Philly has lots of them). However, like the "hardscrabble" people of Scranton, the city manages to survive, and thrive in its own way.

And, it's nice to know that you can go home again. At least once in a while, for a visit.

(Photos via Scranton Design)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-17T22:02:00.000-04:00

Tony Auth, NYTimes

Me, Myself & I

2009-08-16T20:23:00.003-04:00

Not seeing the "good for business" angle here, is how Brian Beutler of TPM describes it, Whole Foods CEO Slams Health Reform, Angering Liberal Pro-Reform Whole Foods Customers:

Here's a thought: If you own a major supermarket chain that caters to a great deal of liberal-minded people with money, don't rail against the evils of health care reform in the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, that advice comes a few hours too late for Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who did just that.

Unbelievably, Whole Food's John Mackey penned an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal that dissed health care reform, with an 8-point free market counter proposal guaranteed to "fix" our health care woes. The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare. Revealing his true philosophy (who gives a hoot about the other guy), he argues:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

The reaction was swift. As the LATimes notes, Whole Foods is in a whole lot of trouble:

I am torn between disgust with and admiration for John Mackey, the ceo of Whole Foods Market. In an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal, the organic food guru takes a swipe at universal health care as proposed by the Dems and gives his recommendations for reform.

* * * *
Translation: "We wouldn't be in this mess if you people would just shop at my stores!"

And how does Mackey suggest we pay for health care for those whiners without insurance who pretend they can't afford Whole Paycheck? This part is delicous:

Make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

That's right, pass the hat!
So where does my admiration come in? Well, if nothing else, he's a man of his convictions. He puts principles over profit. Because hordes of yoga mat-toting, wheatgrass drinking progressives -- you know, the ones who made him rich and keep Whole Foods afloat -- are livid.

See also, Ellis Weiner, Half-Assed From Whole Foods, for a point by point analysis of Mackey's piece.

Mackey reminds me of Richard Hayne, the owner of Philly-based Urban Outfitters, whose business is targeted toward trendy and liberal customers. Both then gleefully use that money to support conservative causes. I'm sure that these men get additional satisfaction, knowing that they are able to take the money from the pockets of liberals to advance goals that would be anathema to liberals.

Not surprisingly, the liberals who spend their money at Whole Foods have taken action, by proposing a boycott. As reported in All Spin Zone, Whole Foods Boycott Picks Up Steam:

Whole Foods has always marketed itself to a fairly educated and financially secure customer base. This is why they can successfully sell healthy (and primarily organic) foods, at a higher cost. The company has also fostered the image that it has an altruistic streak in supporting progressive causes.

With a single op-ed in an uber conservative national newspaper, this wholesome image has been blown to bits. In the course of writing 1,165 words, CEO Mackey has caused more potential damage to the Whole Foods corporate image than an e-coli outbreak in the meat room.

In fact, the company has already issued an apology of sorts. Whole Foods freaks out over CEO's anti-Obama health care op ed. However, weak as it is, I'm not sure that the explanation/apology will quell those liberal masses.

I would certainly support a boycott, but I already don't shop at that over-priced vanity store.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-16T15:30:00.000-04:00

Joel Pett, Lexington Herald-Leader

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-15T11:38:00.000-04:00

Jeff Stahler, The Columbus Dispatch

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-13T15:55:00.001-04:00

John Cole, TheTimes-Tribune

The Dream Team

2009-08-13T05:44:00.000-04:00

I truly can't think of a better team for the 2012 GOP Presidential race. I just can't decide whether it should be Santorum/Palin or Palin/Santorum.

Politco was the first to report that our very own former PA Senator, Rick Santorum, may be dreaming about Presidential elections future. As noted in Santorum dips toes in 2012 Iowa waters:

Add former Sen. Rick Santorum to the list of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

POLITICO has learned Santorum will visit first-in-the-nation Iowa this fall for a series of appearances before the sort of conservative activists who dominate the state GOP’s key presidential caucuses.

The Pennsylvanian, who lost his 2006 re-election bid, will visit Iowa on October 1st, appearing on a Des Moines radio talk show and speaking to a luncheon and workshop of Iowa’s Right to Life group before heading east to Dubuque, where he’ll headline a fundraiser for the conservative America’s Future Fund PAC and then speak about the future of the GOP to a public audience in the Mississippi River city.

“Your voice becomes more amplified when you go to a place like Iowa or New Hampshire,” Santorum explained in an interview Tuesday about the visit.

Like other potential White House aspirants, he insisted it was too early to consider a presidential run. But he acknowledged that he was interested in taking a higher profile in the party.

Who would have thought? As Gort42 explained, in Santorum for President: "Our former junior Senator and Virginia resident is going to Iowa which always starts Presidential speculation about any politician."

Of course, First Read tries to dampen my enthusiasm, by asking: "Can a guy who lost Pennsylvania -- a battleground state -- by almost 60%-40% be a presidential contender?" Luckily for us, facts have never managed to get in Santorum's way before, so I think we'll have little to fear in that regard.

Echoing my thoughts exactly, Steven Reynolds writes, Santorum/Palin in 2012!:

Politico has this great news. What a dream ticket, a man, Rick Santorum, who suffered an historic defeat in his reelection campaign for Senate in Pennsylvania (and is also a noun), and a woman, Sarah Palin, who quit her elected responsibilities as Governor of Alaska.

After thinking about it, I suppose it would have to be Santorum/Palin & not the other way around. After all, the conservatives and evangelicals who comprise the Republican party these days believe that a woman is always subservient to a man. So, keep smiling Sarah, but I'm afraid you'll get the second place prize again.

And finally, putting it all in its proper perspective, Sarah K. Smith observes, Rick Santorum For President:

Oh, happy day! It looked like the slate of 2012 Republican candidates was going to be as dull as last night's warmed-over unsalted meatloaf: an unappetizing blend of clueless, chunky slobs who think that "titillating" is something you can get arrested for.

Fortunately, there's a new entrant in the mix: former Pennsylvania senator and full-time nutball Rick Santorum. The man who promised the world wall-to-wall man-on-dog sex if gay marriage were ever legalized, and who furthermore predicted dramatic terror attacks on the United States "before November" of 2007 or 2008 (nobody's sure, not even Rick) and failed to deliver on either pledge is now gearing up to disappoint the world one more time.

He's going to Iowa! And everybody knows that the only reason for any politician, current or former, to visit such a godforsaken state is to launch a doomed presidential bid.

* * * *
If the world needs one thing right now, it's the amplified voice of Rick Santorum -- which is sure to drown out all those pesky fiscal and social moderates who the top Republican brass seem to think have the best chance at defeating President Obama in 2012.

Santorum minces no words when it comes to displaying his pathological brand of nuttiness.

And that is why, in three and a half short years, he'll be sworn in as President of the United States.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-12T15:43:00.001-04:00

John Darkow, The Columbia Daily Tribune

The Truth Behind the Madness

2009-08-12T06:54:00.000-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Reform Madness - White Minority

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Spinal Tap Performance

The other day, I wrote about my concerns about the Mad Mob that has appeared on the political scene, with its vitriolic, violent tirades, see Mob Rule. The Daily Show's Larry Wilmore provides some insight into its origins and puts it all in perspective.

Or, as Atrios put it:

Nobody could've predicted that electing a black man president would drive this country completely fucking insane.

Says it all.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-11T14:44:00.001-04:00

Pat Oliphant, NYTimes

Mob Rule

2009-08-10T20:36:00.000-04:00

During the reign of George W. Bush, there was always the hope that, as bad as things were (and they were bad), things would improve with a new Administration, if a Democrat were elected. However, despite the hope that ushered in the era of Obama, I'm now concerned that there are forces out there that are bound and determined to bring him (and the Democratic Party) down, even if it means destroying the country itself in the process.

As much as liberals hated Bush, there was never this obsessive, violent element that pervaded the political atmosphere, as is the case now. In fact, it's the next step in what used to be called the Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Unfortunately, it's been elevated to a new level. The intensity of the destructive impulse is frightening.

Paul Krugman describes the phenomenon, in The Town Hall Mob:

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.
That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.

Krugman then asks the question that keeps appearing over & over -- what's it all about -- what is making these people so ugly and angry? His view:

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.
And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.

Responding to a reader's inquiry about the depth of anger that emanates from the wingnuts about an issue such as health care reform, Steve Benen provides his answer, in What are they so mad about:

So why are far-right activists so apoplectic? Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that will help them and their families? President Obama supports an approach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn't increase the deficit, and wouldn't raise middle class taxes ... and conservatives are comparing the plan to the Nazi Holocaust?

B.A.'s confusion is understandable. I don't get it, either.

It's probably a mistake to lump all opponents of reform in together; different groups are fighting with different motivations. I tend to see them in five different groups:
* The Greedy: There's a fairly small group of people who profit handsomely from the broken status quo. Regular Americans are getting screwed by the system, but The Greedy are getting rich. Reform puts their profits at risk, so they're fighting back to protect their livelihood.

* The Partisans: If President Obama does what many presidents have failed trying to do, it will likely make him more popular and make his presidency successful. The Partisans care more about Republican gains than the national well being, so they're fighting to prevent a major Democratic victory because it would be a major Democratic victory.

* The Tin-Foil Hats: If reform passes, the government will kill their grandparents, create "death panels," lavish benefits on illegal immigrants, and mandate that ACORN volunteers live in your basement. The Tin-Foil Hats have active imaginations, and believe their own ridiculous conspiracy theories. They'll benefit from reform, but the voices in their head discourage them from believing it.

* The Dupes: Probably the largest group in opposition to reform, The Dupes tend to believe what The Greedy, The Partisans, and The Tin-Foil Hats have told them. When confronted with accurate information, The Dupes suspect the media, Democrats, and their lying eyes aren't to be trusted. After all, Sean Hannity wouldn't lie to them, would he? Like The Tin-Foil hats, The Dupes stand to benefit from reform, but are skeptical because they don't know who's telling the truth and who isn't.

* The Wonks: The smallest of the groups, The Wonks are conservatives who actually care about substantive policy details, have read the proposals, and believe there are better ways to improve the system. The Greedy, The Partisans, The Tin-Foil Hats, and The Dupes tend to ignore The Wonks, which is a shame.

James Zogby also provides insight into the psyche of the mob and his view on its source, in Danger on the Right:

There is a social movement stirring on the far right of American politics and it bodes ill for our future.

It is, in the classic sense, a movement, not an organization, with no coherent structure, no creed or litmus test for membership. Rather, it represents disparate currents, born of transformative developments and traumatic events that have impacted the US in recent decades.

* * * *
If the individuals involved in these currents have anything in common, it is that they are angry and alienated and have identified "government" as a source of their problems and, therefore, as a target of their wrath.

Behind all of this discontent, of course, are real problems. The economic crisis in America did not just begin with the collapse of the financial sector in the fall of 2008. For years now, the US economy has undergone a steady transformation. The loss of our manufacturing base has resulted in dramatic social dislocation evidenced by the collapse of many once prosperous and stable communities. As factories closed, not only were jobs lost and economic security threatened, but people were forced to move, neighborhoods died and families were at risk.
* * * *
And so here we are in the midst of a hot summer, with "birthers" fulminating about Obama's "foreignness," angry mobs breaking up town meetings, and polling numbers showing a deepening partisan divide across the nation.

All the while these events are unfolding, analysts and commentators are spending endless hours of airtime observing and pointing accusing fingers, without making an effort to understand how this came to be and where it can go. Some conservatives are surely at fault for thinking they can simply exploit this anger, turning it on and then off, at will. And some liberals, too, are at fault for dismissing the anger they see, suggesting that it is simply manufactured and artificial and, therefore, can be ignored.

I am reminded of similar developments that occurred in 1919 at the beginning of the "Red Scare." Then too, a national movement, fueled by fears of immigration, economic dislocation and wartime anti-foreign bigotry was exploited by some, ignored by others, until it got out of control, with lethal consequences.
If we are not careful and understanding, and if we do not start now, both to address this troubling anger and alienation, and to hold accountable those who are stoking the embers of discontent, we could end up in the throes of a full-fledged nativist siege that could tear apart the fabric of our nation.

And finally, in a recent appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Frank Schaeffer provides a warning about the coded call for politically motivated violence:

As often as it's now being observed and commented on, the degree of concern that is being voiced is universally the same -- that we are on the verge of a violent outbreak that could have seriously destructive consequences for the country. And yet, the fringe element of the Republican Party cannot -- or will not -- take steps to stop the siren call.

No Ham Sandwich

2009-08-07T07:24:00.002-04:00

A New York Judge famously joked that a prosecutor could persuade a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

That's because the DA decides which evidence to present to the grand jury (and what is not presented). The Prosecutor decides which witnesses to call, and which questions to ask -- or not to ask. And then there's the fact that defense lawyers are not permitted in the grand jury room, so there is no cross-examination or way to point out any flaws in the government's presentation.

The result is as carefully orchestrated as opening night on Broadway, with the closing act carefully calculated to reach the desired result. If the DA wants an indictment, she will get one.

Unfortunately, that Judge didn't know Philly's Lynn Abraham -- at least when it comes to prosecuting cops.

Lynne Abraham, the long time DA of Philadelphia, has been called a "tough cookie" over the years and was crowned the Deadliest DA a few years ago because she's so fond of the death penalty. See Lynne Abraham: for better or worse, an institution in Philadelphia.

Yet she's also notorious for her failure to aggressively prosecute police brutality cases.

In the latest example of that, unlike the ham sandwich, she wasn't able to get the Grand Jury to indict the police in an egregious police beating case. As the Inky reports, Grand jury exonerates Phila. police in beating video:

To Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, then newly arrived in Philadelphia, last year's news video of police officers beating three suspects was a black eye for the department.

In the days after May 5, 2008, when police stopped a fleeing car and arrested the three men, the Fox29 news helicopter video was telecast locally, nationally, and internationally. Ramsey took prompt action, firing four officers and disciplining four others.

Yesterday, a Philadelphia grand jury vindicated the officers who arrested Dwayne Dyches, Brian Hall, and Pete Hopkins. The grand jury recommended that no criminal charges be filed and decided that the officers used only the force necessary to subdue three men they had reason to believe were armed and had just fired into a crowd, wounding three others.

"The video, in fact, did not speak for itself," District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham said in announcing the grand jury report.

"We found that the design of the force applied by the police was helpful rather than hurtful," the grand jury report concluded.

"The kicks and blows, in other words, were aimed not to inflict injury, but to facilitate quick and safe arrests. We found that the kind of force administered was completely consistent with police training and guidelines and the laws of the commonwealth."

When I heard the news that the Grand Jury declined to prosecute, it was just what I expected from Abraham. There was no doubt in the outcome in my mind. Likewise, if things had been reversed -- the victims had attacked the police -- she would have aggressively pursued them, with an array of charges.

And once again, Abraham's propensity to take a dive for the police is being questioned. As observed in Cops-D.A. ties questioned:

Close ties between the Philadelphia Police Department and the District Attorney's Office, which presided over a grand jury investigation into a police beating caught on tape, have led some to question the jury's findings.

The D.A.'s office announced yesterday that a grand jury found that a group of police officers did not commit a crime while trying to subdue three shooting suspects last year.

Now, some, including attorney Paul Messing, who specializes in civil rights litigation including cases related to police misconduct, are asking whether the grand jury was unduly influenced by the D.A.

Lucky Abraham will be retiring soon. Unfortunately, it's not soon enough.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-06T09:56:00.001-04:00

Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Whistle While You Work

2009-08-04T19:47:00.000-04:00

One of the best parts of my job is lunch. Our large conference room does double duty as the lunch table & the LLWL Gang tries to break bread together whenever possible. In fact, like our physician clients who turn off the phones at lunch, we generally don't answer the phones during lunch. It's our time to discuss the news and gossip of the day, to relax and catch up on what's happening with each other.

Luckily, the atmosphere in our office is almost always pleasant. We occasionally argue about the temperature in the office (too hot, too cold), but otherwise we all like what we do & who we do it with. As I've said before:

We have a group of female attorneys, specializing in various aspects of health care and corporate law, practicing together under one roof (and a funky roof at that) in suburban Philly. We all get along and mostly enjoy our practices (and practicing together). It's the kind of work environment everyone should have, but is, unfortunately, rare -- especially in the legal profession.

The value of that cannot be overstated. It certainly shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that rudeness and bad behavior can infect an office environment. As a recent study notes, It Pays to Be Nice:

Your mother was right: You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Even in corporate America, where being nice can save a company millions of dollars.

USC Marshall School of Business professor Christine Porath discovered that employee rudeness hurts the bottom line while researching The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business and What to Do About It. She co-wrote the book, which was published on July 9, with Christine Pearson, a professor of management at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

Porath and Pearson state that job stress in the United States accounts for $300 billion in losses, as an uncivil workplace reduces productivity and workers spend time looking for other jobs or helping others to do so. In addition, according to Porath and Pearson’s research, 80 percent of employees who were victims of insults or bullying in the workplace lost valuable work time worrying about the incident, and 78 percent said their commitment to the organization declined.

* * * *

Porath, along with University of Florida management professor Amir Erez, also employed scientific experiments, discovering that “people literally did not perform as well, weren’t as creative and became more dysfunctional and aggressive” when someone was rude to them, Porath said.

But the impact of rudeness (defined in the book as ranging from “taking credit for others’ efforts” to throwing a temper tantrum) didn’t end there, as the authors discovered that even witnesses to an incident where someone was bullied had a negative effect. And if a customer witnesses incivility, that customer decides to not re-patronize the business 50 percent of the time.

