I needed a new pair of glasses, and fast. On Friday, I am departing on a road trip from New Jersey to Alaska and back again, and I need a new pair of glasses, as my old pair is broken, and I can’t sleep in a car with contacts in mine eyes.

On Saturday I tried going to all of the local glasses merchants around my area in South Jerz. Blast! They were all closed for the weekend. I knew what that meant. I would have to venture to that miserable place so full with emptiness.

So I went to the mall. While waiting for my glasses to be finished (”in about an hour”), I wandered into the only place I hoped to find salvation: a bookstore. I was sadly mistaken.

This was the first time I’ve been in a mall bookstore in years. It was a frightening experience. There was a sizeable section of a wall devoted to something called “Manga”… I don’t want to know.

Classic literature was squeezed into half of a bookshelf.

On another wall was the “social science” section, which was filled with books written by politicians and other media personalities, usually with their faces bulging on the covers.

Such horrible titles, such awful mugs. But the book that really stuck out for me was the Nancy Grace book. The title: “Objection! : How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System.” And there was her face, her whole torso in fact, on the cover. She was glaring at me with her arms crossed, in a stern, damning way. She made me feel like I was guilty of something. But I began to chuckle once I realized just how silly her tough facade really was. It was marketing, clever and damn effective.

I don’t know much about Nancy Grace. Really, I know next to nothing about her. I read on the Huffington Post recently that her current talk show was beating out Larry King in the ratings.

But back to the title of the book. Isn’t she a part of that “24/7 News Media,” and does she not profit gorgeously from it? I know, not a strong criticism. But from what I’ve heard, she is the type that jumps the gun with conclusions of guilt, as in the Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson cases. I can’t imagine the rest of the 24/7 news media doing anything worse than that. It sounds like she’s really pushing the journalistic ethical envelope by being overtly partial to a particular verdict.

I’ve also gleaned from the inside pocket of her book that Grace is a strong “victims’ rights” advocate. This may help explain why she could be so in favor of finding people guilty before a trial’s conclusion. I have not done any scholarly (or non-scholarly) research on the topic of victims’ rights. But ignorance has never stopped me before:

Victims should not have “rights” in a criminal proceeding, in the usual sense. They don’t need rights to be protected. Penal law is supposed to take care of that. Criminal defendants, however, do very much need rights, and they are so granted by the Constitution, as well as by other common law court rules and legislation.

Perhaps a victim should have the right to influence prosecutorial discretion and other areas of law enforcement. If a legislature believes that a victim should be allowed to push for the state to take action, I see no problem with that. Victims should also be adequately protected from vengeful defendents.

Some jurisdictions allow the families of murder victims to testify, usually during sentencing I believe. This practice is a little questionable. Should the decision maker, whether judge or jury, be irrationally swayed by raw emotion that has no relevance to the merits of the case? Here’s a way to look at it: should a murderer get a worse sentence for killing a person with a family than for killing a person without one?

I’m sure there are many other legitimate issues on which victims’ rights advocates are taking a proper stand. But I would like to see victims’ rights advocates focus their efforts on curbing a bigger problem: overzealous law enforcement. Do they already address this? I guess its possible. But getting back to Nancy Grace, I have a feeling that most folks who talk the “victims’ rights” talk don’t really have this in mind. Why is overzealous law enforcement a problem for victims? I’ll put it this way: a victim gets just as much out of an acquittal of a truly guilty defendant as they do out of a conviction of a falsely-identified defendant. They get nothing. In the latter circumstance, a victim or a victim’s family may believe for years that justice was done, only to discover later that they were never so avenged, compounded with the tragedy of knowing an innocent person has been so grossly abused.

In a stingingly sarcastic post, Mithras writes about just such a case. It appears that the cops corralled multiple rape victims into pointing the finger at the wrong guy. Many years later, DNA evidence tells another story.

At his trial, his lawyers put on a weak defense. First, his co-workers testified that he was at work as a cook when the rapes occurred. Obviously, they are all lying, because people who work with rapists lie like that. And they said that if the rapist had left work and committed the rapes like the prosecution contended, he would smell strongly of the grease and onions of the kitchen, and none of the victims had noticed such a smell. Obviously, Mr. Diaz, who is believed to be not white, had learned in non-white rapist school how to remove the smell from himself while on the way home from his job. Finally, the lying liar defense lawyers pointed out that Mr. Diaz was shorter and weighed less than the person in the descriptions of the rapist provided by all of the victims. Obviously, Diaz could also control his height and weight with his mind. Diabolical.

Fortunately, the court did not believe the rapist Diaz and his lying lawyers and witnesses and evidence. The judge said, “I’ve never seen a case where I was more convinced of a man’s guilt.” Heh. Indeed.

The lying liberal New York Times then prints this:

One victim, whose identification of Mr. Diaz led to his arrest, said she had originally thought none of the men in the nine photographs she was shown resembled her attacker. She had asked to see more pictures, she said, but settled on Mr. Diaz after the police twice told her to keep looking at the first batch. He was the only one who remotely looked like the attacker, she said.

“They told me to look closer at the ones I had,” she told a state prosecutor in 1993, adding that the police were watching her study the photos “almost like people holding their breath.”

So, the police were just being helpful. The police are always helpful in identifying the guilty, and witnesses should listen to them. If a police officer says he thinks someone did it, then they probably did it. The fact that Diaz got convicted after the police did this proves they were right.

This victim said she grew more convinced that Mr. Diaz was her attacker when she “shook like a leaf” upon seeing him in a live lineup.

“All these girls couldn’t be wrong, the detectives couldn’t be wrong, it couldn’t go this far,” she recalled thinking.

See??? Once the police had corrected the victim’s faulty memory, she became more and more sure Diaz was the one. They cleared up her doubts for her. They smiled and patted her on the back when she picked the right guy. They’re the good guys.

Nancy Grace appears to be the kind of person to jump the gun on declarations of guilt. This is anything but a service to victims. And according to a customer review of her book on Amazon.com by one “Tom Roberts”, she has been found by courts to have engaged in unethical behavior in her days as a prosecutor (I would corroborate, but hell, he has a case citation!). The reviewer writes:

Since leaving the prosecutor’s office, Nancy Grace has been sharply repremanded by three different appeals courts for unethical and illegal behavior while she was a prosecutor. Her behavior was called illegal by every judge on the Georgia Supreme Court. Georgia is not exactly a friendly place for criminal defense and the lengths the court went in calling out Nancy Grace for ethical violations was very unusual.

They said she:

- Misrepresented facts to the trial judge so that her out of state witness could access the defendants home without the knowledge of the defense. Her witness gained access by breaking down the front door. For good measure, she subsequently also entered the defendants home with CNN cameras.

- Outright misrepresented the testimony of witnesses (falsely indicating in her closing argument that a defense witness had not disagreed with an opinion of the state).

- She inserted false information regarding hearing dates into a court proceeding to gain an advantage.

- She repeatedly ignored the instructions of the court. For example, she made multiple references to issues in her opening statement that the court had ruled (previously) to be inadmissiable.

- She failed to disclose a romantic relationship she knew about between two of her witnesses to the defense. She deliberatly held back her full witness list until the start of the trial.

For those interested, the case was: Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314 (1997). Its a very detailed case study in how Nancy Grace abused her power as a prosecutor and how she operated without any real sort of ethics.

The court summarized her conduct in really harsh language:
begin quote -

Our review of the record supports Carr’s contention that the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial.

end quote -

This isn’t one bad judge, its the entire very conservative usually pro prosection Georgia Supreme Court giving that opinion.

And the title of her book attacks “high priced defense attorneys” that have “hijacked our criminal justice system”? The reviewer continues:

Its also important to remember that the person involved is free today only because he was rich and had the money to hire the lawyers to fight back against what she was trying to do. Most people would have ended up in jail for the rest of their lives.

I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist the trend. And this weekend is the last chance I’ll get to do this, as I’m moving back to the city and the dog stays here with my family.

I try not to read corporate news, but I have noticed many a headline about a methamphetamine epidemic.

Bullshit? Maybe there are lotsa people cooking it up and using. But according to a Slate article by Jack Shafer (via the Drug Policy Alliance’s blog), there are some facts and issues that have gone unaddressed that are essential to understanding the harm of this epidemic and its historical context:

Some highlights:

if meth is America’s most dangerous drug, how many people has it killed? Newsweek doesn’t bother to explore the topic, perhaps because it’s so hard to pin down…If meth is really the most dangerous drug, you’d think the magazine would have provided some sort of body count.
[snip]
In 1965, the federal government tried to reduce the flow of legal amphetamines into the black market by passing the Federal Drug Abuse Control Amendments, but the law had an unintended effect…By cutting the legal supply to a trickle, the government signaled to drug dealers–and would-be drug dealers–that they could collect substantial profits from an established clientele if they started manufacturing amphetamines.
[snip]
In the mid-1960s, just before the government declared war on amphetamines, the average user swallowed his pills, which were of medicinal purity and potency. Snorting and smoking stimulants was almost unheard of, and very few users injected intravenously. Today, 40 years later, snorting, smoking, and injecting methamphetamines of unpredictable potency and dubious purity has become the norm–with all the dreadful health consequences. If the current scene illustrates how the government is winning the war on drugs, I’d hate to see what losing looks like.

Mike of Crime and Federalism blog shows us, with the help of a NYTimes article, one of the consequences of the meth hysteria and the resulting political pressure on the Administration, and by extension, law enforcement:

Think fast: What does it mean to “finish up a cook.” Too late: You’re under arrest.

That’s what several federal police officers said to Indian immigrants whose English-speaking skills, yet alone knowledge of slang, was imperfect.

The NY Times article:

When [federal prosecutors] charged 49 convenience store clerks and owners in rural northwest Georgia with selling materials used to make methamphetamine, federal prosecutors declared that they had conclusive evidence. Hidden microphones and cameras, they said, had caught the workers acknowledging that the products would be used to make the drug.

But weeks of court motions have produced many questions. Forty-four of the defendants are Indian immigrants - 32, mostly unrelated, are named Patel - and many spoke little more than the kind of transactional English mocked in sitcoms.

So when a government informant told store clerks that he needed the cold medicine, matches and camping fuel to “finish up a cook,” some of them said they figured he must have meant something about barbecue.

The Agitator knows the reason why there is an uptick in homegrown meth usage. Its the same reason folks used to make moonshine, and its one reason why we today have such a rich variety of cocktails:

A smart reporter, for example, might ask why we have meth in the first place. Could it be because more traditional amphetamines and narcotics are harder to get, thanks in large part to the Drug War? He might ask Drug War opponents if they feel the meth scare is as potent and widespread as media reports and drug warriors suggest. He doesn’t have to endorse these ideas. But he ought to at least give them some space.