See also, Study: Workplace rudeness is contagious.

Lucky for us, smiles are contagious too.

Happy Birthday Helen (& Barack too)

2009-08-04T17:55:00.003-04:00

The jury is still out on President Obama, as far as I'm concerned. I must say that I really feel sorry for him. He's certainly inherited a hell of a mess from he who shall go nameless, so I'm willing to give him some extra "honeymoon" time before I decide whether he's all that or not. So far, he's been doing a decent job, except for some important issues, such as giving the antics in the US Attorneys office go, as well as some of his positions, such as on signing statements and state secrets. Ultimately, he's smart and reasonable, so I remain hopeful that things will go well under his leadership.

Of course, he went a long way toward getting in my good graces by taking the time to stop in the White House Press Room to wish Helen Thomas birthday wishes on her 89th birthday, which she shares with Obama:

Helen Thomas is definitely my favorite journalist -- and not just because she's Lebanese. I've been lucky enough to meet her a few times and we even compared jewelry:

So big birthday wishes to both.

(Video via CAFFEINATED POLITICS)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-04T14:44:00.001-04:00

Beattie, Daytona Beach News Journal

The Scoop on Sarah

2009-08-03T07:33:00.001-04:00

I think I've lost my ability to make fun of my friends who read the Hollywood gossip rags. At this point, the only reason to be "reporting" on the latest Sarah Palin news is prurient interest in gossip.

Gyphen of The Immoral Minority proffers his theory as to why Sarah Palin quit her job as Gov -- it was a prelude to quiting her husband Todd and the state of Alaska. As Gyphen reported over the week-end, Sarah and Todd Palin are Splitsville!:

According to my source Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage.

She has purchased land in Montana (I wonder whose donations paid for that?), and may be considering moving herself and the children as far away from Alaska as she can get.

Do you remember all of that talk about her missing wedding ring during the three part going away picnics? Well it turns out that ring now sleeps with the fishes. Apparently in a fit of anger Sarah stripped the ring from her finger and tossed it into a lake. . . .

So it appears that the reason Palin has been so quiet, and has given her tweeting fingers a rest, is NOT because of any master plan, or carefully orchestrated new direction, but simply the result of the emotional stress that prevents her from communicating with her fan base or making any public appearances.

The LATimes' Dish Rag adds, Are Sarah and Todd Palin divorcing? Not so fast!:

The Alaskan blogosphere is abuzz with rumors that Sarah and Todd Palin are divorcing.

AlaskaReport claims that multiple sources are suggesting this may be the real reason she quit her job as governor of Alaska. What, and not that lucrative book deal?

The reports note that the Palins were noticeably not speaking to each other at her resignation speech. Sarah also left without him and reportedly removed her wedding ring a couple of weeks ago.

The bloggers also note that Sarah recently purchased land in Montana and is considering moving the family there. Hey, Sarah Palin is originally from Idaho. Hmm.

And Todd told Fox News recently that he was heading back to his job in the oil fields of Alaska. What about Sarah's book deal, reportedly worth $11 million? Surely he doesn't have to work that hard.

The Huffington Post notes that the Palin camp has issued it's denial of the rumors, Palin Camp Slams Divorce Rumors: They "Remain Married": "Sarah Palin's spokeswoman is shooting down reports that the former Alaska governor and her husband, Todd, are seeking divorce."

Of course, the denial is the usual non-denial, denial. That is, saying that the Palins "remain married" isn't saying a whole lot. Until they officially split or divorce, they remain married. And although a number of bloggers reported the rumors, it wasn't picked up by any news outlets. However, once the denial was issued, the press was free to report the fact of the rumors. As the Politico notes, Sarah Palin beats press to blog claim:

Sarah Palin’s spokeswoman Saturday took the unusual step of posting a statement on Facebook denying an anonymous blog report that the former Alaska governor was getting a divorce and moving to Montana.

* * * *
Actually, no journalists had reported the allegations. They were made on an Alaskan blog called “The Immoral Minority,” and then repeated on other blogs, including Gawker, a well-trafficked New York gossip site.

* * * *

By having her spokeswoman repeat the charges to rebut them in a public form, Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog.

And, because it's Sarah the P who's involved, it has to go all the way. Her lawyer then proceeded to send a threatening cease & desist letter to the blogger who first wrote about the rumors, Palin lawyer threatens to serve papers at kindergarten, then balks, thus insuring that the story will get even more press.

Summing all of the swirling Palin rumors up, AKMuckraker observes, Palins to Divorce?:

In addition to the divorce allegations, which state that Palin's wedding ring, conspicuously missing from her finger recently, now resides at the bottom of an unnamed Alaskan lake, IM reports that 'explosive' news in the form of a recent Levi Johnston interview with Vanity Fair, is due out in October. Also reported is that Levi Johnston's mother Sherry Johnston, who stands accused of drug charges in Wasilla, had her sentencing moved forward from yesterday's scheduled date to August 19. Although attorney Rex Butler stated the delay was requested to allow for specialized medical treatment plan to manage Johnston's chronic pain from back surgery, the blogger claims the delay will allow negotiations which were not possible under the Palin administration. IM's sources say that Palin as governor was pushing for the maximum possible sentence, and that the new Parnell administration is not.

This is but the latest chapter in a contentious relationship between Palin and local bloggers. Within hours of the first blog post, the rapidly spreading story prompted a harsh response on Facebook from Palin's spokeswoman Meg Stapleton of SarahPAC denying at least some of the allegations in the story.

See also, Mudflats, Palin Divorce? Ring at the Bottom of the Lake? Guns? Explosive Interviews? Pressure on the Court? Welcome to a Slow News Day…

After Palin's resignation, the Politico wrote a piece on the bloggers who covered her every move, wondering what would become of them now that she's gone from the scene. Exiting the Sarahsphere. Like me, they were sorely mistaken on the longevity of Sarah, the No-Be-Gone.

The continual saga of Sarah the P gives me an excuse to post this gem from The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Craziest Catch - Half Baked Alaska

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

Cartoon of the Day

2009-08-02T13:47:00.001-04:00

Matt Davies, The Journal News

The Big Sport

2009-08-02T13:15:00.002-04:00

Yesterday was my husband David's birthday. As part of his day long celebration, he played in the Senior (45+) Grass Court Championship at The Germantown Cricket Club. Although he lost in the second round, the winner bought him a few beers.

He then moved on to a golf tournament (he didn't play), followed by a Beef & Beer event. The day ended with a BBQ at our house, complete with a birthday cake that read "Knocking on 60's door" -- courtesy of my daughter & her friends.

All in all, a happy day.

Bookends

2009-08-02T07:45:00.005-04:00

The summer continues to be a whirlwind of activity, but this week was one filled with sorrow. I started & ended the week by attending funerals. A friend and a relative. Both were known for their warm, loving personalities, who gave much to friends, family and others.

My cousin Linda, who just turned 50, died very suddenly. She was out to dinner with her 20 year old daughter and collapsed shortly after she was seated at the restaurant. Her son's high school graduation party was just last week. The funeral was held on Monday, because the family didn't want it to fall on his 18th birthday, which was Tuesday. In addition to her work and caring for her family, she helped to care for her sister, who has advanced ALS. Linda was funny, warm and above all, generous. It was one of the saddest funerals that I've ever attended -- the unexpected, sudden loss of a young, vibrant person.

Whenever I went back home, her sister invariably teased me about the lack of "style" with my hairdo. She hounded me to plan a week-end when I could come home, so that Linda, a hair stylist, could work her magic on my hair. In fact, my brother had made an appointment with Linda for a "make over" in mid-August as a birthday present, when I plan to be home again. Of course, the fact that I'll never get the Linda treatment was a refrain during the viewing & funeral.

On Friday, I ended the week by attending a memorial service for a friend who died at 52 of endometrial cancer. Last I had heard, she was in remission and doing well. I had just received word that she was not doing well when I found out later that day that she had died. Like my cousin, Debra was a wonderful person, kind and generous to all. Our kids went to Greene Street Friends School together, where she also taught & worked in administration for many years.

As her obituary said:

Everybody needs a hug once in a while.
That was the idea behind the Prayer Shawl Ministry, begun by Debra Pinder Symonette at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown.
Members of the ministry combine knitting and crocheting with prayer, creating shawls for people, mostly women, in need of comforting.
"A shawl ends up being very personal and very loving," said Zelphia Ellerson, a friend of Debra's since they attended Girls High together. "It's a hug. That's what it is."
The shawl ministry was just one expression of Debra Symonette's compassion and love of people. The multi-talented educator, onetime architect, artist and craftsman died Wednesday of complications of endometrial cancer. She was 52 and lived in East Mount Airy.
* * * *
Debra founded Paper Crane Studio, a crafts studio based at the church. She taught doll-making, rubber-stamping, scrapbooking, basket-making, card-making, calligraphy, beading, orgami, crocheting, knitting, quilt-making and other skills.
"Paper crane" is a Japanese symbol of peace and hope.
Debra also taught a variety of crafts at the Mount Airy Learning Tree, and organized "Stitch and Pitch" outings to Phillies games.
She was a member of United Methodist Women, which works to raise awareness of human rights, economic opportunity and health and quality-of-life issues relevant to women. She also was a member of the board of Weaver's Way, the West Mount Airy food cooperative.

The quilt pictured above, titled "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Quilt," was part of an exhibition that was shown last fall by a group of quilters. Embodying the spirit of Debra, her quilt contained quilt blocks from all of the original quilters in the group, as a way of showing the creativity of each member and the community. Debra looked at life that way in all that she did.

At the end of the service, paper cranes -- the symbol of peace & hope -- were handed out to all.

The Reason Why

2009-07-18T08:32:00.002-04:00

If you looked like this, is it any wonder that you'd try to find a way to feel that you are better than someone else?

Meet Gary Frago, California Councilman, Sent Racist Anti-Obama Jokes To Staff.

As was reported in the Merced Sun-Star:

In the past several months Atwater City Councilman Gary Frago has sent at least a half-dozen e-mails to city staff and other prominent community members containing racist jokes aimed at President Barack Obama, his wife and black people in general.

Frago's response?

"I don't see where there's a story, I'm not the only one that does it," he said.

* * * *
When asked again if he had any regrets about sending the e-mails, he said: "No, because I didn't see any harm in them."

Translation: I'm ugly as sin, inside & out. I only feel better when I'm putting someone else down.

Oh, blasphemy!

2009-07-17T06:33:00.002-04:00

One of the LLWL Gang is heading off to a vacation in Ireland today. Good thing for her, she's not one who needs to be concerned about the latest law passed there.

As reported at TPM, Ireland revisits blasphemy:

Blasphemy is one of those old issues that Westerners assume has passed into the realm of sketch-comedy or articles about Muslims losing their tongues. But now Irish atheists and religious alike are wary of Justice Minister Dermot Ahern's new Defamation Act, which revives awareness that blasphemy has been, and still is, a crime in the traditionally Catholic country. Although the new penalties may be less severe than in the 1961 version, fines of up to 25,000 euros may still be levied for the crime of blasphemy against religion - and now against any religion.

Yes, it's true. Luckily, I've already been to Ireland, so I can cross it off my list of vacation spots. Lord knows that I've been known to criticize religion (especially the Catholic Church), knows that I'd be in trouble if I were to step foot in Ireland.

Staks Rosch notes, Ireland passes blasphemy law:

On Friday July 11th, 2009, Ireland passed the Defamation Bill by one vote. One of the aspects of this bill would make it illegal to criticize religion… any religion under penalty of fines up to 25,000 Euros. That is the equivalent to nearly $35,000.

* * * *
[A]ny religious criticism is a crime, because many Christians are critical of differing religions. Atheists are not the only ones being targeted here. Simply claiming that the Pope is not infallible might be considered blasphemous to many Catholics. Claiming that the prophet Joseph Smith was not really visited by angels and given magic golden plates would be blasphemous to Mormons. Mentioning the prophet Mohammad without adding the phrase “peace be upon him” would be considered blasphemous to Muslims. And claiming that Scientology is a sham and that Tom Cruise is crazy would obviously be blasphemous to Scientologists.
What if a Christian claimed that if someone was not saved through Jesus Christ, he or she would spend eternity in Hell? An argument could be made that such a statement and even the Bible itself might be considered blasphemous to other religions. In fact, most religious are blasphemous to other religions. Maybe the Irish police will fine everyone.

Atheist Ireland plans to test the new law by publishing a deliberately blasphemous statement. See Trees, worshippers and Ireland’s new blasphemy law. Now, blaspheme -- that's something to praise!

(Via onegoodmove)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-07-16T07:40:00.001-04:00

Matt Davies, The Journal News

Annie Happens to be Right Here

2009-07-15T06:54:00.000-04:00

On a lighter note, the Sotomayer hearings weren't all the stuff of old white men wearing their victimhood on their sleeves. There were a few memorable moments.

Josh Marshall of TPM highlights one such, in Classic: Shades of Annie Hall:

Remember that scene in Annie Hall where the Alvy and Annie are waiting in line at the movie and Alvy is going nuts listening to the pontificating blowhard going on about Marshall McLuhan and then Alvy pulls McLuhan himself out from behind the movie poster to tell the guy he's an idiot. Not quite identical and Sotomayor could have driven the point a bit harder but Judge Sotomayor managed to pull off something like that.

During yesterday's session:

Brings back memories of this:

Judge Not

2009-07-15T06:21:00.001-04:00

Although it appears that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayer is a foregone conclusion, that hasn't stopped the Judiciary Committee from making much ado about nothing over the "record" of Judge Sotomayer. Of course, it's all about the chance for the esteemed Senators to pontificate in front of the cameras rather than to truly probe the record of the Judge.

And Senator Sessions needn't worry. He still has the pointy hat crowd locked up. The same is true for his colleagues. As Craig Crawford of CQ Politics notes, Smiling GOPers Ought to be Frowning:

Watching Lindsey Graham's gotcha grin as he needled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with disingenuous and rhetorical questions you had to wonder what was so funny.

Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing?

It is not that the Republican inquiries were out of bounds in legal terms. A confirmation hearing like this is a political forum.

Even if they vote for her, the fallout for Republicans could reach well beyond Hispanic voters. They are coming across as a bunch of snarky and bitter old white men who cannot bear the thought of their kind losing power.

The impact of this story on the political scoreboard should give Democrats much more to smile about. (Emphasis added)

Beyond the Committee charade, the most annoying part of the confirmation hearing is the fact that Judge Sotomayer's record has been so twisted and misrepresented by the GOP and the media.

Shortly after she was nominated by President Obama, I spent some time reading up on the various decisions that she was involved in during her tenure on the Court. SOTUSblog had a 4 part series on her opinions, see, Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases, Part II, Part III, Part IV. See also, Reports on Judge Sotomayor’s Record, for a round up of legal blogs and other opinions on her record.

The reality is that she is a moderate Judge who carefully follows precedent, notwithstanding what may be perceived as her personal views. That should not be a surprise, since when all was said and done, the biggest issue the GOP could come up with was a supercilious attack on the fact that she might harbor some empathy in her soul. See The GOP's misguided and confusing campaign against judicial empathy.

Not that empathy was always such a dirty word. As Americablog recalls, Ah, empathy:

Justice Sam Alito on empathy and judging

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
Flashback: Alito Knows A Thing Or Two About Empathy Also
On Wednesday, Glenn Greenwald posted a key part of the transcript of Justice Samuel Alito's 2006 confirmation hearing, which suggests that, just three and a half years ago, Republicans thought empathy was a pretty righteous quality in a Supreme Court nominee. Well, we've dug up the footage of that portion of the hearing and, as it turns out, he sells the empathy pretty well.
Flashback: George H.W. Bush On Clarence Thomas' 'Great Empathy'
"I have followed this man's career for some time," said President George H.W. Bush of Clarence Thomas in July 1991. "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."

But when you've got nothing else, what's are you going to do?? The early smears about her temperament problems, Early Smears On Sotomayor: ‘Dumb,’ ‘Bully,’ ‘Doesn’t Play Well With Others,’ ‘Obnoxious’, didn't quite cause enough of a stir. The problem was, no matter how tough she is, she's no match for Justice Scalia. See Sotomayor’s Blunt Style Raises Issue of Temperament. Then, there was that little problem of sexism creeping into the equation. As the Times observed:

Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who taught Ms. Sotomayor there and now sits with her on the Second Circuit, said complaints that she had been unduly caustic had no basis. For a time, Judge Calabresi said, he kept track of the questions posed by Judge Sotomayor and other members of the 12-member court. “Her behavior was identical,” he said.
“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”
He said Judge Sotomayor’s forceful and lucid arguments had persuaded him to reconsider his position in a number of instances. “And I’m a tough act,” he said.

As usual, what all this has done is framed the debate, making this moderate judge appear to be a leftist zealot rather than the moderate she is. It has dampened the cries of the liberal left, who wanted a true liberal to be appointed to the court. Seeking a bomb-throwing, passionate, liberal Scalia for a seat on the Supreme Court. And, she may be a very good judge, but a liberal she's not.

For more on the Judge, see the array of quotes gathered by Shaun Mullen at Kiko's House, Quotes From Around Yon Soniasphere.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-07-12T22:50:00.001-04:00

Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News

The Belly Flop

2009-07-12T22:46:00.004-04:00

While it may be true that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, yet if it happens in Philly, it makes the news in Vegas.