. . . .

While talking about drug prohibition and the rash of meth stories, a reporter yesterday asked me if I would “even legalize meth.”

I think that’s a poor way of framing the question. It would be like asking an opponent of alcohol prohibition in, say, 1927 a question like, “would you even legalize bathtub gin, which is dangerously potent, and sometimes lethal?”

It’s not a fair question. Were it not for the Drug War, we wouldn’t have meth. Were it not for Prohibition, we’d never have had people drinking wood alcohol or bathtub gin. Both were created by prohibition. Both would soon go away if we adopted more sensible policies.

Humans will always want to get high, and they will always succeed, no matter how injurious to our bodies.

So let’s not only save money, but make money. We set up a government monopoly on the drug trade, and undercut any potential black market. We can eliminate the DEA. We can free up police departments to investigate real crimes. And there will be far less crime to investigate, as we will eliminate all drug-related violence and crime (no need to battle for territory, no need to mug people for money, etc.). We can stop building prisons. We can stop spraying fields (and poisoning humans) in South America. We can put the money into substantial support for those who go astray. Its utilitarian! Oy, I’ll save the moral argument for decriminalization for another day.

But these ideas are nothing new. We’ve seen the problems inherent in prohibition in the past. And we’ve been through it with drugs for a long enough time that there shouldn’t be any more doubt about the massive utilitarian benefits to a controlled decriminalization of currently illegal drugs. I just feel these ideas need repeating, as its obvious we still haven’t caught on.

I just stumbled upon a little post on Pandagon by Jesse Taylor about a topic I love to complain about; the corporate media’s concept of “debate.” Here is a big chunk of the post:

I’m currently watching a Bill Schneider piece on creationism/ID, and even as he covers polling on the issue, I’m made well aware why most people don’t think it’s a problem.

Schneider’s continual reference to the debate is “teaching both sides” and/or “teaching different viewpoints”. Never is the validity of the idea brought up, or any educational background about what the purpose of science is. Daryn Kagan just asked the anti-dumbass guy what the problem was with presenting “other ideas” in schools, and it’s obvious she has about as much background on the question as I do on Bolivian economics.

It’s emblematic of just how ridiculously poorly equipped the media is to host any real debate on controversial issues, particularly when one side is being patently dishonest.

Atrios agrees in this post:

Kudos to our wonderful media for treating this as a he said/she said issue, where one side is the entire legitimate scientific community and the other side consists of a bunch of good Christian liars trying to dress their religion up as science. They tried once before with “Creation Science” and now they’re trying again with “Intelligent Design.”

I wrote a long comment with a similar sentiment under Melissa’s excellent post on No Child Left Behind from back in the infancy (a few months ago) of this blog. I dig on Jeff Greenfield (in a hypothetical manner) instead of Bill Schneider, but either will do. I also point out how such reporting tends to support PR-driven, contrived, and empty policy, as well as PR-driven, contrived, empty politicians. Here’s what I wrote in full (though not very well written… hey, it was just a comment):

I know little about the details and intricacies of NCLB. But I suspect the entire legislation is nothing more than a ruse. For what purpose? So Bush/Republicans/Etc. can claim that they passed legislation to help our educational system (with a soft and fuzzy Orwellian name they can repeat over and over again). It is an accomplishment they can read off on 30 second ads and campaign stops devoid of criticism. Thus, no need to actually fund the program and raise taxes.

Once we get into the lack of funding and the need to raise governmental revenues (or reappropriate them) to support NCLB, the conversation gets too long and complex for corporate media to discuss. There are too many issues. First, NCLB itself has serious problems (as raised by this article), but I’m sure a talking head can blabber good things about it for several minutes on CNN. Accountability? Good. We shouldn’t waste money on failing schools, we owe it to the children, etc etc. Then the Democrat can either raise excellent (and fairly obvious) criticisms or, in many cases, agree. Secondly, the Democrat or journalist will ask about funding NCLB. That opens the door to finger pointing between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican will say it is possible to cut more taxes and still fund education. Democrats will say we can’t cut anymore taxes, but won’t dare say that we need to raise them (and will instead criticise tax cuts already made), and then say that NCLB is an unfunded mandate. And since the corporate media prefers to report on politics as strategic battles rather than as debates on policies, this finger-pointing will be encouraged. Then Jeff Greenfield will talk about how interesting it is that the Republicans take X strategy and the Democrats take Y strategy. He’ll then speculate about how the American people will react to parties’s stances on the issue, rather than provide meaningful analysis of the policies and facts behind the debate.

Jeff Greenfield and his ilk are simply sports commentators, treating political parties like teams. There could be a role for this commentary, if success in politics was an accurate reflection of a party’s ability to apprise and address the real needs and desires of the people. But when success in politics is the result of PR (propaganda) and ignorance, then we cannot treat politics like a sporting event, as parties may be successful because of their ability to dupe people or make them apathetic.

But in the end, the Republicans get to say they passed legislation to reform and save our educational system. Kids may learn less because of it, but knowing why takes analysis. I [hope] we figure it out before the consequences on our society make it clear.

All it would take is a little analysis from the corporate media to discredit idiotic policy positions. Then we can focus debates appropriately between mutually credible policy positions. A debate between Intelligent Design Theory vs. evolution, for example, could be replaced by one of the following:
-evolution theorists debating the merits of the completeness of the theory (or perhaps serious alternative theories, if they exist)
-deep criticism of the Intelligent Design Theory (and other superstitions), as a public service
-sociological study of proponents and advocates of intelligent design theory, and of other folks who struggle so ferociously against overwhelming evidence… what makes them tick?

This is not to say people can’t continue to believe in creationism. Lets just not pretend that it has anything to do with science. Atrios says it nicely in the same entry linked above… it made me go back and capitalize “intelligent design” in this post:

Obviously most people who believe in some form of supreme deity are lowercase intelligent design believers of some kind, but that’s entirely different from being believers in the “science” of uppercase Intelligent Design. People are free to believe, if they wish, that aspects of the universe including life suggest to them the presence of some form of divine hand. But that’s spirituality and faith, not science. There is no genuine science of Intelligent Design and it has no place in science classrooms.

And isn’t faith most pure where proof is most lacking? Let’s not forget this passage from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy about the Babel Fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

UPDATE, 8/4/05:

I just love to link to other bloggers who are thinking similarly and at the same time, as you can see. The Babel Fish problem of proof and faith is a perfect segway into this post from the Big Brass Blog:

But what lies as the root cause of religious extremism? Lack of faith.

That’s right, lack of faith. The zealots in this country, and throughout the world, who must wear their religion on their sleeves, have every aspect of their lives dosed with religion and feel the need to not only believe for themselves, but to take everyone along with them or else, clearly are suffering from a serious lack of faith.

What else can explain the need to constantly shove their religion into everyone else’s lives? They have such a fragile system of faith that they must constantly say “look at me, I believe in God, I am pious and you are a sinner, and either you will observe my way or you are going to hell!”

Of course, one might argue that these extremists are trying to save us from damnation. But naaah…

Those who try to push religion into other people’s lives probably often suffer from a lack of faith, as BBB suggests. I think part it may also be a misconception about faith, that is, they mistakenly think they need to see earthly manifestations of “God’s will.” If this is their conception, then their faith is certainly lacking.

But insecurity plays a big roll. Those who try so forcefully to mold and indoctrinate our society may be subconsciously aiming to satisfy their own religious and personal insecurities by their efforts. They may satisfy their religious insecurities by seeing that more and more people have similar beliefs. And they may satisfy their personal insecurities with feelings of empowerment, achieved by turning themselves into activists, leaders, recruiters, martyrs, etc… the more extreme, the better.

We may all be a bit guilty of this when it comes to politics, debate, and activism, even when we have truth and logic on our side. Perhaps that’s part of the reason why we write this blog. But we differ in that we have faith in the strength of our positions; we have faith that our ideas will emerge victorious from the marketplace of ideas when given their fair hearing.

Most religious people know that their religions do get a fair hearing in our society; in churches, communities, traditions, and culture. They know that their religions cannot stand up to evolution in scientific validity, and they know that science alone cannot satisfy their deep feelings of spirituality. So they recognize that both science and religion will benefit most by discussing them separately in different physical and intellectual venues.

Damn, this post was supposed to be about corporate media and debate.

UPDATE, 8/5/05:

The post that never ends!

Shakespeare’s Sister now takes the reigns, bringing mindless supporters of the President into the fold.

John Kerry said he believes in God (and attends church more frequently than the president), and didn’t seem afraid to say it; so what’s the difference? Every friggin’ president we’ve ever had has been a Christian believer in God (and not afraid to say it). So what makes this guy so different? Isn’t it really that he’s willing to push a very particular Christian agenda down the nation’s collective throat? Isn’t it that he espouses (if not overtly, then through his policy endorsements) a superiority of that particular Christian doctrine over other Christian beliefs, other religions, agnosticism, and atheism? Isn’t it his willingness to subjugate science, reason, the rule of law, fairness, justice, and equality to give ever greater rights to your existing majority, while indulging your screeching assertions of victimhood?

I wrote about how the insecure-religious need to see that other people share their religiosity. I called this their “religious” insecurity, that is, their lack of faith. But Shakespeare’s Sister points out how John Kerry and just about every other candidate display their religiosity as overtly as Bush. So why don’t they support Kerry, et. al.? Maybe Shakespeare’s Sister is partially wrong… Bush may simply go further than other candidates; “Jesus Christ” as his favorite philosopher is one example. But Shakespeare’s Sister hits a more important reason why the extremists support Bush: his attempts to push and promote religion, and arguably religious ideals, through public policy. This is how Bush appeals to the other insecurity I wrote about: “personal” insecurity. It is not enough for the extremists to think Bush agrees with their religion. They want Bush to answer to them. By trying to “push a very particular Christian agenda down the nation’s collective throat,” Bush reinforces the extremists’ false feelings of personal superiority. And the more he “subjugate[s] science, reason, the rule of law, fairness, justice, and equality,” the more he validates the extremists’ feelings and satiates their insecurities.

I know, the horse is dead, I shall refrain from beating.

EDIT: I stand corrected by commenter, Rick Perlstein (who knows? People read this blog?), that this speech I refer to was not given solely to the DLC, but to a wider audience that had some DLC members in it. Thus, my criticism about the DLC being the less ideal audience for Perlstein to waste his effort is moot. But whether or not Perlstein spoke to the DLC alone, I think it is still important to consider circumventing and calling out the DLCers for the reasons I lay out in the post… we can think of the DLC audience in an abstract sense. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for the correction.

I know, “reading is fun and easy.”