One night in Vegas, my husband & I were listening to the news when we heard a report about Philly. Not another murder spree, we thought. No. Instead we heard a story about that post-racial America we keep hearing about, which solved all of our bigotry problems, now that we have a black President.

Of course, I'm talking about the brouhaha over the Valley Swim Club which kicked out a group of minority day camp kids who joined the private swim club for a weekly pool time. As the Inky reported, Phila. camp alleges racism at Montco swim club:

A Huntington Valley swim club is facing accusations of racial discrimination after 65 children from a Northeast Philadelphia day camp claim they heard prejudicial remarks by club members and later had their club membership rescinded.

* * * *
Repeated attempts to reach club President John Duesler and other club officers were unsuccessful. . . . NBC 10 reported today that Duesler made the following statement: "There was concern that alot of kids would change the complexion .....and the atmosphere of the club."

Several days after the incident, Wright said the camp's $1,950 check in membership fees to the swim club was refunded, meaning the children no longer had access to the pool. She said Duesler did not provide a reason for the refund.

See also, AttyTood, We SHALL overcome some day...but apparently that day isn't 2009.

What?? In turning the campers away, the Club President didn't really say that the kids using the pool would "change the complexion" of the place, did he?? I actually winced when I heard that comment. Of course, one of the ironies of life is that Caucasians go to the pool to get a tan, but don't want to bathe next to someone whose tan is natural.

When I first heard the news, I thought that it must have happened at one of the country clubs in Huntington Valley. After all, according to Steve Reynolds of All Spin Zone, "If you know anything about Philly, you know that Huntingdon Valley is one of those suburbs populated by refugees of the “white flight” of the 60’s and 70’s." Racism in Philadelphia. As Leonard Zeskind wrote at TPM Cafe, White Residential Enclaves, White Nationalism and the Re-articulation of Racism in the 21st Century, explained:

Huntington Valley is an upper-middle class overwhelmingly white community with a total population of 20,917. Of those numbers, 158 are black, another 242 are Hispanic and 804 are Asian-American. There are many such residential enclaves in the United States of America. And they form the hard pit of reality inside the white nationalist phantasmagoria.

Although the swim club is technically located in Huntington Valley, it actually borders the city line in the Northeast. I'm not originally from Philly and, although I've lived here over 20 years, there are still the nuances of the city that I don't quite comprehend. I live in Mount Airy, an integrated enclave that doesn't have the same issues that I know exist in many other sections of the city (such as the "Great Northeast"). So, once I got my bearings, I wasn't shocked to hear the news. After all, as Philebrity observed, Surprise! Northeast Philly Is Still Racist!:

Sure, ejecting 60 kids from a paid membership at a swim club because they’re, uh, black seems a bit much, but maybe you haven’t been to Northeast Philly lately. Remember what it was like there when you were a kid? Well, imagine that same sort of put-upon White Man’s Burden/Fightin’ Irish bullshit that was au courant in the 1980s and just update it with an outside world that has a black president. Translation: It’s probably worse, because everyone who used to live there and just try, in their own meek way, to just live with this bullshit and get through their days has already picked up and moved to Center City already.

Likewise, Adam B writes at Daily Kos:

I grew up in the Somerton section of Northeast Philadelphia, a mile and a half from the just-over-the-county-border Valley Swim Club, so this is a community I know intimately well. And I am not surprised. Huntingdon Valley is an exceedingly white and wealthy suburb . . . . Just over that border line is Philmont Heights, a Philadelphia neighborhood of brick duplexes increasingly inhabited by Philadelphia's growing Russian immigrant population, and itself predominately Jewish.

Also, I want you to set your class bearings a little: it's a swim club, not a country club -- i.e., swimming pool, snack bar, playground, but not a golf course, banquet hall or any of the amenities one would associate with the latter. That's why full membership was only $395 for the summer. So think more working class to upper middle class than Judge Smalls and the Underhills."

As has been reported, the comments and treatment of the campers by some of the Club's members were disgusting. However, after reading about the story when I got home, I have to say that the Club President, John Duesler, may be getting a bad rap about the incident. Duesler was an Obama supporter and Chairman of Peace Action - Philadelphia, so he's not exactly the epitamy of a redneck. In fact, it sounds like he was in favor of the campers joining the swim club, but the Board who approved their joinder got overruled by a membership vote. As President of the Club, Duesler was left to "explain" what happened. Not knowing how to justify the inexcuable actions of the Club's members, he then made the incredibly stupid "change the complexion" remark, which further fueled the racism charges.

This matter was mishandled from beginning to end. As the Reid Report notes, ‘Complexion’-conscious swim club wants Campers back (sort of):

The first rule of public relations: never allow a crisis to become a calamity. By initially defending its decision to expel the Creative Steps summer camp and its 65 Black and Hispanic kids from their pool, the Valley Club in Montgomery County, PA screwed up, especially when its board president, John Duesler, told a TV station his members and board feared the kids’ presence would “change the ‘complexion’ and the atmosphere” of his club. Well … after two more tries; in a lame statement on their website (which is now down) and another in front of television cameras for 14 minutes, Duesler is trying for his fourth bite at a pretty rotten apple: belatedly inviting Creative Steps to come back.

Yes, after the Club's actions caused a groundswell of outrage, We can't always tip toe around it, the Valley Swim Club has recinded its recinded membership to the camp kids. After a hastily called emergency meeting earlier today, the Club was humilated enough to do the right thing -- reopen the pool to the kids. The Philly Daily News reports, Publicity parts the waters at swim club:

Members of the Montgomery County swim club that has endured a torrent of bad publicity after it ejected a group of black and Hispanic children in late June decided at a hastily called meeting yesterday to try to work out an agreement for the youngsters' return.

Amy Goldman, a member of the Valley Club, said the members voted unanimously in support of reinstating the swimming rights of the Creative Steps day camp and two other camps as long as safety issues, times and terms can be agreed.

The club will seek to meet with camp directors to discuss the issue, Goldman said.

Of course, who knows if they will return. However, at least they now have the satisfaction of saying we don't want to swim with your kind.

For more on this, see Phawker, JIM CROW SWIMS HERE: Valley Swim Club Discrimination Becomes National Embarrassment.

Looking for Treasure

2009-07-12T21:03:00.008-04:00

Before I left for vacation, I remarked to friends that Las Vegas is probably on the top of my list of places that I'd rather not visit. However, my in-laws are celebrating their 50th Anniversary next month & the kids decided to hold the family vacation in Vegas this year so that we could combine the vacation and renewal of vows (and get a little gambling in for those who indulge).

The ceremony/reception was lovely, with all of the 5 children participating. My husband, as the oldest, was the best man. My brother-in-law, who is a minister, performed the ceremony. All of the grandkids also took part. I was one of the few in the audience, along with a few close friends & relatives who came along.

My husband & I aren't gamblers, so Vegas is not really the place for us. I couldn't believe that there were slot machines at the end of the runway when we deplaned. I'm only surprised that the bathrooms didn't have mini-slots, since they pervaded every other possible spot. To me, the non-stop gaming activity was an assault on the senses. With the temperatures over 100 degrees every day, there wasn't much else available -- even the pool was off limits until late afternoon.

We stayed at Treasure Island and visited the casinos that mimicked Paris & Venice. I've been to both cities several times, so I have to admit that I was pretty condescending about the thought of a Vegas Paris or Venice. The commercialization was a bit over the top, but the trompe l'oeil was decent. I went through the Venetian early one morning before the stores opened, so the effects were pretty good.

One evening, the ladies all went to see Menopause, The Musical, which was delightful. Another day, we wandered around old Las Vegas in the downtown section, which I enjoyed much more than the built-up strip. I even visited a few pawn shops, trying to benefit from someone's else's bad luck. I managed to find a good deal on a piece of jewelry, natch.

A number of people insisted that I at least try my hand at gambling, so I wagered $2. on the slots, which I promptly lost & quit for good. If I'm going to spend my money, I at least want to have something to show for it. All I have to say is: Las Vegas -- oy, what a place.

Eat, Drink & Be Merry

2009-07-06T06:29:00.003-04:00

So, my hectic social life continues unabated. I'm normally a homebody, with an occasional night out, but lately I've been out almost every night, either for a client meeting or a social event.

In fact, I've been out to dinner so much in the last week or so that I could write a food blog. In the last week alone, I've been to Cooper's in Manayunk, Bocia in Mount Airy, a new restaurant in Roxborough twice, Sole 2 Soul, and had dinner at the Germantown Cricket Club.

Except for the Cricket Club, all of the restaurants are relatively new and are BYOB. Our favorite (thus, the second excursion) is Sole 2 Soul. It's just the kind of place that Ridge Avenue in Roxborough needs -- good food, nice setting. My daughter (who works nearby) is actually the one who discovered the place and we all went there last Friday. My husband & I returned last week again on our own, since we enjoyed the meal so much. The menu features a lot of seafood (which I don't eat), so my husband can get his fill. My blackened chicken breast was very tasty as well.

Cooper's Brick Oven Wine Bar is the sister restaurant to Jake's. We all had gourmet pizza and salad, which was good, but not anything special. Unlike Craig LaBan, I'm not a fan of the crackery flatbread pizza. I prefer stretchy pizza dough, even if it's pulled thin for margarita pizza. Our friends liked it more than we did.

Thursday was our anniversary (21 years of marriage/38 years togetherness), so we dined at Bacio. Again, my husband had seafood, Filet of Talapia, which he loved and I had a delicious chicken parmigiana. The service was so slow that the chef sent out a beef salad gratis while we waited. We were in no hurry, so it was no big deal for us. We'd definitely go back.

On the 4th, we opted for a restful day -- a day relaxing at the pool, followed by a BBQ in our yard, with a late night dip in our hottub, sipping wine. We could hear the fireworks in the background, so it was a fab 4th.

Tomorrow we're off for our family vacation. This year we're going to a place that topped my list of vacation spots I don't want to see -- Las Vegas. We don't gamble, but everyone says it's still a fun place to go. My in-laws are renewing their vows on their 50th Anniversary and we're doing it up in Las Vegas. I'll see if I can find some hidden treasure at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-07-05T22:39:00.000-04:00

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Daryl Cagle - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

The Quitah From Wasilla

2009-07-05T08:04:00.005-04:00

I realize that the topic of Sarah Palin's latest zany move -- quitting her job as Governor of Alaska -- has been covered almost as much as Michael Jackson's death, but I just have to put my spin on it (not that I have anything unique to add), of course. After all, despite my belief that she would pale out after the election, she has continued to live on -- in infamy, to the delight of her friends & foes alike. If nothing else, Sarah has staying power & excels at the Supreme Surprise!

For me personally, summer continues to be a whirlwind of social activity, so I had just finished Todd Purdum's devastating piece in Vanity Fair on Palin on Friday, It Came from Wasilla, and was out & about when I received a shocking AP News Alert on my iPhone, announcing that her Paleness had decided to start the 4th of July celebrations early, with the fireworks created by the news of her impending departure. I immediately called my Sarah Be Gone Wager pal to dish about the news.

As soon as arrived back home, I had to watch the video of her resignation. It was everything (and more) that I hoped it would be. A definite performance for the ages. She will forever be guided by the Rule: "only dead fish go with the flow." She may be vexing and perplexing, but one thing's for sure -- she's gone from Sassy Sarah to Sarah the Sad Sack.

All you need to know of her rambling, breathless, shaky, Sarah Be Gone Speech from Nowhere is:

(Click to enlarge)

Bottom line, as the Anchorage Daily News said, is that Sarah Palin to resign as Alaska's governor:

Gov. Sarah Palin stunned Alaska and the nation Friday by abruptly announcing her resignation from office. Palin, the governor of Alaska for two and a half years, said she will step down in three weeks and hand power over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Palin made the announcement at a hastily called press conference held at her Wasilla home as the holiday weekend began. She complained about ethics complaints lodged against her, said the media isn't reporting her accomplishments, and struck conservative political themes like smaller government, resource development and national security.

In other words, woe is me so, so long suckers!!

As the shock sunk in, the opinions began to spew forth. As the NYT Caucus Blog notes, The Saturday Word: Palin Chatter:

All should have been quiet on the political front the Friday before the Fourth of July. But, then there was Sarah Palin — Alaska’s governor, who announced she was quitting her job after just two years.

* * * *
But what it all means is still a bit curious. Though her sometimes rambling address sounded much like a farewell-cruel-politics speech, the announcement stirred more speculation that she would use her newfound freedom from governing responsibility to try to position herself for a presidential bid in 2012. She has a book contract, and has demonstrated again this summer that she remains popular among voters.

The Alaska blogger who was there from the beginning, AKMuckraker of Mudflats, again asked the question: What Is Sarah Palin Thinking? One Alaskan's Perspective:

Palin's long, rambling, fretful speech had all the visible tension and clenched jaw muscles of her appearance when she returned back home to little old Alaska after her failed VP bid. She was interviewed by the press in her Anchorage office and said how glad she was to be back, and how much fun it was to run the state of Alaska. Nobody believed her. It's become more and more apparent that what she likes is the crowds, the attention, and the advocacy for her beliefs. But the day to day running of the state doesn't seem to have much appeal anymore. A common complaint among legislators and top state officials since Palin's return from the campaign trail is that nobody ever sees her. Getting face time with the governor is not an easy thing. Palin has discovered, through her travels, that you don't have to be a politician to get attention.

Today she stood by the shores of Lake Lucille and told us how she was leaving her position for our own good. It's for the best interest of the state, she said. There are too many distractions, too much being picked on, too little time to focus on the matters of state, too many jokes about her kids, and too much money fighting those ethics complaints against her.

* * * *
Speculation is rampant about a soon to be declared run for the presidency in 2012. If Palin listens to her core group of supporters, she has reason to believe this run at the White House would land her in the Oval Office. Her resignation speech was full of imagery about Alaska's resources helping the country, about how much we owe our military, about the economy; a wistful retrospective of all her administration had accomplished. . . . And while the rhetoric sounded national, the mood of the event was anything but celebratory. And Palin continues to stick with the talking points that those who are paying attention have debunked.

The time in front of the cameras was also used, many felt, to "play the victim card." Palin spent a considerable amount of time castigating the very media that was there covering the event, for being too critical. But the principle objects of Palin's venom were private citizens who had filed ethics complaints against her. . . . She seems unable, even when delivering a speech that is destined for national coverage, to rise above the fray, and refrain from sounding petty.

Like everyone else, Josh Marshall of TPM, wondered what was behind the stunning move (timed for the bad news Friday cycle, on a holiday week-end, no less), in Surreality Only Beginning:

Either Palin is resigning ahead of some titanic scandal (which should emerge in short order if it exists) or her resignation was triggered by an even more extreme mental instability than we'd previously suspected.

Then there's Greg Sargent's take (from which I cribbed my caption), Bailin’ Barracuda, Or The Quitah From Wasilla:

First, my quickie prediction: Though she probably does envision a role in national public life of some kind, I don’t believe she intends to run in 2012. She may end up doing that, but my bet is that’s not what is driving the resignation.

This is a woman who appears to crave dominance, and gets visibly frustrated and deeply rattled when it eludes her or when her self-mastery wavers. She can’t dominate or control the national media or her national image. This was borne out again with the flap over the Vanity Fair article. She quit in a huff, and doesn’t have any intention of coming back.

Booman agrees. See It's Not Goodbye for Sarah.

The Kenosha Kid's Blog sums things up perfectly, Why is Sarah Palin resigning?:

1. Willow is pregnant
2. 'Crossed the line' with Governor Sanford
3. Devastating Vanity Fair article
4. Putting good of nation over her own petty ambitions

Not surprisingly, whenever a politician resigns "to spend more time with the family," the euphemism usually means that trouble (i.e., most often, legal problems) will soon be announced. As expected, the speculation began shortly after the announcement. Palin's Move Raises Big Questions. As AKMuckraker put it:

In Alaska it's become known as "the iceberg." The iceberg is rumored to be a piece of news that's so damaging, and so big, it will sink the S.S. Palin. The rumors also exist that it's coming soon. Speculation about IRS problems, issues with other three-letter organizations, more ethics complaints, and embezzlement abound. Questions have been raised about the construction of Palin's house by a bunch of Todd's buddies, at the same time that a giant sports complex was being built just down the road in Wasilla, and right after building codes had been abolished by the then mayor of Wasilla, one Sarah Palin. Do we know anything for sure? No. But the recent claim that the breaking of this scandal is imminent seems coincidental to say the least. Alaskans hesitate to get too excited about rumored indictments, though. Despite the indictment and conviction of several state legislators, and the indictment-conviction and now un-conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens, the slow process has taught us patience. We still await rumored indictments of Congressman Don Young, and former State Senate President Ben Stevens (son of Ted Stevens.) You can't make this stuff up.

Like Leave It To Beaver, leave it to Sarah had to react to the gossip in her usual way -- whine, moan, groan, followed by stupendous attack. So Palin has threatened legal action against those writers and reporters who dared to suggest that there may be more to her resignation beyond the muddled words muttered by Sarah. Huffington Post Blogger in Palin's Cross Hairs. Claiming defamation isn't protected under the Alaska Constitution, her lawyer conveniently omits that other legal document -- the US Constitution, which just might contain a 1st Amendment free speech right that may be applicable here. Palin's Lawyer Threatens Bloggers, Media.

As we get into the dog days of summer, Sarah's antics will insure that the bad news of the economy and war won't get us down. We always have her to snicker over.

There are times that snarkiness is just what's called for & Maureen Dowd delivers, in Now, Sarah’s Folly:

As Alaskans settled in to enjoy holiday salmon bakes and the post-solstice thaw, their governor had a solipsistic meltdown so strange it made Sparky Sanford look like a model of stability.
On the shore of Lake Lucille, with wild fowl honking and the First Dude smiling, with Piper in the foreground and their Piper Cub in the background, the woman who took the Republican Party by storm only 10 months ago gave an incoherent, breathless and prickly stream of consciousness to a small group in her Wasilla yard. Gobsmacked Alaska politicians, Republican big shots, the national press, her brother, the D.C. lawyer who helped create her political action committee and yes, even Fox News, played catch-up.
What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.
She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.
Maybe there’s another red Naughty Monkey high heel to drop — there’s often a hidden twist in Sarah’s country-music melodramas. Or is this a reckless high-speed escape from small-pond Alaska, where her popularity is dropping, to the big time Below?

We may be befuddled about what motivated Palin at the moment, but as Paul Begala notes, we shall soon find out, but one thing about her will not change -- her intellectual capacity. What you see is what you get. As he explains, Sarah Palin Turns Pro:

I'm no latter-day Strunk & White, just a guy who was struck by Palin's spectacularly rambling and infantile prose. It bespeaks a rambling and infantile mind. But perhaps not. Perhaps this is all a ruse. Perhaps Gov. Palin wants us to believe she's an intellectual featherweight who is slightly shallower than an actor on High School Musical. Maybe she's trying to throw us off the trail.

Naah. A lot of people thought that about George W. Bush. He couldn't be so block-headed, they said. He couldn't be as childish and churlish as he came off. Oh yes he could. And so, too, might Ms. Palin be as vapid and puerile as her inane statement suggests.

We will know. In the fullness of time (and I predict, not much time) we will know. Again and again in her statement, Gov. Palin returned to the nettlesome ethics inquiries that have been visited upon her since she signed on to be John McCain's running mate. No doubt they are annoying. But does anyone believe that's why she's resigning? No, there's more to this story. And Ms. Palin's resignation only increases the chances that we will all know the rest of the story soon. Or, as she might put it:

We will all KNOW the "rest of the Story" *((SOON!))*

As I listened to the news on the radio, hearing that Sarah Palin held her press conference alongside Lake Lucille, the thought struck me that it was only fitting, since she's the Lucille Ball of our time. Wacky, zany Lucy -- always good for a laugh. And, she never disappoints.

(Word Cloud via Wordle - Sarah Palin's Resignation Speech)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-07-04T09:02:00.003-04:00

The real reason Sarah Palin is resigning.

(Thanks to InsultComicDog)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-21T00:16:00.001-04:00

Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

A Loss of Innocence

2009-06-20T21:14:00.002-04:00

Once again, the Supreme Court has effectively held that the concept of justice does not mean that justice should ultimately prevail in the halls of justice. Ruling in the DA's Office v. Osborne case, Supreme Court says convicts don't have right to DNA test, the Court found:

Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction, a split Supreme Court ruled yesterday, even though the technology provides an 'unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.'

In the court's first examination of how to treat the rapidly evolving field of biological testing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the 5-4 majority that it was up to the states and Congress to decide who has a right to testing that might prove innocence long after conviction.

The 'challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality' are better left to elected officials than federal judges, he wrote.

'To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,' he wrote. He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Calling it "a beaut of a decision from the increasingly brutal and inhumane conservative-dominated Supreme Court," Matthew Yglesias observes (as I have also), that the Court's decision compounds the errors that can occur with the win-at-all costs mentality that all too often exists in criminal justice system:

Obviously, the purpose of the established system of criminal justice is to use punishment of the guilty as a means of controlling crime. The general hostility of most people in the law enforcement and prosecutorial universe to exonerating evidence is a little bit hard to understand. The predominant thinking of Alaska in this case seems to be that the punishment of the innocent works as a close substitute for the punishment of the guilty, so that given the heinous nature of the crime the state has a strong interest in convicting someone or other of it irrespective of the facts. This is exactly the sort of madness and injustice we rely on the judicial system to rescue us from. But not the new Roberts Court!

See Conservative Justices’ Strange Enthusiasm for the Punishment of the Innocent.

Of course, this is precisely what I would have expected the Court to do after denying an appeal in the Troy Davis case last year. In that case, which I've written about several times before, there were compelling issues raised about guilt or innocence in that death penalty case and Davis' attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, hoping for a ruling that the Eighth Amendment creates a right of an innocent person not to be executed. The appeal also sought a new hearing to present the new evidence in an effort to spare his life, which the Court declined to accept for consideration.

But what else could be expected from the Roberts court, as BuzzFlash notes, High Court's Supremely Flawed DNA Ruling Puts States Rights Before Due Process, Justice, Public Safety and Empathy:

At the Supreme Court of the United States Thursday, a 5-4 ruling against William Osborne seemed to confirm that ideology and lack of empathy trump everything else for some of the right-leaning justices now serving there. 'Although the right wing bloc obviously consider themselves on the 'law and order' side of the bench, their lack of empathy in this matter actually promotes lawlessness and needlessly puts women in danger,' one court observer wrote yesterday.

Likewise, Lawyers, Guns and Money, in This Is Your Court On Conservatives, adds:

Roberts and his right-wing colleagues share another longstanding trait of American conservatives: prioritizing 'state's rights' over human rights. And as in most cases, the benefits of this as applied to this case are hard to discern. While federalism may promote liberty in some respects, there is no tangible benefit to permitting states to imprison potentially innocent people when assessing exculpatory evidence would entail little expense. And interpreting the due process clause to give the defendant a right to present exculpatory evidence in this case can only be a threat to the 'sovereignty' and 'dignity' of the states if one believes that there should be virtually no federal supervision of the state criminal procedure, which the 14th Amendment precludes even if it wasn't a stupid idea on the merits. If preventing illegal detention isn't at the heart of due process, I'm not sure what is.

Noting the criticism of the case and of the conservatives who endorsed it, Glenn Greenwald observes that the Obama DOJ also continued to advocate this egregious position before the Court as originally proposed by the Bush Administration, Obama, the Right and defendants' rights:

[T]his was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger . . . .

* * * *

There may be justifications for what the Obama DOJ did (all other things being equal, government lawyers tend to prefer continuity in positions after changes in administration), but -- as is true for so many controversies these days -- it's rather difficult to heap all the blame on conservatives for something that the Obama administration itself embraces and is working to bring about.

What was not mentioned in Greenwald's piece is the fact that AG Eric Holder spoke out after the opinion was announced in favor of the use of DNA evidence. As reported by the Blog of the Legal Times, DNA Evidence Can Exonerate the Wrongfully Charged:

A day after the Supreme Court ruled defendants have no constitutional right to a review of DNA evidence in post-conviction proceedings, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. underscored the Justice Department position that seeks to expand access to DNA evidence in the courts.

* * * *
“And we are mindful that DNA evidence can be used to exonerate those who are wrongfully charged,” Holder said today. “Our mission at the Justice Department is not simply to win cases. It is to do justice, and science and DNA can help us accomplish this.”
Yesterday, Holder issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne that said, in part: “Constitutional rights are only one part of a fair and full system of justice. Simply because a course of action is constitutional does not make it wise.” Holder said in the statement that the Court “merely spoke about what is constitutional, not what is good policy.”

I'm not sure I agree that the constitution would not also require such a result, but I agree that it is good policy, at a minimum, to ensure that an ability to establish innocence is always guaranteed in our system of justice, at whatever stage in the process. As I mentioned before, with respect to the Troy Davis case, former Judge William Sessions noted:

Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that the judicial system, “like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.” I agree. Especially when it comes to a human life, the courts should always be able to examine claims of innocence.

In Guns We Trust

2009-06-20T13:28:00.002-04:00

Admittedly, I'm not much of a fan of the Terrorist Watch list, as I've mentioned before:

One of my major pet peeves (if you can characterize a desire to uphold our constitutional rights as a pet peeve) is the TSA's "No Fly List." My main objection is that The List is a secret list, with information gathered by the government from various sources (including, no doubt, the various illegal spying efforts that the FBI and others have engaged in), that has information about you that you are not permitted to see, challenge or be removed from. More Power than Law. The true size of The List is unknown. See, Big Brother Run Amuck: 435,000 Americans in "Terrorist" Database. Numerous errors have been reported, to no avail.

Despite my objections, I also believe that if we have to have The List, a process should be put in place that would allow a person who believes he is on The List to have a way to petition for review and removal, if appropriate. Rather than fix the problems with The List by paring down the numbers to those who may in fact be "terrorists," this over-inclusive list has grown even larger since I wrote about it 2 years ago. Back in 2007, the database contained over 400,000 names. Now, it's over 1 million.

Clearly, The List is riddled with problems. Yet, being on The List doesn't deprive one of all of our rights under our constitution. Thankfully, the right to buy and bear arms is a precious freedom that even The List cannot infringe.

A NYTimes article, On Terrorist Watch List, but Allowed to Buy Guns, reports:

People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

Responding to blogger Instapundit, who defends the gun purchase exclusion, No More Mister Nice Blog echoes my sentiments, in The Gun Is Sacred:

Well, terrorist watch lists are bad and Orwellian when they're full of mistakes and put together without due process. And the one we've got, yes, is quite flawed. I've criticized it repeatedly for ensnaring people just because they have common names, or merely share names with people who are under suspicion. And there need to be much better procedures for appealing inclusion on the list. But if we're using it to keep people off planes, or for any purpose at all, why is the gun so sacrosanct that it gets a carve-out? Oh yeah, I forgot: this is America, and the gun is God.

Yes, we must keep our priorities in order.

Above all, we believe in Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Arms.

A Pox on You

2009-06-20T09:07:00.004-04:00

Don Wright, Tribune Media Services

After a busy start to the week, with the annual dinner meeting of a non-profit whose Board I recently joined and a celebratory dinner for a friend who was just appointed Dean of the University of Maryland School of Law, I've been plagued for the last few days with the worst of the worst -- a summer flu.

I suppose there's some consolation in the non-stop dreary, rainy weather that we've had, so at least I'm consoled by the fact that I'm not missing any prime pool time.

I have my own suspicions about how I contracted it. Last week-end in Scranton, I attended our Church picnic in McDade Park, but I left just as the priest began setting up for an outdoor mass. I believe a curse was put on me for skipping out early.

Of course, I've had no end of diagnoses and suggested remedies to try. The "advantage" of having physicians as clients, I suppose. However, can I say that I wasn't especially thrilled when an ER doctor client said that it sounded like I had swine flu & should get tested. Bed rest & lots of fluids were also recommended (and even a homeopathic remedy, believe it or not) -- as soon as I finished whatever project that the particular client had called about.

Luckily, it looks like on the fever & chills are gone, along with the sore throat. So I'm just left with the dull headache, fatigue and of course, the sniffles, coughing & sneezing. And with the pitter patter of the rain outside my window, I have no desire to go outside today, so I'm sure to get the all of the R&R I need.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-20T08:21:00.003-04:00

Iran-I-am

(click to enlarge)

Sage Stossel, The Atlantic

Sailing Away

2009-06-15T07:22:00.005-04:00

I'm back from a long week-end in Scranton for my nephew's Graduation Party. Another trip back in time as I wander the halls of the Tripp House. As I mentioned 2 years ago when my other nephew graduated, Ain't No Party Like a Scranton Party:

The trip to Scranton was a real trip down memory lane for me. The Graduation Party was held at The Tripp House, which is Scranton's oldest home. Even more, years before it was taken over by the Junior League and restored as an event venue, my grandmother lived there. My brothers and I went to the house early to help set up for the party, so I got to wander around the house and remember spending time there with Noni. Great memories.

The rest of the week-end was also filled with family-related activities. On Saturday, we attended a Church picnic at McDade Park and another graduation party that evening.
Scranton has some of the best state parks around. After the bucolic setting of McDade Park, on Sunday the family spent the day at Lackawanna State Park, where we went kayaking and canoeing. After the rest of the gang headed out on the lake, my brother & I sat with my parents for a while, before we decided to hop into our own canoe.

Of course, anyone who knows me knows that me in a canoe isnn't exactly a picture that easily comes to mind. I probably haven't been in a canoe since the days when we had our vacation house in the Poconos. In fact, after the shock wore of the faces of my niece and nephews when we caught up with them, I had to take pictures to prove to doubters that I really was sailing the lake in my canoe.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-11T06:20:00.000-04:00

Tim Egan, Deep Cover

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-10T23:10:00.000-04:00

Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post Gazette

MoBo's Gotta Go

2009-06-10T22:53:00.000-04:00

Another story that I've been wanting to write about is the dismissal of the criminal case against celebrity Pittsburgh coroner Cyril Wecht. As was reported by TPM, Wecht Charges To Be Dropped:

The charges against Dr. Cyril Wecht, the celebrity forensic pathologist and prominent Pittsburgh-area Democrat, will be dismissed.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush appointee who had been accused of pursuing a politically motivated prosecution against Wecht, [last week] filed a motion to drop the charges, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Wecht, the former Allegheny County coroner, was charged in 2006 with misusing his office for private gain. Last year, his trial ended in a hung jury.

Buchanan said in a news conference that her decision to ask for the charges to be dropped was prompted by a judicial ruling last month -- finding that crucial evidence was inadmissible because prosecutors' search warrants were too general -- which she said made it difficult to move forward with the prosecution.

Not happy about having to admit defeat, Buchanan couldn't resist taking a last swipe against Wecht. Lacking the professionalism of her office, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette notes that Buchanan added, Wecht charges dropped:

'He wasn't acquitted of anything. It was a hung jury.

'However, in our society, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.'

Dr. Wecht, at a news conference yesterday afternoon following the judge's signing of the order to dismiss the case, called Ms. Buchanan a 'sore loser.'

'Her record, her actions speak for themselves,' he said. 'She has no shame at all. Absolutely none. Evidently, whether it's biological, or genetic or an environmental, infectious contaminant of some kind, she is incapable of simply telling the truth, not to mention being a gracious loser.'

Dr. Wecht criticized the government for filing an 84-count indictment and whittling it down to just 14 counts before dismissing the entire case.

'What does that say about professional decency and ethical responsibility?' he asked.

Her conduct at the end -- and throughout the course of this partisan witchunt -- have earned her the scorn she deserves. Showing the degree of vindictiveness she exemplified, even the conservative Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune Review criticized her, Buchanan's big case slams shut for good:

The problem isn't that U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan lacks the courage of her convictions.

The problem is — after spending more than three years, and by conservative estimates more than $200,000 — she lacks a conviction against Dr. Cyril Wecht.

Given the resources her office devoted in the case against the nationally renowned forensic pathologist and former Allegheny County coroner, that's a significant problem.

Buchanan pursued Wecht with the same dogged determination the 17th-century residents of Salem, Mass., displayed in hunting alleged practitioners of the occult.

But Tuesday, she reluctantly announced she would drop public corruption charges against Wecht.

Buchanan had little choice, really.

Last year's seven-week Wecht trial ended with a hung jury. Before a retrial could occur, U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin recently ruled there was a bit of trouble regarding the evidence the government compiled against Wecht.

Owing to the use of improper search warrants, the evidence was inadmissible.

Oops.

Red-faced and empty-handed, Buchanan yesterday was left to star in her own personal version of every prosecutor's most terrifying horror movie: 'Dude, Where's My Case?'

As I've mentioned before: Because of my ties to Pittsburgh, I have followed the Cyril Wecht case for some time, which has been prosecuted by Buchanan amid claims of political prosecution. The Party's Out of Step. As I noted in another essay on Buchanan's refusal to leave, Bush League Leftovers:

I've written about Mary Beth Buchanan before and her adherance to the GOP party line, The Devotee. In fact, the partisan prosecution of Cyril Wecht of Pittsburgh earned the ire of former Governor Dick Thornburgh, a Republican, who testified in Congress against conduct of Buchanan. The Party's Out of Step. And the fact that she's a crony of former Senator Santorum -- need I say more? She was, of course, in good company in a department stacked with the likes of [Alice Martin of Birmingham] and other disreputible US Attorneys. See The Face of a "Loyal Bushie".

See Time to Go.

An old friend from my Pittsburgh days was also the attorney for Wecht, so I was delighted to see that he prevailed in such a high profile case.

But the best news about the outcome of this matter is that it removes any question of partisanship if Buchanan is now booted from her position by Attorney General Eric Holder. It's long overdue. As Will Bunch of AttyTood put it, One American job that should be shed:

The new president typically exercises the ability to appoint new U.S. Attorneys shortly after taking office; there are some prosecutors, like Chicago's Patrick Fitzgerald, who manage to rise above partisan politics, but Mary Beth Buchanan is not one of them. Aggressively and overtly political prosecutions of people like Wecht and former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman -- not unlike torture -- were more the hallmarks of a banana republic than the United States of America. The sooner the Obama administration moves to clean up Justice, the better.

Along with Alice Martin of Alabama, who has persecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on flimsy charges, Buchanan should be on the top of the list of Gotta Goes. As the Tribune Review remarked:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced the replacement of a number of U.S. attorney holdovers from the Bush administration is imminent. Don't be surprised if Buchanan is among the first to go.

In the wake of this costly, colossal, time-consuming failure, Buchanan will leave the job with a dubious legacy.

She exits not with a Wecht, but a whimper.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-10T05:45:00.001-04:00

Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News

Screwball Sarah

2009-06-09T06:59:00.006-04:00

I'm sure it's no surprise that the subject matter of my first return post is Sarah Palin. Like me -- she's back! A few friends & blogging buddies have emailed me, wondering why I haven't written about her Palinness.