Perlstein gave a speech to a group of powerful Democrats…

END EDIT

I am glad to learn (via Digby) that the DLC is taking the time to listen to Rick Perlstein.

Here is some of what he had to say:

Here’s Bill Kristol, in a famous 1993 memo I’m sure you’re all familiar with: “Health care is not, in fact, just another Democratic initiative . . . the plan should not be amended; it should be erased. . . . It will revive the reputation of the . . . Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.”

I’d say this memo is the skeleton key to understanding modern American politics, if it didn’t make me yawn. There’s nothing here that’s unfamiliar to historians who’ve read Republican secrets going back 25, 35, even 70 years. You can sum them up in 10 words: “If the Democrats succeed in redistributing economic power, we’re screwed.”

They have reason to fear.

There is a website that thousands of committed Republicans spend hours on, giving and receiving marching orders. When people stray from the party line, it’s not unusual for them to be banned. Free Republic, I’d argue, is far more crucial to the Republican infrastructure than the Heritage Foundation.

The prescription for the Democrats?

…They [the Republicans] know they’re screwed if we’re credible in our pledge to deliver new kinds of power to ordinary people in their every day lives.

Democratic congressmen can do that, for example, by making a credible collective pledge that if you vote Democrat enough you will never pay another medical bill as long as you live. You really think people wouldn’t stop voting Republican then?

. . .

Guaranteed. Health Insurance. For All. Not, as I found it formulated on the website of even one of the most liberal senators, “access to affordable health insurance.”

Side note: the new darling congressional candidate (perhaps rightfully so… perhaps) of the progressive bloggers is guilty of the wussier stance on healthcare.

I believe Perlstein’s words accurately depict one reason why the Democrats keep losing. And it is one very important reason in need of elucidation, particularly to the DLCers.

But, as David Sirota would agree, Perlstein’s audience, the DLC, is itself an equally important reason for the Dems’ consistent electoral failures (and yes, I consider garnering around 50% of the vote a failure where popular and progressive political stances are ripe for the taking).

My concern is that Perlstein’s words are being wasted on the DLC. What will they do? Probably they will either (a) ignore the advice, still convinced of (or beholden to, thanks to corporate dollars) the “centrist” (read: socially moderate, economically evil) strategy will win the day; or (b) they will steal the language only to betray the cause upon election.

But possibly, they will (c) heed Perlstein’s advice and begin to govern according to their progressive mandate. This third option sounds fine. It strikes me as unsatisfying, however, that these DLC opportunists should be the electoral beneficiaries of Perlstein’s (and all of our) wisdom.

I understand that many progressive movements in the past were led by those who could bend with the winds. Even FDR and his Dems, though perhaps partially altruistic, were probably more afraid of the rapidly organizing socialist and communist parties. Here’s the 1932 party platform… though it sounds fairly progressive today, it certainly did not call for The New Deal that came to be. (I think Zinn writes about this… couldn’t find any decent links).

The New Deal further illustrates the problem. Back then, the Democratic politicians gave more than they were promising. Today, they promise more than they give. Why? Back then, the people were organizing outside the Democratic party. Today, the people keep falling in line.

If the DLCers take Perlstein’s words to heart, I bet we will continue to fall in line. Then we risk betrayal, whether it be upon election, or upon the first instance that Perlstein’s strategy fails is blamed for failure. And the whole time, in victory and defeat, we will remain dependent on these milquetoast boors to organize and unite us under their shaky wills and their changeable allegiences.

Progressives need to organize themselves outside the Democratic party, or at the very least organize in concert with the Dems who can push the party in the right direction, while circumventing DLC types. Though the DLCers need to hear Perlstein, and though it will be better if they run with his gospel, I would rather see Perlstein giving pep-talks exclusively to the rank-and-file who could use the reassurance that, yes, they are on the right path. The progressives need to draw a line in the sand. The DLCers need to choose what side they are on… and fall in line.

Seems that people are anxious to know (thanks HuffPo) just where Judge Roberts stands on abortion. In light of this, I found an interesting concept on Echidne, and found a little more on Feministe. They are about a Katha Pollitt column opining whether losing Roe v. Wade is necessarily all that bad. From the portions of the column I have read, it seems she concludes that we will not gain much by taking abortion off the political table. Though many say the Roe decision itself is what put abortion on the table and caused the backlash against abortion rights, Pollitt thinks that, if Roe is overturned, abortion will continue to be a prominent and perhaps overshadowing issue in state elections, still to the detriment of wider discussion. She may be right.

The question: should the Dems simply stop campaigning on the issue? That depends. It may depend on the state. It may depend on whether the Republicans will force the issue and force the Dems to take a stand. Or maybe abortion is a question of basic human rights that would be unconscionable to abandon.

Could there be another way? Bear with me, these ideas are new, for me at least.

As it stands, Roe may be overturned. If so, Dems could be in for the fights of their lives to defend abortion rights in the states. Sadly, this fight will probably be to the detriment of *gulp* the less “gonadal” (to quote Ralph Nader, though he was sadly referring to gay rights… but the sentiment is not without validity) and the *gulp* more important systemic economic and social issues that go largely ignored.

Instead of funnelling all of our resources into electoral campaigns and lobbying, perhaps we should work outside of (er, wiggle around) the law. We can put our resources normally used for political purposes into a vast network of people and organizations that can guarantee free and safe abortions to anyone in the nation. The network can provide money for transportation, when necessary. Also when necessary, doctors with social consciences can provide free services when economically feasible, else the pro-choice organizations may pay for the procedures.