I have to admit that I can't believe I'm still writing about Sarah Palin. It's amazing to me that she still manages to make the news with her royal rants on nothing. In fact, if our Palin-Be-Gone Wager hadn't ended in mid-March, I would have surely lost. Rather than a Palin Barbie, they should have made a Sarah Energizer Bunny.

Her Royal Governor, Sarah Palin, first made the news last week over her comments accusing the Obama Administration of trying to "control the people."

As she said (via Gort42), Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people":

In a speech introducing Michael Reagan — the son of former President Ronald Reagan — to an audience in Anchorage, Palin warned that the government is planning to "bail out debt ridden states" so it can "get in there and control the people."

"Since when can you get out of huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt?" Palin asked. "It all really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this economic policy is explained."

"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."

"Some in Washington would approach our economic woes in ways that absolutely defy Economics 101, and they fly in the face of principles, providing opportunity for industrious Americans to succeed or to fail on their own accord," she said. "Those principles it makes you wonder what the heck some in Washington are trying to accomplish here."

As Crooks & Liars notes, "[t]here's something pretty weird hearing the term 'Economics 101,' being uttered by Sarah because she showed little knowledge of economics on the campaign trail." Even stranger is the thought that the Democrats are out to "control the people." Really? Does the Obama Administration want to dictate who people can legally marry? Are the Democrats the party interested in restricting contraceptives? Banning abortion? And remind me -- which political party has been wiretapping citizens? Infiltrating the ranks of war protesters to spy on legitimate activities? Let's talk control. Really.

Palin's Anchorage speech has provided much fodder, well beyond the usual Malaprops. She also applauded Michael Regan, son of Ronny, for his ability to "screw political correctness." See "Screw Political Correctness" -- Sarah Palin in Her Own Words.

And then, of course, was the kerfuffle over the fact that she plagerized several remarks in the speech. As Geoffrey Dunn at Huffington Post notes, Palin Lifts From Gingrich in Anchorage Speech, along with a side-by-side comparison of the offending lines:

Sarah Palin's speech delivered in Anchorage on Wednesday -- the one in which she declared "screw political correctness" and wondered why "we have to pussyfoot around our troublesome foes" -- repeatedly lifted from an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley without attribution.

While Palin twice mentioned Gingrich in the speech (she never acknowledged Shirley), she frequently mixed her own remarks about Reagan with passages that appear to be pulled directly from the Gingrich-Shirley article.

And finally, in one of her famous "will she or won't she" moves, last night Sarah Palin deigned to put in an appearance at a GOP fundraiser after playing coy for a while. Dana Milbank reports, in Keynoter or Not, Palin Steals Spotlight at GOP Fundraiser:

First the Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee was invited to be the keynote speaker at the party's annual congressional fundraising dinner.

Then she was not the keynoter, replaced by former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Then she was invited to speak, again. Then that invitation was rescinded.

Then she let word slip out that she was unhappy about the whole state of events and was thinking of not attending at all.

Then -- after much public bickering between Palin loyalists and party officials -- she finally agreed to come, speaking slot or no.

As with everything Sarah, even her mere appearance at the event is the subject of controversy. Milbank says she was the center of attention at the event, while Politico says she was hardly noticed, Sarah Palin makes little splash at dinner:

Ending weeks of she-said, they-said drama, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin turned in a cameo appearance at the gala fundraising dinner for her party's House and Senate candidates in Washington Monday night.

But in spite of all the back-and-forth between her camp and dinner organizers leading up to the event, Palin's presence went little-noticed.

* * * *

If she hadn't walked quickly across the stage the outset and if her presence hadn’t been mentioned briefly in the remarks of some of the evening's speakers, it would have been hard to know that she had, in fact, shown up.

Oh Sarah, I'm so glad you're back.

(Video via Crooks and Liars)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-06-09T06:25:00.001-04:00

Milt Priggee, Puget Sound Business Journal

She's Back

2009-06-09T00:41:00.000-04:00

I haven't disappeared into the great beyond of the "ethernets" -- at least not yet, anyway.

Blogging has been light or non-existent for the past month or so due to my crazy schedule, both at work and home. Despite the fact that my blogging has suffered, most of the stuff going on in my life is good.

Work has been especially hectic, with the usual emergency client matters, as well as the latest technical difficulties compounding the problem. Trust me, I'm not complaining about the client workload -- especially when I see the severe problems faced by BigLaw these days. I realized many years ago that the big firm life was not for me, so I left before things got really out of hand and I've never looked back (other than with great relief).

On the other hand, technical difficulties at work continue to plague the office. We recently switched our phone system, moving to T1/PRI lines. Unfortunately, the transition has been anything but smooth. Our system has been down several days each week since the move two months ago. What makes it worse is the fact that the PRI lines hold not only our phones, but our internet & fax as well, so when they go down, we are totally shut down. No fun. The frustration and hassle of dealing with our work under these conditions has been burdensome and annoying, to say the least.

Outside of work, I've been on the road, visiting family in Scranton, Delaware & Pittsburgh for a funeral, wedding & graduation. Another trek to Scranton is scheduled for this week-end for more graduation festivies.

Our daughter is home for the summer & we've had to adjust to having her around again. Thankfully, she is also gainfully employed. Of course, her job is selling kitchen knives, so our assistance is required -- imposing on friends & family to listen to her sales spiel. But at least she has finally gotten a real paycheck & she's enjoying her job.

Besides that, my social life has been more active of late and I've even started going to the gym a few times a week after work, in my attempt to prepare for beach blanket sun & fun. In fact, with the beautiful weather on Sunday, I spent a good part of the day at the pool. Next to the beach, my favorite summer pasttime is the pool.

With all that's been happening in my life, most of my blogging has been written in my mind, with not much time to actually sit down & write it down to post. But I'm hoping things will calm down just a bit, so I can get back to my blogging routine.

(Sign via Gort42)

Quote of the Day

2009-05-22T07:24:00.001-04:00

Limbaugh hasn't had a natural erection since the Nixon Administration; think he's compensating for something? Now, I wouldn't pick on him for any of this stuff, not his blubbiness, not his man-boobs, not his inability to have a natural erection—none of that stuff—to me, off limits until! until! Mr. Limbaugh, you turn that sort of gun on somebody else—once you start doing that, you're fair game, fat boy. Absolutely, you jiggly pile of mess. You're just fair game, and you're going to get it, too.

Ronald Reagan, Jr. from The Slog

(Via AMERICAblog)

Time to Commence

2009-05-17T09:22:00.002-04:00

Today's the day for President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame's graduation, amid the protests of the small, but vocal anti-abortion activists.

Despite the media attention given to the "controversy" over his commencement, the reality is that the student body and a majority of Catholics do not oppose Obama's appearance at the university. Media Matters highlights the hypocrisy in Barack Obama, Notre Dame, and the Casey myth:

President Obama is scheduled to speak at Notre Dame's graduation ceremony this weekend, after more than a month of complaints from a small number of anti-abortion rights activists who have received media attention far disproportionate to their numbers.

Since the announcement on March 20 that Obama would speak, The Washington Post alone has addressed the controversy in 11 articles and columns. The New York Times has dealt with it in eight columns and articles. And as for television news segments, there have been too many to count.

Notre Dame's class valedictorian also dismissed the so-called controversy, noting in a Huffington Post piece, Obama Practices Catholic Values:

"This issue has not divided the campus by any means," says the Catholic, pro-life biology major who will be attending Harvard Medical School after graduation.

. . . Bollman stressed that her peers do not view the president's overall values as inconsistent with Catholicism. In fact, Bollman says Obama is practicing Catholic values in his administration. Like Jesus, Bollman says, Obama is trying to invite "everyone to the table."

A group of esteemed liberal Catholics have taken out a full page ad in the local South Bend paper welcoming the President. And, in what can only be seen as a show of support to the President of Notre Dame for asking Obama to be commencement speaker, the Class of 2009 chose him as Senior Class Fellow:

The University of Notre Dame’s Class of 2009 has selected Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the University’s president, as the Senior Class Fellow.

Voted on by seniors, the award is an “accolade traditionally given to a member of the Notre Dame community who has had a significant impact on the graduating class,” according to W. Joseph Brown, senior class president.

Media Matters also focuses on the irony of the protests, since Democrats have been criticized for years about former PA Governor Bob Casey:

For nearly 17 years, the media have told us that the Democrats' refusal to allow Casey to speak at their 1992 national convention because of his opposition to abortion was an exclusionary, closed-minded stunt that drove away potential supporters.

Adding to the irony is the fact that Casey's son, PA Senator Robert Casey Jr is the commencement speaker at King's College today as well and his appearance there has drawn the ire from Scranton Bishop Martino. King’s College’s invitation draws Martino’s anger. Casey, like his father, is a strong anti-abortion advocate. His real sin (besides being a Democrat) is the fact that he has supported President Obama.

The Catholic Church has always been against contraceptives and other forms of birth control (other than the mommy-inducing rhythm method), as well as abortion. Yet, it is only in the past few years that it has become the Church of the Anti-Abortion Faithful. It has an all-defining and all-consuming issue for the Church, overwhelming any other creed or article of faith that was once part of the Church's teachings.

This can be seen in the clergy's reaction to Obama's selection at Notre Dame. As the Rude Pundit notes, Why Is This Pro-Choice Commencement Guest Different Than the Others?:

As bullshit protests begin to build over President Barack Obama's upcoming speech at the graduation ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, as the froth is whipped into a rich, thick foam by self-aggrandizing pro-life activists and desperate-for-relevance Catholic bishops, perhaps a bit of history of graduation activities at Notre Dame is in order:

In 1980, the commencement speaker was Carter administration Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a supporter of abortion rights.

In 1987, an honorary degrees were given to the pro-choice Coretta Scott King, Alan Simpson, and Rosalyn Carter.

In 1991, an honorary degree was given to Jane Pauley, a pro-choice supporter.

In 1992, protesters lined up as pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was given the university's Laetare Medal, "the oldest and most prestigious honor awarded an American Catholic," according to the Washington Post. President George H.W. Bush, giving the commencement keynote, went out of his way to praise Moynihan.

In 1993, an honorary degree was given to pro-choice judge Alan C. Page.

In 2000, the commencement speaker was then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who supports all kinds of family planning programs, including those where abortion is allowed.

You get the idea here? The Catholic Church: stinking with rank hypocrisy since Peter stood on a rock. And Catholics: the group that really puts the sheep in the flock.

I think that William Lindsey of Bilgrimage explains the real problem that underlies the Church's stance, in Notre Dame, Anti-Abortion Extremists, and the Pastoral Failure of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

I read about the activities of the “pro-life” extremists seeking to embarrass Notre Dame University for inviting President Obama to its commencement, and I am more than ever convinced that those staging such protests have little interest in cherishing life at all. That's not their game. That is not what this is about, the baby carriages filled with dolls covered in stage blood delivered to Fr. Jenkins’s door, the life-sized images of twelve-week fetuses placed at strategic locations around campus, the airplanes streaming giant photos of an aborted fetus.

This is about intimidation, about seeking to use fear, awe, shock as a technique to control others. It is about control, about a clearly identifiable sociological group who want to represent themselves as the voice of conscience for everyone, who sense that their control of others is waning, and who are willing to use fear as a way of reasserting their control. It is about a minority seeking to impose their will on the majority. It is about those who have for centuries claimed the right to write scripture and interpret scripture for the rest of us, continuing to assert that right in the face of claims that undermine the right.

As always with these things, it's about power & control. Or, as I've said before "Pay, Pray, Obey."

________

The commencement address will be live at 2 PM (EST) on the University of Notre Dame website.

Quote of the Day

2009-05-16T09:31:00.000-04:00

“Dick Cheney was on the news this week, and he said that it would be a mistake for the Republicans to moderate their policies. He said they should remain true to their core principles: gay bashing, war profiteering and torture.”

- Bill Maher

Sarah's Simple Story

2009-05-15T06:31:00.004-04:00

At yesterday's LLWL lunch, we engaged in our perpetual discussion on the winner of the Palin-Be-Gone Wager. No declared winner yet.

As part of the Sarah table talk, the discussion turned to Palin's upcoming book deal, her opportunity to finally tell her side of the story.

No title yet. However, some great contenders can be found at The Mudflats, with an opportunity to vote on a title. A few of my favs:

The Audacity of Hype
Palin Place
Beyond the Palin
Goodnight Loon
Sarah Vain and Simple
The Lyin’ The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Finally, David Letterman's Top 10 Surprises in Sarah Palin's Memoir:

Don't Know What to do About Yoo

2009-05-14T21:31:00.005-04:00

As an update to my previous post about the Philadelphia Inquirer adding John "Mr. Torture" Yoo to its opinion pages -- The Conservative Corner -- there has been quite the reaction from near & far.

As the NYTimes notes, Ire Over a Columnist, an Author of Torture Memos:

When The Philadelphia Inquirer hired as its new opinion columnist John C. Yoo, an author of the Bush administration’s widely criticized legal memos on harsh interrogation techniques, it was probably inevitable that the decision would draw complaints.

The surprise was that it took months to provoke much reaction, in part because it took that long for readers to realize that Mr. Yoo, a Philadelphia native, was not an occasional contributor, as he had been for years, but a regular monthly fixture at the paper. The Inquirer hired him last fall for a year, but did not make a splashy public announcement, as it did in 2007, with former Senator Rick Santorum, who writes every two weeks.

As the Times added:

Harold Jackson, The Inquirer’s editorial page editor, said he was surprised by the sudden delayed anger directed his way over Mr. Yoo. He said the decision to hire a columnist was his, but that “Mr. Yoo was suggested by the publisher,” Brian Tierney.

“There was a conscious effort on our part to counter some of the criticism of The Inquirer as being a knee-jerk liberal publication,” Mr. Jackson said. “We made a conscious effort to add some conservative voices to our mix.”

A knee-jerk liberal publication? The only people who could possibly think that are those who stopped reading it long ago. The more recent people driven away did so because it was anything but. Will Bunch noted, in Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication": "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that 'knee-jerk liberal' thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me."

As for Jackson being surprised about delayed anger? Gee, I don't suppose it might have had anything to do with the fact that no one knew. As Steve Benen says, YOO CAN'T BE SERIOUS:

This doesn't work at all. First, there was "delayed anger" because no one knew -- and the paper didn't announce -- that the Inquirer had actually hired Yoo until this past weekend. As a rule, people rarely complain about a development before learning about it.

And if that's not enough, the coup d'grace was:

Post Script: Tierney told the NYT few of his readers actually care about this: "I've gotten more mail recently on our making our comics smaller than I have on John Yoo." Here's hoping that changes fairly soon.

Blogger Philebrity proposes that we locals take action to express our displeasure through a boycott of the Inky so long as Yoo Know Who is part of the paper, Editorial: Boycott The Philadelphia Inquirer.:

But to give voice to one of the architects of one of America’s darkest moments ever is simply a bridge too far. As readers and colleagues in the media (however much some Inky folks might want to deny that simple fact), we are, to put it plainly, disgusted. This city has taken a lot of abuse from the Philadelphia Inquirer over the years, and via its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it stands to take more — who knows how much local businesses will get stiffed when all is said and done? This is more than insult to injury. To even have Yoo’s voice emanating from this city’s presupposed paper of record is a blight upon Philadelphia itself. And it’s here that we say, “Enough.” Please join us in boycotting the Philadelphia Inquirer from this point forward — both in physical form AND online — until the paper sees fit to remove John Yoo from its pages, and encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom Blog opposes the boycott, Why I oppose the Inquirer boycott:

In this country, John Yoo has the right to spew his vile nonsense, and the Inky has every right to publish his distasteful content. I don't have to read Yoo's columns if I don't want to. But I might want to. Because a key to defeating one's opponents in an argument is to understand the opponent's thought processes.

Hopefully Yoo's columns can provide us with some insights into the psyche of the torturer, and hopefully we can use those insights constructively to present better arguments to counter Yoo's talking points.

That is where we can be truly effective. Rather than boycotting the Inky, we should read each and every one of Yoo's columns. And we should respond to each column en masse with well-reasoned and well-written letters to the editor, in great enough numbers to ensure that some will get published.

I certainly agree with Mary Shaw's sentiments, but I know that there is no way that I would waste my time with the likes of Yoo (or Santorum). In my view, some ideas are so outside the realm of reason that they are worth responding to. In fact, I think part of the problem with our discourse today is that we have given a forum to people whose extremist views should never have received a platform.

I am definitely more in the boycott camp. I have chronicled the decline of the Inky since its purchase by PR mogul Brian Tierney in May of 2006. At various times, I have been annoyed enough to want to stop getting the paper -- like when Rick Santorum was hired. My husband was even willing to do so, even though he prefers to read the actual paper than the on-line version. The quality has also declined, much like the size of the paper itself, but there are still those reporters who manage to do a great job despite what has to be trying conditions. It is for that reason that I still hesitate to pull the plug. But I'm still thinking about it.

As for Tierney, I wish him nothing but the worst. And he is getting it from all over, since Inky's stance has earned it some delicious scorn. Gawker expresses it best, Philly Paper Has 'Only Despicable Republicans' Hiring Policy:

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a bankrupt paper run by a greedy Republican flack. They're going to save themselves by hiring America's most unpopular and/ or idiotic Republicans as columnists:
John Yoo, the Bush lawyer most famous for his Torture Memos, is now a bylined Inquirer columnist. Let's examine a list of the paper's recent high-profile Op-Ed page hirings:

John Yoo.
Rick Santorum.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-05-14T18:04:00.000-04:00

Matt Davies, The Journal News

What's the Matter With Yoo?