More details need to be fleshed out. And this may not solve the problem of minors seeking abortions, of course.

And what if a federal law banning abortion is passed? Perhaps this pro-choice “underground railroad” can stretch to Canada, or off-shore. Or perhaps we can simply establish a massive and supportive network of law breakers. But that opens up good people to potential criminal prosecutions.

And who knows if enough resources could be mustered to achieve these lofty goals. Perhaps the electoral process is the best investment, and perhaps we should be putting abortion-rights front and center of electoral contests. But maybe if we put abortion aside, anti-choice voters will have no further need to pledge allegiance to the Republicans who so often act against their interests on every other issue.

Women seeking abortions shouldn’t need to feel like criminals. They shouldn’t need to go through these efforts. But gosh, we’re losing everything else. Of course, I am probably exaggerating the sway of abortion as an electoral issue.

Even if a strategy which places aside abortion is not adopted, we may lose these abortion electoral battles anyway, which means we may need to start thinking about how we can make abortions available in the face of draconian laws.

Just some quick thoughts, and quite controversial. So I’d like to hear more nuanced critiques than I have provided, please comment away.

A slightly personal post, if you will abide.

When I graduate law school, I will need a job. For the public interest-minded, like myself, there are few options out there. Non-profits are few and far between. Every state has organizations devoted to providing civil legal services to low-income individuals. There are also plenty of public defender offices. To a lesser extent, there are non-profits that focus on matters of public policy and activism. But for the deluge of new JDs coming out of the degree-emporiums they call law schools, demand and competition for positions in these organizations is very high. And since the jobs provide for a steady source of income (though quite low in comparison to many firms), benefits, and often less mind-numbing and more inspiring work, those who get the jobs seldom let them go, which results in few positions opening up for new graduates.

Where else can the public interest-minded turn? Theoretically, government work is in the public interest, and it is generally characterized as such. District attorneys prosecute alleged criminals, making us all safer. Attorneys staff regulatory agencies and government bureaucracies, thereby keeping industries in check and maintaining the integrity of the government.

But politics warps this theoretical classification, in both subjective and objective ways. The subjective effect is easy to recognize. My personal policy preferences (though I consider them stronger than mere “preferences”) will never allow me to become a prosecutor. Why? Because I recognize that many crimes in this country could be prevented by social and economic justice before-the-fact. Poverty breeds crime. Who tends to commit crimes? The poor, the mentally ill, the uneducated, the addicted, and the desperate (take a trip to the criminal court in Manhattan and go see the arraignments). Are some of these people immoral and deserving of prosecution? Perhaps some are deeply, manifestly, born with evil in their hearts, and perhaps some only committed their crime for that reason and none other. If this is even possible, I would posit that the number of such offenders is infinitesimally small. If given a chance to compete in the beginning of life, and if given a decent environment (social, economic, and natural) throughout life, I imagine most of today’s criminals would be law-abiding. Simple determinism.

Another important reason why I couldn’t be a prosecutor is that prisons are terrible places. We should keep as many people out of them as possible, for reasons of both compassion and utility, until they become truly rehabilitory and safe.

But within this group of criminals I have just described, I decidedly left out probably the biggest group of peopled who commit “crimes,” but who in my mind are not even criminals. These people are the victims of the war on drugs; if only the war was actually “on drugs” and not a war on people. The United States boasts the largest number of incarcerated people and the highest percentage of our population incarcerated in the world, though we are only the 3rd most populous nation (and supposedly a nation that values freedom). The primary reason for this is drug prohibition. Why are people arrested for drugs? Using, dealing, and a whole host of crimes caused by addiction (theft, mugging, etc.) or the black market (homicide, etc.).

But I digress with these statistics. The point is this: I could not with good conscience prosecute a person for possessing a drug, nor even use a drug charge as leverage for a plea. The ridiculous prison statistics bolster a case for drug legalization, sure. As do economic arguments (for example, financial the benefits of a government controlled drug cartel), and crime reduction arguments (if legalized, drug-related crime would disappear). But I think the most convincing argument may be one of morality and justice. It is not right to arrest someone for the mere possession of drugs. Public consumption of drugs? Sure, treat it like public consumption of alcohol. Nobody wants a junkie shooting up in front of their house. Driving under the influence? Certainly a just criminal statute. But merely possessing a drug, in the home or out, is inherently harmless. (and lets not forget the double standards, re: cigarettes and alcohol)

Furthermore, even the many laws against dealing need to be reevaluated. Surely we should go down hard on the big time sellers and suppliers. Many small-time “dealers” are little more than junkies making enough profit to score their own fix.

Thus, prosecution is one line of work I will need to stay away from. I would reconsider in the highly unlikely scenario where a local DA chooses to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a way that would circumvent unjust criminal laws. David Soares of Albany comes close, but I’m not sure if he will push his discretion far enough for me (and I don’t think I would want to move to Albany).

I also feel great reluctance to enter government work in general. This introduces more of an objective influence of politics. George Bush is in charge of the federal government. George Pataki is in charge of NY’s government. Bloomberg has got NYC. In general, Republicans tend to want to limit the public benefits government agencies provide (Bloomberg on a much lower level, I would guess). Even if I were to work in NJ, where the Dems currently have control, who knows how long it will last? And just like with DA’s offices, having Democrats in office does not necessarily they will be working for the public good.

Yet with a Democrat, say, as President, you can at least have some faith that many of the federal agencies will be allowed to fulfill the social good they were intended to promote. And many of the attorneys that start in a Democratic administration will remain employed under Republicans. They become the often overly-maligned bureaucracy. But in the hands of the current administration, we see these agencies either twisted from the inside or hand-cuffed. This article (thanks to Laborblog) about immigration officers impersonating OSHA officials to fool illegal immigrants is the perfect example of the sick ways agencies are undermined.

So, if I can’t find a public interest job? I guess there’s always personal injury. Contingent fees… ah yes.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:
Here’s an excellent comic (8 pages, short, and effective!) provided by Greg, written by his brother-in-law, which really personalizes the effect drug laws have on regular people. Do read!

UPDATE, 7/18/05:

Here is another example of the way politics ruins perfectly good regulatory agencies, thanks to HuffPo linking to the NYTimes. The EPA is now wasting precious resources on PR (aka, propaganda). Why would the EPA need PR? Because facts lead to one set of conclusions, and spinned facts lead to another set of conclusions. I feel sorry for all of the attorneys who joined the EPA under Clinton for the noble purpose of protecting the environment, and who now must stomach this twisted facade to keep their pensions.

I was sitting in front of the TV and flipped to CNN. They were airing a report on NYC’s steps to monitor the subways with more police in the wake of the London bombing.

For quite some time I, and I’m sure many others, have contended that preventing terrorist attacks is simply impossible (short of astounding and intolerable government intrusion). The NYC subway was my favorite example. Any person can walk into any of the hundreds of subway terminals, and from there attack at any part of the subway system. There is no security. They could use a small bomb, or even a larger one depending on which subway station they enter (caged vs. uncaged turnstiles). They may use biological agents, which could possibly spread quickly, says the Council on Foreign Relations, throughout the subway system (perhaps depending on ventilation… see this brief article on NYC subway system safety and see the story of Tokyo’s sarin incident).

Thus, if a terrorist wants to terrorize, it can be done. I don’t think terrorists, if their aim is to terrorize, would be dissuaded by their inablitiy to blow up a huge building or an important symbolic target when they could still easily attack some less extravagant target or crowded area.

Now, in response to the bombing in London, NYC is putting more effort into patrolling the subways. But what will these extra efforts achieve? Nothing has changed. Any person can still enter any subway station with a deadly weapon. By having more police in the subway, the small chance may grow slightly larger that a policeman will (a) believe someone is a terrorist, (b) have the confidence in this belief to question the person, (c) develop an even stronger belief by the behavior and responses of this person, (d) take further custodial steps (arrest, frisk, search baggage, etc.), and (e) be correct that the person is a terrorist. (forgive this probably inaccurate analysis of police-stops, but I imagine the actual policies and practices yield a similar conclusion… you just can’t tell who’s going to blow you up, and you probably won’t catch them)

But even with the increased police presence, we still probably won’t have a better chance of catching a potential terrorist. We beefed up our security exactly when it would be expected: in the wake of a previous attack. If your goal is to blow up people without getting caught, you will probably wait until after the knee-jerk reaction blows over (even though you still would probably be successful). The only way we could get even the slightest benefit from the extra police in the subways is if they stay permanently, which is highly unlikely.

And mind you this is only the subway. The subway may be a more valuable target, since it’s destruction can halt the economy of NYC. But if the objective is killing, there are thousands of targets throughout the country where people are massed together, often within structures. They cannot all be protected, and they will not be.

Speaking of my police-stop scenario, here is what happened to a beloved (unless you’re a Star Wars fetishist) national starlet (thanks to Lakshmi Chaudhry of Alternet). Even Padme realizes she could hypothetically inflict destruction in other venues than the subway tunnel (or in the theater with aid of a George Lucas script) to which she was denied access .

Atrios and Stranger of Blah3 are rightly disgusted by the silliness of our national fear, particularly in comparison to the UK. Blah3 also points us to www.werenotafraid.com.

Are the police really achieving anything? Or are they simply massing in the subways for our piece-of-mind (and political survival)? Or is there presence along with the media fear-frenzy making us afraid in the first place? I don’t know. But I don’t think I would be any more afraid of terrorists if I were to board the NYC subway today than I was before the London bombing (I would test this belief, but I’m away for the summer).

INDICTMENTS AND THERAPY

Once again, as I keep bringing up hither and thither on this site, Rove is on to something. I have a feeling that indictments and therapy, in a loose sense, are the ways to fight terrorism. We need to look at terrorism, even international terrorism, like every other crime. How can we stop crime in general? We can’t, at least not without massive policing. But a more effective approach, and a better investment, is to create social and economic conditions whereby committing crime becomes less necessary (economic stability, education), more morally and socially difficult (community organizing, education), and less relevant (legalize drugs, start a government cartel, thereby eliminating all drug-related crime… that’s the biggest step… for another post), etc. Policing is but the reaction when therapy fails. Preventative medicine versus chemo and surgery.

The same goes with terrorism. We can make it less necessary, more morally and socially difficult, and less relevant for people to engage in terrorism if we drastically change our foreign (and by extension, domestic) policies. If we provide REAL aid and support to the poor across the world, then there will be less reason for people to get angry at us… and if they simply consider us an ally, then there is no reason why they would attack. By removing our military forces from foreign nations, just like legalizing drugs, we create no reason for them to attack us (see the penultimate paragraph of the previous front page post by MrKedder). All of this is the therapy.