2009-05-12T07:15:00.003-04:00

The fact that I had to read about it elsewhere is perhaps most telling of all.

The editorial/op-ed section used to be the first stop on my daily perusal of the paper, which I read front-to-back (other than the sports section). No more. In fact, I no longer read the opinion pages of the Inquirer -- what I now not-so-affectionately refer to as the "Conservative Corner" of the paper.

In a recent piece by Steven Reynolds on Why the Philadelphia Inquirer is in Bankruptcy and its hiring of Rick Santorum as a columnist (coincidence? I think not), I commented:

Not to mention that Philly is a strongly Democratic town & the editorial page is now a GOP rag (I stopped reading it a while ago). Santorum, Krauthammer & Smerconish on the same masthead makes one think of the Washington (”Moonie”) Times, not the Inky.

[Brian] Tierney is supposedly trying to appeal to the suburbanites who were turned off by the “liberal bent” of the Inky, but he misunderstands that most don’t hold his hard right views. What’s particularly ironic about the choice of Santorum is that he was mainly defeated because the republicans in SE PA rejected his brand of conservationism. And, of course, it doesn’t help that he can’t express a complete thought in a rational manner.

Despite that, I was still surprised by the most recent addition to the Conservative Corner -- none other than Mr. Torture himself, John Yoo.

As Will Bunch reveals in his AttyTood blog, Inquirer defends the indefensible: A monthly column by torture architect John Yoo:

By late last year, the world already knew a great deal about John Yoo, the Philadelphia native and conservative legal scholar whose tenure in the Bush administration as a top Justice Department lawyer lies at the root of the period of greatest peril to the U.S. Constitution in modern memory. It was widely known in 2008, for example, that Yoo had argued for presidential powers far beyond anything either real or implied in the Constitution -- that the commander-in-chief could trample the powers of Congress or a free press in an endless undeclared war, or that the 4th Amendment barring unreasonable search and seizure didn't apply in fighting what Yoo called domestic terrorism.

Most famously, Yoo was known as the author of the infamous "torture memos" that in 2002 and 2003 gave the Bush and Cheney the legal cover to violate the human rights of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, based on the now mostly ridiculed claim that international and U.S. laws against such torture practices did not apply. Working closely with Dick Cheney, Cheney's staff and others, Yoo set into motion the brutal actions that left a deep, indelible stain on the American soul.

Yet none of that was enough to prevent my colleagues upstairs at the Philadelphia Inquirer -- with none of the fanfare that might normally accompany such a move -- to sign a contract with Yoo in late 2008 to give him a regular monthly column.

* * * *

Because Yoo's working arrangement with the Inquirer was never formally announced, even people who work here at 400 North Broad Street, the home of the Daily News and Inquirer,weren't immediately aware (myself included)that Yoo was now a regular columnist, joining an increasingly rightward-tilting lineup that also includes the likes ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (at $1,750 a pop), Michael Smerconish, a moderate Republican who is also a forceful advocate for torture, Kevin Ferris and others.

I've already written about the what's the matter with Yoo many times in the past, including a riff on an earlier op-ed piece, Yoo What?, in which Yoo audaciously argued that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by deciding issues of constitutional import in a manner that did not give sufficient weight to the President -- or even Congress. Of course, I'm sure he'd concede the error of his ways, now that there's a President of a different color in the House (that is, blue rather than red, of course). See also, The Horror of Yoo and Yoo Who.

Yoo's latest dribble for the Inky is to echo the latest GOP talking point, that "empathy" is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. John Yoo Argues for Neutrality, Needs Empathy. According to Orin Hatch, empathy is Code for activist. I realize that empathy is not a word in the conservative vocabulary. Not surprisingly, the Republicans believe that you have to be cold, cruel and souless in order to serve on the Court (think Thomas, Scalia and Alito).

Jonathan Valania of Phawker also has a compendium of opinion on the Inquirer's hiring of Yoo, HECKUVA JOB TIERNEY: Why Is THIS Man Bloviating About Supreme Court Replacements In The Inquirer?. As he says:

First Santorum, now Yoo. Increasingly, the Inquirer’s editorial page has become the place where the last eight years go to die. What’s next? Replacing Craig LaBan with Dick Cheney? Tom DeLay’s pitbull movie reviews? Karl Rove reviving the Marley & Me franchise?

One good thing. Yoo doesn't need a law license to write his discredited opinions on the law, so if Pennsylvania were to disbar him, as has apparently been recommended by the report for the DOJ on torture, he could still pontificate to the readers of the Inky, who appear to be matching the numbers of the GOP itself -- an ever downward spiral.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-05-07T11:32:00.001-04:00

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Bob Englehart - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

Dom is Dead, R.I.P

2009-05-06T07:35:00.003-04:00

Dom DeLuise, Comic Actor, Dies at 75

Dom DeLuise with Johnny Carson

She's a Doll

2009-05-05T05:56:00.000-04:00

Anyone who knows me or reads this blog knows about the Palin Be Gone Wager that I had with one of the LLWL members. Our bet was whether Sarah Palin would continue her celebrity status in the aftermath of the election. As I described it before:

Although I'm normally not a gambler, I even agreed to a wager. My bet was that Sarah would slink off sooner rather than later, while my colleague said Sarah's staying. The loser has to buy pizza for the office from Old Forge, located nearby my hometown of Scranton (which I have bragged for years has the best pizza ever). After much back & forth on the matter, we decided that the Ides of March would be the date of determination. At that point in time, would Sarah Palin still be in the news?

Admittedly, Palin certainly continued full blast in the early post-election days, but then began to pale as time went on. I chronicled her decline in Out of the Spotlight and Off The Radar.

And yes, although the drop dead date for the bet was March 15th, we've yet to declare a winner. I've acknowledged that Palin has had a resurgence of sorts since the Ides of March, The Wasilla Snowbillies, but that doesn't help my erstwhile colleague. Of course, as I've mentioned before, she's willing to call it a tie, but lord knows I can never concede defeat. So our Old Forge Pizza fest is on hold, to the consternation of the rest of the office.

Along with our Palin Patter, I received an official Sarah Palin calendar as a surprise holiday present from my gambling pal. See The Year of Living Palin. It's prominently displayed on the wall facing my credenza, much to the shock & surprise of clients & friends who happen by the office. Of course, I rarely discuss politics with clients, but a few who know me well at least suspect my liberal leanings, even if they do not share them. So the expression on their face as they gaze at Sarah's face is priceless, with a look of bewilderment and confusion.

When I received my Christmas present, I was told that there was yet another present coming, but that it had been delayed. Well, it finally arrived yesterday.

My very own Sarah Palin doll!

Sexy, Sassy Sarah.

This treasured collectors item has arrived just in time too, since Sarah's been named to The 2009 TIME 100, with her praises sung by no less a luminary than Ann Coulter, who says of Palin:

Sarah Palin was arguably the most influential person in 2008, but no one notices because she wasn't influential enough to overcome the deficits of her running mate and win the election.

* * * *
John McCain was so preposterous a candidate (at least on a Republican ticket) that Palin was responsible for far more votes than the usual vice-presidential candidate. The biggest red flag proving her popularity with normal Americans is that liberals won't shut up about her. Palin is a threat to liberals because she believes in God and country and family — all values liberals pretend to believe in but secretly detest. There's a reason there's no "Stop Olympia Snowe before it's too late!" movement.

On the other hand, it all depends on your perspective. I'm not sure that Coulter gets the last word. Mitt Romney may have called it, when he remarked:

In the latest instance of a high-profile GOP member taking a passing swipe at the party's 2008 vice presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney jokingly dismissed Sarah Palin’s inclusion on Time’s list of influential people in an interview broadcast Sunday.

He asked, was “the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people?”

And finally, after playing the tease for a while, Sarah Palin to be part of the National Council for a New America, the latest rebranding effort by the GOP.

So, my Palin doll will be a conversation piece for a while.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-05-04T08:36:00.001-04:00

Steve Sack, Star Tribune

'The Soloist'

2009-05-04T07:26:00.003-04:00

We rarely see a movie in the theater (a Mother's Day outing to see Crash a few years ago may have been the last time), but we decided that the rainy weather was perfect for a family movie night. The Soloist certainly fit the mood of the weather.

My daughter's reading the book now and I'm familiar with the story from reading Steve Lopez' columns in the LA Times when he originally wrote of the story of the mentally ill musician in 2005. Lopez had been one of my favorite writers at the Inky, so I followed his columns when he moved to LA., including his awarding winning series of stories about Nathaniel Ayers, a schizophrenic homeless man who was a gifted musician and had attended Juilliard. These stories comprise the book and the plot of the movie.

The headline of the Philly Daily News review says it all, ‘The Soloist’ not a feel-good film. As Gary Thompson explains:

Did I mention it's also intentionally atonal, this dirge? "The Soloist" is a tough movie built around the difficult friendship between Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez (ex of the Inky) and the homeless man whose life he chronicles.

It begins when Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) strikes up a conversation with a street musician named Ayers (Jamie Foxx), who's ranting and plucking on two strings of a busted violin.

The man babbles, but Lopez gets his name, hears the word "Julliard," and does a little digging. He unearths (and reports, in a series of columns) the compelling biography of a boy genius whose promise was cut short by madness, a biography that also tells the story of urban homelessness. (As does this movie, with rare emotional restraint.)

Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx gave excellent portrayals of the two men, Lopez and Ayers, as they met and eventually connected, despite their different backgrounds and Ayers mental problems. Lopez, in his own way, had the more difficult task, since he had to overcome the desire to help Ayers "fix" his life by trying to find a way for Ayers to obtain medical assistance. He also had to confront the fact that, as a writer, he connected with others through observation and maintained his distance. As he became involved with Ayers, that solo personality would prevent him from reaching the soloist Ayers. With his severe mental illness, Ayers was unable to change his behavior in any meaningful way. For him, music was the only way that he was able to soothe the voices in his head and sometimes let in the real world. Once Lopez was able to accept that reality, they were able to form a bond of sorts.

I tend to agree with Rebecca Murray's Review:

As Lopez gets to know Ayers - as much as anyone can know a stranger with severe mental problems who's not being treated for his disease - he discovers an incredible musician still exists inside the man who 99.9% of the population would go out of their way to avoid eye contact with. What started as the idea for one column turns into a life-changing relationship from which both men benefit, though in vastly different ways.

Is proclaiming Robert Downey Jr one of the best actors of his generation pushing it? Check out The Soloist and tell me Downey Jr isn't at the top of his game as a newspaper reporter who uses Ayers to get a story before finding himself unintentionally becoming the most stable friend the tortured Ayers had during his years on the streets. It's mostly through Downey Jr's eyes that we follow the story, listening in while he dictates what he's learned dealing with Ayers into his tape recorder before writing up his articles for the LA Times. Downey Jr thoroughly and absolutely becomes this veteran journalist who gets too close to his subject and finds himself caught up in Ayers' life to point where an actual friendship has formed.
Jamie Foxx delivers yet another poignant performance as he tackles what just had to be the most difficult role of his career. Whether speaking at a manic pace as Ayers' mind trips out on him or altering everything about his being when Ayers shows moments of near lucidity, Foxx never, ever turns his portrayal of Ayers into a caricature of a mentally unbalanced man.
* * * *
Wright's made an honest, unflinching film that's uncomfortable to watch at times, a pure joy to behold at others, and overall as faithful to its source material as possible while still being cinematically entertaining.

Most of the reviews of the movie were mixed, but the family all liked the movie, despite it's overall depressing theme. I'm glad that I saw the movie before I read the book, to eliminate the comparisons between the two. Both my daughter and the woman sitting behind me kept pointing out differences in the movie. (The Los Angeles Times review notes a few of the variances).

But it was my husband who was most affected, because he worked with the mentally ill homeless about 20 years ago and it brought back a wave of memories for him. In fact, he coincidentally had a meeting nearby this week, so he happened to stop at the agency he had worked. An old colleague is now running the Center. He even ran into an old client, who remembered him. The man, still homeless after all these years, was excited because he thought my husband was returning to the Center.

All in all, we thought the movie was a realistic portrayal of mental illness & homelessness that certainly won't leave you feeling uplifted. Yet, it was well-done & managed to be moving nonetheless.

Long Time Passing

2009-05-03T21:33:00.003-04:00

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

Pete Seeger

Born this day, May 3, 1919

Celebrates 90

(& Happy Birthday to Karen, who's a few years younger than Pete)

Jumping Up & Down

2009-05-03T09:21:00.003-04:00

Ever since the announcement earlier this week of Justice Souter's retirement from the Supreme Court, the expectation is that the conservatives will try to nix whoever is nominated by President Obama, as the GOP gears up for Court fight. In keeping with being the "Party of No," as the Politico notes:

Senate Republicans admit they have virtually no shot at stopping President Barack Obama’s pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter — but they see a definite political upside in waging a fight.

A small cadre of GOP researchers has already begun scouring the records of Souter’s potential replacements — hoping to find a trove of inflammatory legal writings or off-the-wall positions to hang around the necks of vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms . . . .

“Whoever they get is basically a zero-sum replacement for Souter — so I think it’s more of an opportunity for us than it is for them,” said a senior Republican leadership aide, adding that a liberal nominee could hurt conservative Democrats like Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.), both of whom are up for reelection in 2010. “I don’t think, given their majority, that we can stop them, but it’s a great opportunity for us to tie their incumbents to whatever crazy opinions or statements come to light.”

There has even been discussion of the possible filibuster of the nominee. As was noted by Booman Tribune, Will GOP Filibuster SCOTUS Pick?:

When Samuel Alito was confirmed, only four Democrats voted for him (Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia). However, the real vote was to invoke cloture. On that vote, the Democrats were much more generous. The following Democrats (in addition to the previous four) voted for cloture: Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tom Carper of Delaware, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Progressives were furious with all of these Democrats who voted for cloture because they allowed Alito to be confirmed with less than 60 votes (he got 58 votes).

* * * *
However, the Republicans of today are a different breed from the Democrats of 1991 and 2005. They just might attempt to filibuster a pro-choice Justice with every pro-life member that they have. That would be thirty eight members, and if anti-choice Democrats Mark Pryor, Bob Casey Jr., and Ben Nelson joined them, they could sustain a filibuster. It's theoretically possible.

How could anyone even be seriously discussing the issue. A filibuster for Supreme Court by the GOP? But that couldn't be. After all, the Republicans are the strenuous proponents of up and down votes for judicial nominees. I can still recall their strident cries against even the possibility of a filibuster by the Democratic minority during the Bush years.

To refresh our collective recollection, Media Matters has assembled the quotes of various legislators on the topic, In Their Own Words: The Majority's Prerogative, observing:

In 2005, many Republican Senators went so far as to claim the filibuster of judicial nominees was unconstitutional. Now four years later, with President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment looming, will they remain consistent in their position or commit one of the most blatant acts of hypocrisy in the 220-year history of the United States Senate?

On the other hand, as Steve Benen said, in A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE....

A talking point emerges.

...Republicans are eagerly pointing out that Barack Obama, while in the Senate, voted to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the court.

Well, that's at least accurate. Obama, as a senator, declined to filibuster the Roberts nomination, but opposed cloture on the Alito nomination. On this point, Republicans are not lying or playing fast and loose with reality.

That said, this stroll down memory lane may not be as fruitful for the GOP as they'd like. For one thing, Obama, right around the time of the Alito hearings and floor vote, made a variety of comments that Republicans may find interesting. For example, he told ABC News in January 2006, "[T]here is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president [on judicial nominees] instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

For another, the more Republicans focus on Obama's efforts during the Bush years, the more it's a reminder of their own efforts during the same period.
* * * *
I don't doubt that Republicans will shamelessly pretend none of this ever happened, and will pretend they never said the things they really did say, but I'm looking forward to the rhetorical acrobatics.

And even if there's not a direct filibuster, there may be a way for the Republicans to stymie the pick in Committee. Cornell Law Professor Michael Dorf suggests that Specter's defection from the GOP may allow that to happen, How Specter's Defection Could Make It Harder to Confirm Pres. Obama's Judicial Nominations:

Does Arlen Specter's defection from R to D strengthen the President's hand in Congress? Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican. Now what?

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post confirmed this maneuver, but says that there may still be another Judiciary Committee procedural rule to get around that one. He explains the process, in How Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Can And Can't Be Filibustered:

The Majority Leader in the Senate has the power, it seems, to go around the Judiciary Committee's process. A source familiar with the rules of the Senate notes that "a judicial nomination may be discharged from a committee by unanimous consent." However, since -- in this hypothetical scenario -- Republicans are already objecting to the nominee, it seems likely that unanimous consent would fail.
That said, the source adds, "A motion to discharge a nominee from committee is also in order, but if there is objection to that motion, it must lie over a day. On the next day, you move to executive session to the motion to discharge, the vote on proceeding to executive session is majority vote, however, once you are on the motion to discharge it can be filibustered, so you would need 60 votes on the motion to discharge and then presumably on the nomination too."

In short: There is a parliamentary path to getting a stalled Supreme Court nominee out of the Judiciary Committee and to the Senate floor. That process would, like the ultimate confirmation vote, involve getting the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster just to get the nomination to the Senate floor. But with a bigger pool of Republicans (including some of like mind) it would seem likely that the White House could get the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

No matter what, one thing is sure: That the Republicans will be jumping up & down about whomever is proposed by Obama, trying to figure out a way to stop the Senate from a straight up & down vote on the candidate.

Quote of the Day

2009-05-03T07:16:00.001-04:00

"When liberals and progressives are out of power we hold protests about illegal wars and the mistreatment of our fellow Americans, we recruit new voters and we try like hell to convince people that our views on politics are correct. When the right is out of power they buy guns, spread lies, turn up the hate-0-meter on talk radio and Fox news and talk secession and revolution."

Steven D @ Booman Tribune

Cartoon of the Day

2009-05-02T09:34:00.001-04:00

(Via onegoodmove)

It's Not What You Do, It's Who You Are

2009-05-02T09:32:00.002-04:00

Of all of the of the consequences of the current economic downturn, the worst is the rising number of suicides (especially family member murder/suicides). It seems to be a weekly, if not daily occurrence. And it seems that no one is immune.

Just last week, a Manhattan lawyer killed himself and his family in a Baltimore hotel room, while visiting their daughter at college. In that case, it appears that the lawyer, may have been involved in a financial scam that was about to be exposed.

As I've mentioned before, the legal community has been experiencing the same economic pain as is felt everywhere. Wolf, Block, a large Philly firm, decided to close last month. Lawyer layoffs are becoming a common occurrence, especially at the large firms and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight any time soon.

Another casualty of law firm layoffs was the suicide of an attorney who was told that he was being laid off by his firm. As reported by the Washington Post, Bethesda Lawyer Who Argued Before High Court Kills Self in Office on Layoff Day:

A 59-year-old lawyer with an Atlanta-based firm who was about to lose his job because of the economy was found dead in his Washington office yesterday of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to police.

Mark I. Levy, a Bethesda resident who was a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration, was discovered by a co-worker about 8 a.m. in his 11th-floor office at Kilpatrick Stockton, in the 600 block of 14th Street NW, police said. They said evidence indicates that Levy shot himself in the head with a .38-caliber handgun.

In typical lawyerly fashion, Levy made sure all of the details were taken care of. The ABA Journal reports, Reportedly Laid-Off Lawyer is an Apparent Suicide at Kilpatrick Stockton:

An e-mail sent to Levy this morning produced this auto-reply message: "As of April 30, 2009, I can no longer be reached. If your message relates to a firm matter, please contact my secretary ... . If it concerns a personal matter, please contact my wife ... . Thanks."
His body was discovered at about 8 a.m. by a co-worker in his 11th-floor office, apparently shot with a .38-caliber handgun of which Levy was the registered owner. Today was to have been his last day, although he was to receive four months of severance pay, the Post reports, citing an unidentified source.

"The source said Levy left a note in his home, saying he loved his family and instructing his wife on how to handle finances and other matters," the newspaper writes. His teenage son found the note this morning and a Montgomery County police officer was in the home and broke the news to the family when someone called from Kilpatrick Stockton to report his death.

By all appearances, Levy was a successful lawyer. He was a Yale Law School graduate who headed Kilpatrick's Supreme Court and appellate advocacy practice group. He also worked in the U.S. Department of Justice as a senior political appointee during the Clinton administration. Yet, I'm sure that for him to face the loss of his career this way, at the age of 59, without another potential opportunity, had to be devastating. Lawyers, especially those who have done well, have a difficult time losing their identity as a lawyer. For many in the legal profession, a legal career defines them. In other words, "it's not merely what you do, it's who you are." That was the first thought that came to mind when I heard of the sad news of the suicide at the firm.

And apparently, Mark Levy was just that kind of person. It certainly didn't help that he had an appellate practice, which is extremely difficult to sustain. As noted in Mark Levy's Battle for Success:

In his 59 years, Mark Levy, head of Kilpatrick Stockton's Supreme Court practice, achieved more than many lawyers ever hope to. But friends and former colleagues believe he felt the pressure to accomplish even more.

After spending the past five years at Kilpatrick, Levy was found dead in his office Thursday morning, in what police are investigating as a gun-related suicide. Friends describe Levy as an upbeat but reserved person, who always turned out top-quality briefs and often arrived at the office before the sun came up. His career included stints at some of the most prestigious law firms around, as well as the Department of Justice.

But friends say he wasn't satisfied. And just two days prior to his death, Kilpatrick laid off 24 associates and counsel, including Levy, according to a close friend of Levy. . . .

Levy, who joined Kilpatrick as a counsel in 2004, had struggled to establish his appellate and Supreme Court practice, according to lawyers that knew him. Levy, who argued a total of 16 times before the high court, won a case for DuPont last October in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings. But prior to winning that employee benefits matter, Levy hadn't argued in front of the high court since 1989.
* * * *
Levy's age, however, may have been a factor in his unhappiness, according to psychologists.

"At age 60, you're starting to think of retirement. You're thinking that you should be immune to layoffs due to your prominence and your position," says Sherry Molock, a professor of clinical psychology at George Washington University, who studies suicidal behaviors. "You've paid your dues. You feel that you should have arrived by now."

An accompanying ABA Journal piece discusses the higher risk of suicide among attorneys, Lawyer Personalities May Contribute to Increased Suicide Risk:

Personality characteristics often associated with lawyers, such as perfectionism and competitiveness, when combined with depression may be contributing to a higher suicide rate in the legal profession, an expert says.

Lanny Berman, executive director of the American Association of Suicidology, a group devoted to suicide prevention, says risk factors for suicide include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide ideation, divorce and stress. And lawyers experience many of these risk factors at higher rates than the general population, he says. Lawyers are also more likely to be perfectionist and competitive, personality traits that make a person considering suicide less likely to seek help.

Those factors may be contributing to the increased suicide rate for lawyers, he says. A major study conducted some 20 years ago by the National Institute for Safety and Health found that male lawyers between the ages of 20 and 64 are more than twice as likely to die from suicide than men of the same age in other occupations.

What did Levy's firm have to say about this news? As noted by the Washington Post, it was PR all the way:

Diane Prucino, a co-managing partner of the century-old firm in Atlanta, confirmed the layoffs Tuesday in a statement quoted by the Fulton County Daily Report.

"These actions are driven by the economic downturn," she said, adding that the belt-tightening was "structured to further the long-term success of the firm and to enhance the achievement of our strategic goals."

Of course, achievement of our strategic goals is another way of saying that cutting lawyers & staff comes before cutting compensation for the big partners. These guys deserve the big bucks, you know, even if the rest of the world is cutting back. So, I wonder, how's that working for you now?

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-30T06:53:00.001-04:00

From the good old GOP

(Via Gawker - Hey Did You Know Arlen Specter's Jewish?)

I Shall Survive

2009-04-29T07:30:00.002-04:00

Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics. The moment most vividly illustrating what Specter is: prior to the vote on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, he went to the floor of the Senate and said what the bill "seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years" and is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He then proceeded to vote YES on the bill's passage.

This is the essential essence of Arlen. Arlen Specter, the newest member of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Sen. Arlen Specter To Switch Parties; Could Give Democrats Filibuster-Proof Congressional Majority.

As Glenn Greenwald (quoted above) says of Specter, What Specter's switch says about him, the Democrats and our political spectrum:

The idea that Specter is a "liberal" Republican or even a "moderate" reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.
Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.

And let's not forget that Arlen Specter is the man who started the whole US Attorney mess by changing the statutory approval process, since was responsible for the change in the law that permitted the replacement of the US Attorneys without Senate confirmation. So, he's hardly Joseph of the Amazing Dreamcoat for Democrats.

When my husband called to tell me about Specter's switch, I told him that I may have been one of the first to predict it. In the beginning of January, during the contentious Holder confirmation hearings, I said, in Puff the Magic Dragon:

Of course, Specter will perform his dragon routine, creating a bunch of fake noise about Holder to please the conservatives, then end up doing nothing. If he follows his usual routine, he'll even end up voting to confirm him, when all is said & done [which he in fact did do].

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder.

This was shortly after Chris Matthews finally decided not to enter the race to challenge Arlen. After noting the number of potential Democrats who were voicing interest in the race, I then added:

Gee, maybe Specter will join that list, switching back to the Democratic Party, from whence he came. Now, that sure would make things interesting.

Of course, many others considered that option more recently, as it became increasingly clear that Specter would have a seemingly insurmountable primary contest, especially after the Pat Toomey jumped into the race against him on the GOP side. Dick Polman's piece on why Specter should switch teams in March was delightfully on target, in Arlen Specter's route to survival.

So, besides providing lots of fodder for the media (and bloggers), what does it all mean?

As Nate Silver of 538 put it, Specter's Switch More Insult Than Injury to GOP:

This strikes me as being bad news for the Republican Party more than it is good news for the Democrats.

Closer to home, Booman Tribune describes the Specter move, Thoughts on Specter:

We Democrats here in Pennsylvania know Arlen Specter's record better than anyone and you'll be hearing endless reiterations of his many sins over the next two years. I don't need to do that now. Suffice to say that most progressives in this state find Specter to be enormously frustrating. We do not dispute that he is what passes these days for a moderate Republican. We know that he has a good record on labor issues and that he is officially pro-choice. I know high level people in the teacher's unions that intended to re-register as Republicans to vote for him in the primary and then re-register as Democrats to vote against him in the general. Specter is not hated or despised by most people, but he isn't liked or respected either.

We were hoping to beat him in the 2010 election, not be asked to support him. I suspect most activists and progressives will simply refuse to work for his reelection and we'll probably get organized in the Netroots to do the best job we can financing an alternative in the primary."

On the other hand, Specter has been pretty popular in this state and I know many Democrats (and former Republicans) who are pretty happy about the change. As Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone said, Snarlin’ Arlen Crossing From the Dark Side:

I understand Mr. Specter has promised to give back political contributions from supporters if they do not agree with his decision. Of the people I know who have given him money, I know of many who will be cheering this move. Yes, even some in my own household will be cheering.

In the end, I think he'll end up going back to being moderate Arlen, freed from the necessity of having to please the guns & Christ crowd. In that vein, I fully expect that, despite his protestations to the contrary, that he'll vote for the Employees Free Choice (Card Check), or at least vote for cloture. Please. This is Arlen Specter we are talking about. As I've noted many times before, he hasn't been called Chameleon, The Manchurian Senator, A Gutless Republican Worm and Wafflin' Arlen for nothing.

Quoting Booman Tribune's Quote of the Day:

Jonathan Chait:

"When a politician switches parties, it’s customary for the party he’s abandoned to denounce him as an unprincipled hack, and the party he’s joined to praise him as a brave convert who’s genuinely seen the light. But I think it’s pretty clear that Specter is an unprincipled hack."
But now he is our unprincipled hack.

And for the last word on this (at least for now), is Chris Matthews, who delivered a devastating analysis on Countdown:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Going Once, Going Twice

2009-04-28T06:50:00.003-04:00

The obituaries for newspapers have come fast & furiously of late -- some due to the actual closure of papers, others from essays predicting the end of newspapers generally. Based upon the latest circulation figures, the prophesied demise of newsprint is certainly supported. According to E&P, New FAS-FAX Shows (More) Steep Circulation Losses:

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released this morning the spring figures for the six months ending March 31, 2009, showing that the largest metros continue to shed daily and Sunday circulation -- now at a record rate.

According to ABC, for 395 newspapers reporting this spring, daily circulation fell 7% to 34,439,713 copies, compared with the same March period in 2008. On Sunday, for 557 newspapers, circulation was down 5.3% to 42,082,707. These averages do not include 84 newspapers with circulations below 50,000 due to a change in publishing frequency.

The NYTimes and Washington Post were the only papers spared the deep decline:

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

Of course, there is no end to reasons why, with the rise of the internet proffered as the main culprit. Yet that's just an easy excuse to avoid looking at the real reason for the failure of newspapers, which is the decline in providing real news and reportage that the public finds useful. As Will Bunch of Attytood said in another context, which applies here as well:

For the most part, we've failed so far. It was more than a little disheartening to learn of the crippling fear inside the newsroom of the New York Times, where editors and reporters were so afraid of offending, so afraid of anyone thinking that the newspaper was taking a side, that the news staffers refused to label globally outlawed practices such as waterboarding as "torture."
* * * *

Almost every flaw of our craft has been on display in the last week or two -- the pleading for a middle-of-the-road answer to a problem where there is no middle ground, the phony "he said, she said" journalism that gives a 50 percent voice to the advocates of American-bred torture, the use of unnecessary anonymous quotes to defend the indefensible, the need for an elite inside-the-Beltway clique to circle the wagons, to insist that aggressive prosecution is only for the crimes that "regular people" commit.

In other words, perhaps journalists should have been exposing torture rather than figuring out what to call it?

See also, Are newspapers to blame for their own demise?.

And then there are the statistics for Philly's own local paper, the Inky:

The Philadelphia Inquirer lost 13.7% of its daily circulation to 288,298. Sunday was hit just as hard, down 12% to 550,400. Daily circulation at its sister publication the Daily News fell 7.6% to 99,103.

The struggles of the Inquirer (and Daily News) are longstanding, with the paper currently in bankruptcy. It was just about 2 years ago that the papers were bought by a group led by adman extraordinaire Brian Tierney. See The Good News and Bad News. Since then, he has managed to make the paper a shadow of its former self. As I noted not long ago:

I hardly read the print version anymore (although we still get it delivered because my husband likes to read an actual newspaper). Except for one or two articles on the front page, the entire front section of the paper consists of reprints of AP, NYTimes and Washington Post articles. I can read those at the original source, so why bother reading them on a delayed basis in the paper? Even the opinion section mostly carries reprints of op ed pieces from elsewhere, along with the likes of Rick Santorum -- just the sort of outlandish conservative that a liberal town like Philly wants, so I skip over that too. The only thing worth reading is the Local section, to see what is happening in the region. Sometimes, I let the paper pile up over a few days and then just skim through to see what, if anything, is worth reading. This from a person who used to read 5 papers daily (including the Inky), from cover to cover! Overall, with cutbacks in staff and content, the old Philly paper ain't what she used to be.

He has implemented such brilliant moves as imitating the Metro, a free local paper, by adding an "express section" of the paper, summarizing what's covered in the paper elsewhere. The Reader's News Digest. I suppose it may also have been needed to fill up the pages with the missing news from reporters who had been laid off.

Another good move by Tierney was the decision to hold posting news and article on-line until the paper version was printed and delivered -- a great way to stay relevant in a digital world. I guess Tierney adopted the "if you can't fight it, resist it" theory of journalism. However, as co-founder of the Huffington Post, Ken Lerer observed at a recent lecture, Tough Love with Ken Lerer:

Kenneth Lerer to newspapers: You blew it.

The media executive and Huffington Post co-founder, in a lecture he delivered last night to a packed audience at Columbia’s J-School, pulled few punches when it came to newspapers’ culpability for the crisis in which they now find themselves. In the years when the expansion of the Web made it clear that news had an online future—the years when they should have adapted to that future, Lerer said—papers “barricaded themselves in an echo chamber.” Losing, in the process, not only their perspective on the future of news, but also their claim on it.

And then there was the Inky's piece de la resistance, the addition of Rick Santorum to the op-ed page. A brilliant move by Tierney, as I noted before:

I wonder if Inky owner/publisher Brian Tierney is channeling that other great rightwing media mogul, Richard Mellon Scaife, in trying to follow his vision of a publishing empire -- by creating a vast right wing conspiracy like Mellon Scaife. For a glimpse at Tierney, see Inquire No More. It hardly needs to be said that Philly is heavily democratic, but even the Philly 'burbs are trending Democrat these days and most of the remaining Republicans are hardly of the extremist ilk of Santorum. Considering the "popularity" of Santorum in this area (and his overwhelming loss in his last Senate race is further proof of that), it doesn't make sense to alienate so many of your readers at a time that you are trying to increase readership. And Santorum most certainly will -- it's his persona.

In fact, I'm sure for all his efforts on behalf of the paper, Tierney deserves yet another bonus. After all, where would the paper be without him?

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-25T05:51:00.001-04:00

Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution

We Remain Unpersuaded

2009-04-21T19:46:00.000-04:00

Via Philadelphia Freedom Blog, I discovered that the federal appeals court in Atlanta had denied the appeal of Troy Davis. I've written about the case several times before. Unfortunately, the news is not surprising. Even when the court granted the appeal, I noted in Hold On, that "the remaining hurdles that Troy Davis still faces are still overwhelming. Although there is much evidence that brings his conviction into question, even getting approval to hold a hearing where such testimony would be considered is difficult. The legal standard that must be met before a hearing would be permitted is exceedingly stringent."

On the latest decision, the Atlanta Constitution reports, Georgia Death Row Inmate Loses 11th Circuit Appeal:

In a 2-1 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Davis could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that a jury would not have found him guilty.

Davis’ innocence claims have attracted international attention. They rely largely on the recantations of key prosecution witnesses who testified at trial and on statements by others who say another man told them he was the actual killer.

* * * *

On Thursday, the two-judge majority noted that state courts and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles had exhaustively reviewed Davis’ claims and rejected them.

Judges Joel Dubina and Stanley Marcus said they agreed with those conclusions. “Davis has not presented us with a showing of innocence so compelling that we would be obligated to act today,” they wrote.

The judges said they view the recantations with skepticism and, after reviewing Davis’ claims, “remain unpersuaded.”

Although the article suggests that Davis' claims of innocence were reviewed in detail and found to be insufficient, the reality is that his appeal merely focused on granting him the right to assert his claims before a federal court. As explained by the ACLU's blog, Troy Davis Suffers Another Blow:

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Troy Davis’s petition for a hearing to prove his innocence. Although seven of the nine non-police witnesses against him have recanted or contradicted their trial testimony, that evidence will not be heard unless the United States Supreme Court decides differently. Troy Davis still has a 30-day stay of execution to file a petition with the Supreme Court.

The 11th Circuit refused to hear Davis’ claims of innocence by a 2-1 vote. The decision was largely based on the onerous procedural obstacles that a death row inmate must overcome before a federal court will consider the merits of his or her constitutional claims – in Troy’s case, his claim that the execution of an innocent person violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Emphasis added).

This is echoed in the dissenting opinion of the Court, by Judge Rosemary Barkett Georgia Death Row Inmate Loses 11th Circuit Appeal:

The third judge on the panel, Judge Rosemary Barkett, dissented. She said executing an innocent person violates the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.

Stephen B. Bright, president and senior counsel of the Southern Center for Human Rights, echoed Barkett's dissent in an e-mail.

'The judges have completely lost sight of justice,' said Bright. 'They are lost in a maze of procedural rules that obscure the truth instead of revealing it.'

I guess it's not hard to "remain unpersuaded" when you're not really reviewing the full record on guilt or innocence. Justice is definitely missing in this case.

And, let's not forget what is at issue here. As Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom says:

This is despite the fact that the evidence could show that Davis is innocent.

Does Georgia really want to risk executing an innocent man?

And what's to lose by granting him a new hearing? Doesn't Georgia want to be absolutely certain that they are punishing the right guy?

Stop, Look, Listen

2009-04-19T19:51:00.005-04:00

Last Sunday, someone other than the Easter Bunny visited one of our neighbors. That's right, there was no Easter Egg Hunt for the Boyd family.

Instead there was another visit from a reckless driver who landed in their yard after running a red light, causing another accident on Lincoln Drive. I was sitting in our sunroom on Easter Sunday afternoon when I heard the loud crash. Based upon the noise & the sirens that followed, I knew it had to be pretty bad. My daughter, PhillyAngel, & I took a walk down the block to see what had happened this time.

The same neighbors who had a car land in their sunroom last year, see Lift-off on Lincoln Drive, were the unlucky recipients of another accident on their property. As the Inky reported, Renewed effort to slow Lincoln Dr. speeders, one of the homeowners, Sharon Boyd, was in her yard when an accident happened as she watched:

Boyd saw a blue car traveling east on Hortter Street sail through the red light and slam into a tan sedan heading north on Lincoln Drive.

She felt Peaches' heart quicken, and her own, as the two cars spun toward the house.

Boyd shouted for her husband, Larry, and her son Kevin to run.

The blue car knocked over a fire hydrant and took out some irises and shrubs on the side of the house. The tan one ripped the curb, then slammed into a utility pole in front of the house.

Yet again, there was a scene of screaming and crying passengers, swirling police lights, ambulances, and tow trucks, and broken glass on Lincoln Drive. In just the last two weeks, there have been six crashes on the drive - all in the residential area north of Johnson Street, with no fatalities.

Another neighbor, Policie Commissioner Ramsey, also reacted to the Easter hop:

Since Ramsey became commissioner last year, he has grumbled publicly about speeders on Lincoln Drive, which winds through Fairmount Park into the city's northwest neighborhoods.

After learning about the latest accident outside the Boyds' home, Ramsey said: "People just drive too doggone fast. Even when surfaces are wet they do not slow down. They slide into your lawn, your porch, anything because they lose control of their car."

To slow down drivers entering Lincoln Drive from Kelly Drive, a traffic-unit patrol car has been stationed for more than a year at the side of the road, a police spokesman said.

Unfortunately, Lincoln Drive is out of control. Even though we live nearby, I avoid it if at all possible. There are an average of 3 accidents a week. As the Inky noted, there were 6 accidents in the last 2 weeks, all in the 1 mile residential stretch past Johnson Street. Those who live along the Drive, including Ramsey, have had to take the initiative to protect their homes:

Several residents along the drive have posted "Keep Kids Alive Drive 25" signs on their lawns and placed large boulders around their properties to thwart wayward cars.

Ramsey said that about five months ago a car crashed into one of his boulders. "Again, somebody driving way too fast. Ruined their car . . . their undercarriage, anyway."

Part of the problem is that it is unclear who is responsible for the problem. A neighborhood group was formed to address the issue, once they figure out who to talk to:

"It's not clear who's supposed to address it: the city or the state," [Committee member Kittura] Dior said, noting that the drive is a state highway. "Everyone seemed to have an interest, but it wasn't a focused interest."

In fact, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation owns and does major reconstruction of the drive, mayoral spokesman Luke Butler said. The Streets Department is responsible for regular maintenance, and Fairmount Park crews plow part of the road.

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.) said he believed Lincoln Drive was a city highway but said: "In either instance . . . we're going to work with the community to make sure they get the resources they need to get it done. The city has tried a number of things over the years as far as staging entry on the drive, but further up is still a problem."

OK, this much is true, that the road is a big problem. Now what? Any chance we could maybe fix it??

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-18T23:48:00.001-04:00

Kevin Siers, Charlotte Observer

Home Alone

2009-04-18T23:37:00.001-04:00

My husband flew down to Miami Thursday morning to load up & drive back all of the stuff that's in our daughter's dorm room. Lucky for us, we have family in the South Florida area, so we were able to store most of the big items (refridge, microwave, TV, etc) in my parents garage. Her first year college experience had its tribulations, but the semester is coming to an end.

We gave her a car for Christmas (my brother's old Mustang GT), so my husband is enjoying the drive home in the "muscle car." After spending the night at my brother's house in Delray, he drove to Atlanta on Friday to visit his brother. Then it's on the road again, Philly bound. He's reliving his youth, recalling the time he drove to Florida & back during Spring Break with one of his best buddies in his corvette.

This also means I have a few days of hanging out, with no responsibilities (except the job & the pets, of course). Also on the agenda was a girls' night out, and cruising around on a nice sunny day with the top down, doing some browsing at my favorite consignment shops & antique jewelry stores.

When I talked to my husband on his drive to Atlanta on Friday, he mentioned that he couldn't believe the array of Confederate flags dotting the landscape. I thought perhaps that he had passed the world's largest Confederate Flag near Tampa that was raised last summer.

And, the timing is apparently perfect to be immersed in the Rebel flag, since April has been deemed as Confederacy month by the powers that be, including Georgia's governor, Sonny Perdue, as I discovered from Philly's own field negro.

Maybe there was a sign up to greet him as he entered Georgia, declaring Happy Confederacy History and Heritage Month.

(*edited)

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-17T18:03:00.001-04:00

Tim Egan, Deep Cover

Quote of the Day

2009-04-17T06:34:00.000-04:00

One of the constantly bewildering aspects of living on planet Earth is the assumption that most human beings seem to make that faith (usually, but not necessarily, the religious variety) is a virtue. This bizarre attitude — just to add insult to injury — often comes coupled with the equally strange idea that somehow too much reason is bad for you. Why?

From Rationally Speaking.

(Via onegoodmove)

Don't Need No Rights

2009-04-17T05:22:00.000-04:00

Last year, I noted that Justice Thomas had gone for 2 years & 144 cases without uttering a word during oral argument on the Court. Showing that his mind is still as closed as his mouth, he has yet to utter a word from the bench since February 22,2006.

However, he opened up not too long ago. Justice Thomas spoke with a number of high school students at a "Bill of Rights" Institute dinner, as the NYTimes notes, Reticent Justice Opens Up to a Group of Students:

The event, on March 31, was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.
“Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”
“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”
He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”
Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.

Perhaps keeping quiet was a good idea.

In response to Adam Serwer's Twitter notation of Thomas' remark about too many rights ruining American, I tweeted in reply: "Thankfully, we have the Supreme Court to rid us of those excess rights."

Not only does Thomas have a dim view of the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights, he also has a dark view of life as well. The Times piece included his remarks about his job on the court:

“I tend to be morose sometimes,” the justice said. “I am rounding the last turn for my 18th term on the court,” he added, but his work — “this endeavor,” he called it, “or, for some, an ordeal” — has not gotten easier. “That’s one thing about this job,” he said. “You get a little tired.”

As Mother Jones said, it almost makes you feel sorry for the guy, except for the fact that he's making decisions on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas Is One Seriously Troubled Dude:

The article makes clear, simply by quoting the famously taciturn Thomas, that he believes he is dumber than all the other justices and a good number of law professors, and retreats into isolation ('I tend to be morose sometimes') to nurse his wounds and brood. What an awful purgatory of an existence: to know you are a fraud, to know that everyone else knows you are a fraud, and yet to be locked into your job more or less for life. It's enough to ruin a person. And it appears it has.

Last month, Justice Ginsburg hinted that there could be a Supreme Court Opening "Soon". Court watchers speculated that Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and David Souter were the most likely to retire. However, based upon his distaste for his position on the court, maybe it's Thomas.

Wouldn't that be wonderful.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-16T19:17:00.001-04:00

Tom Toles, NYTimes

Tea Time

2009-04-15T22:34:00.002-04:00

(Via Dependable Renegade)

Oh Happy Day

2009-04-15T21:55:00.002-04:00

I've certainly had my issues with Arlen Specter, Arlen, We Really Knew Ye, the Senator from Pennsylvania who, despite his label as a moderate, has spent most of the past many years wiggling around trying to please the conservative contingent in his party. It's been to no avail, of course, because the zealots require total fealty on all matters and waffling is not permitted. Moderate Republicans and Democrats have generally given Arlen a pass, figuring he's really a closet moderate and his turns to the right are just for show as election time approaches.

After doing his own political shuffle, see Ta-Ta Toomey, conservative former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey has decided to challenger Specter once again. He came very close to defeating Specter last time and many of the moderates have fled the GOP, leaving Toomey's base in firm control.

As the Inky notes, Toomey announces GOP senate bid:

Conservative Pat Toomey, a former Lehigh Valley congressman, this morning announced he is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in the 2010 election.

In a videotaped message on his new campaign website (www.ToomeyForSenate.com), Toomey says the nation is at a "crossroads" between a greatly expanding federal government and the direction of more economic freedom.

The move sets up a much-anticipated rematch with moderate Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) who earned a fifth term in 2004 after defeating a challenge from Toomey by about 17,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. Their race will feature a key debate among Republicans: Did their party lose power because it stopped appealing to moderates, or because it was not true to conservative principles?

This may be the only way Arlen goes. As I said before, Puff the Magic Dragon:

Specter has long played the role of conservative toady in disguise as a moderate. I'm sure he began his career (long, long ago) as a moderate (fiscally conservative, social issues moderate), which played well with the Southeastern Pennsylvania electorate. With the rise of Reagan, then Bush, the GOP required fealty to its brand of conservative orthodoxy, and Specter complied. The result has been a mixed bag for him. He has alienated his true constituency, the moderate Republicans (and even some Democrats) who live in SE Pennsylvania, yet he is viewed with skepticism by the ultra conservatives, who don't believe for a minute that he's a true believer. And for them, merely following the party line is insufficient. You must be a true convert. So, as much as he scrapes and bows for the, Specter will always be another McCain to them -- someone you just can't trust.

He had a tough primary race during his last re-election campaign and this one may prove even harder.

With the core of the GOP the way it is, there's a good chance Toomey will prevail in the primary. The good news is that Toomey will have a tough time in the general election, since the moderate wing of the state will not want another Rick Santorum.

In fact, I even wondered whether Arlen would revert back to the Democratic Party, which would probably be the only way he could win. In fact, he's been approached by Ed Rendell & others about doing just that, but he has apparently elected not to.

It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP was like one of those secret societies that you're not permitted to leave once you join. Maybe he's afraid that the Republicans will take out a contract on him if he switches his party.

La La Means It All

2009-04-13T21:17:00.001-04:00

In memory of Randy Cain of The Delfonics, who died last week.

"La La Means I Love You."

This was the music that introduced me to life.

From Sea to Holy See

2009-04-13T19:09:00.004-04:00

Luckily, the Pope didn't demand that the annual White House Easter Egg Roll be canceled because President Obama invited gay families to attend.

On the other hand, it appears that the pontiff may be getting involved in the appointment process of Ambassador to the Vatican. The Telegraph first reported the story, Vatican blocks Caroline Kennedy appointment as US ambassador:

Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.

Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy's daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.

The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama's support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.

Of course, this little tidbit has brought tears of joy to the zealot wing of the GOP. For example, the conservative Washington ("Moonie") Times gleefully reports on the controversy, Vatican frowns on envoy prospects:

The Obama administration is having difficulty finding an ambassador to the Vatican, which has informally vetoed the appointment of Caroline Kennedy and other Roman Catholics who have supported President Obama, an Italian newspaper and Vatican specialists said Thursday.

'A trial of strength between Barack Obama and the U.S. church that involves the Holy See is under way,' the conservative Milan newspaper Il Giornale said Thursday in a report by Vatican correspondent Andrea Tornielli.

'The tenant of the White House is very criticized indeed for his choices in favor of abortion and use of stem [cell] embryos, while the impasse for the designation of the new U.S. ambassador in the Vatican continues,' Mr. Tornielli wrote. 'At least three names — but there are some that say more — of candidates … have been 'burned' even before the proposal of nomination could be made formally, because they were unwelcome to the church.'

The newspaper said those informally rejected include Ms. Kennedy and Douglas Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Both candidates gave prominent endorsements to Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign.

I was just about ready to diss the pontiff when I read Amy Sullivan of Time's Swampland, who says it's not so. Responding to similar reports by Newmax, she notes, Obama’s Vatican Ambassador Rejected? No.:

You'll be shocked to learn this is not true. But oh how perfect it must have sounded to the Newsmax crew when they put out the story. Everyone knows Democrats aren't pro-life. And now Obama can't even get a Vatican ambassador approved--because there's not a single pro-life Catholic in the Democratic Party!

Unfortunately for them, John Thavis at Catholic News Service actually called over to the Vatican to ask about the rumors. Here's what he found:

Vatican sources said not only was the report inaccurate, but that its premise was faulty. The Vatican has not been in the habit of vetting the personal beliefs or ideas of candidates before accepting them as ambassadors, they said.

There have been occasions in the last two years when the Vatican has objected to ambassadorial candidates -- from Argentina, in the case of a divorced Catholic with a live-in partner, and from France, where the candidate was an openly gay Catholic in a union with another man.

"For Catholic ambassadors, there is the question of their matrimonial situation. But outside of that, I don't think there are other criteria," said one Vatican source.

Despite this denial, the media still claims that the Vatican has nixed the appointment. Perhaps this is all just based upon the ruminations of Raymond Flynn, himself a former Ambassador & Boston mayor, who is a strident pro-lifer. As the Boston Herald reports, Raymond Flynn says Caroline Kennedy no good for Vatican post:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Raymond L. Flynn is giving a thumbs down to Caroline Kennedy as a potential pick for his former diplomatic post, saying the pro-choice values of JFK’s daughter would make the nod “a mistake.”
“It’s imperative, it’s essential that the person who represents us to the Holy See be a person who has a pro-life values. I hope the president doesn’t make that mistake,” Flynn told the Herald yesterday. “She said she was pro-choice. I don’t assume she’s going to change that, which is problematic.”

While I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the Vatican did try to interfere with the selection of Kennedy, I can't believe that it would have also black-balled Doug Kmiec, as was reported by the Moonie Times. Kmiec may have supported Obama, but he is otherwise a conservative Republican who is pro-life. There is no way the Pope would have objected to Kmiec.

However, if this is truly coming from the Vatican, then I agree with Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone, who says that the Vatican shouldn't get involved in how our government operates, since we're still (mostly) a nation that doesn't have a state religion. See Vatican Running US Foreign Policy?.

If it is true, then I say we do as Michael Stickings of The Reaction suggests, Vatican rejects Caroline Kennedy as U.S. ambassador:

So the Vatican won't accept Caroline Kennedy as U.S. ambassador -- or anyone else who is pro-choice (and pro-stem-cell research)?

Tough, I say.

It won't happen -- not least because there are so many Catholic voters at home to placate -- but Obama ought simply to refuse to appoint an ambassador to the so-called Holy See. Why give in? Why appoint a pro-choicer just because that's what the Vatican wants? Why implicitly approve of the Roman Catholic Church's absolutist authoritarian positions on such issues -- that is, its moral extremism -- by appointing someone who approves of the Church's positions and of whom the Church approves?

That's right. Leave the spot vacant. Jacob of Contextual Criticism: Vatican is afraid of Caroline Kennedy expresses my thoughts best when he says:

Enter the pious prelates from Rome's heavenly realm. No, no, no, they said. She's pro-choice. We can't have anyone here who believes women should have the right to choose with regard to what they can do with their bodies! Furthermore, we can't have anyone within these holy precincts who favors stem cell research (even if those stem cells come from fetuses tossed in the garbage).

Now, the Roman Catholic Church is free to believe and promote whatever religious nonsense it so desires. Ironically, however, the majority of Catholics in the U.S. do not agree with nor follow the lead of the Vatican when it comes to issues such as abortion and contraception.
Nevertheless, it wouldn't make sense to appoint someone to the Holy See who is not wanted by the pompous papists in Vatican City.

An empty seat at the table would be just the thing.

Cartoon of the Day

2009-04-12T05:22:00.000-04:00

Jeff Stahler, The Columbus Dispatch

Almost Easter

2009-04-11T21:59:00.001-04:00

My daughter, PhillyAngel, didn't believe me when I told her the buds on the tree in our backyard would bloom on Easter.