The indictments? They go hand in hand with the therapy. We are cooperative with other governments, and they cooperate with us. No need to invade (there never was a need to begin with in Iraq, and maybe even Afganistan if we turned over evidence). Real international law, not unilateral idiocy. Law and order, not mass destruction.

One would rightly point out that many regimes are dictatorial or extremist, and wouldn’t allow us to be the great angel of the powerless. Then perhaps we should support civil society and oppositions. Support them how? Financially? Shed light with our bully pulpit? Economic persuasion and negotiation with the uncooperative governments (most fascistic bastards you can probably bribe)? Perhaps, even military support, as a last resort to save oppressed people. War? In this scenario, we would actually have the support of the people, unlike our usual situation (i.e., Iraq, where we starved them first, invaded second… but the Administration has never had their interests in mind). Is Rwanda a counter-example? I would say probably not, unless you believe the corporate media’s general take on it, the “purely humanitarian” mission, which I doubt… but this will require more research.

This whole post is a little straight-off-the-brain, but I’ll leave it to others to pick apart the flaws of my case.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:

I found this post on In Search of Utopia blog. Supports my thesis from a slightly different perspective. What I take from it? Even in the most totalitarian state, there will always be dissent. And the more totalitarian the state, the more necessary it will be to use violent means.

Instead of instilling fear, closing our borders, and creating a police state, we need to take a cue from Spain. On CNN this weekend, I learned that after the Madrid bombing and the election of the Socialists, Zapatero took the counter-intuitive approach by making it far easier for immigrants to obtain legal status (though there appear to be economic considerations underlying the policy as well). Naturally, this means many Muslims from Morocco and Africa were able to gain legal residency.

UPDATE, 7/21/05:

So, the NYPD is randomly checking bags of subway commuters. They can decline to be checked, however, which only means they can’t ride. Insanity? Or valuable? A bomber will see a cop and not even try to board the train. Instead, they can go into a restaurant, or a crowded street corner. The only good that comes of this is the protection of the subway system itself, which is very very important, so I’ll shut up. But I imagine theoretical bombers can still find some other way to cripple the economy while simultaneously killing people. This guy from the article essentially agrees:

Andrew Morris, a 57-year-old New Yorker who had a large bag slung over his shoulder Thursday, said he would consent to a search if asked, but added that the extra security measures are essentially useless.

“I think these terrorists go where it’s easiest to go, so if you make it hard on the subway, they’ll go where we’re weak,” Morris said.

UPDATE, 7/24/05:

Found this post, containing an Observer article, over on Steve Gilliard’s “The News Blog.” The article speaks directly to the benefits of using traditional law enforcement techniques to battle terrorism and the folly of using military invasions (not that any of us really believed these Middle Eastern wars were for the purpose of fighting terrorism, now did we?). And it is written with *gasp* facts, anecdotes, and examples. I’m no good at that, so I highly recommend reading it. The title of the post rings tru: “the law works, try using it.”

And here is a tragically humerous blog entry by Mithras which also gets at the obvious problem with NYC subway random bag searches… there are lots of subway entrances. Are cops stationed at every entrance? I highly doubt it.

A little historical debunking about the American Revolution for the 4th, thanks to this Salon article, and thanks to Direland for incorporating it into a bigger post criticizing “The Gates” in Central Park. “Saffron”… right.

This way to the article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/07/02/rum/

And in while I’m in the “spirit”…

W.C.: “Did I spend a 20 dollar bill in here last night?”
Bartender: “Yes you did”…
W.C.: “Oh thank God, I thought I lost it.”
-W.C. Fields, from The Bank Dick

I just felt obliged to write something in the wake of the O’Connor resignation and the Kelo case. And please forgive the awful Stallone movie-inspired title, but it is apt.

Judicial review is a tricky thing. In the media, I have frequently heard O’Connor referred to as a justice without a philosophy, other than pragmatism; that she tried to decide the case at hand, and tried to limit her ruling to so satisfy the case at hand and avoid overbroad rulings. Sometimes, in these attempts, she would formulate various “tests” that some believe smack of judicial legislation. The most famous of these tests is the “undue burden” test for anti-abortion legislation.

So, what do we want in a new justice?

I don’t know.

When it comes to judicial review, the popular political pigeon-holing into “conservative” and “liberal” does not guide us in the same way as it does with legislators. Judges have a profoundly different task; to competently and honestly interpret the law and the Constitution in disputes brought before them. Their role is further constrained by the widely accepted doctrine of stare decisis (let the decision stand) which impresses upon justices to follow rulings previously made by the court (I find stare decisis a little silly… either you got it right the first time, or you didn’t… though past decisions make for great sources of authority in legal arguments regardless… and stare decisis from higher courts is important for lower courts to follow).

We recently saw how the liberal-conservative distinction does not quite fit in the Kelo case. The “liberals” of the court ruled that local governments can use their eminent domain “takings” power to acquire private homes for the purpose of private (as opposed to public) economic development. They gave wide discretion to local governments to determine what types of takings are in the public interest. And local governments are clearly the easiest to be bribed, corrupted, or simply pressured by powerful corporate interests like Pfizer, or other powerful local interests and individuals.

Perhaps the liberals were being principled. They believe that local governments should be allowed to use eminent domain for the public interest, and perhaps they fear that by curtailing it even in New London’s case might chip away at the rights of local governments to make these decisions in general. Judges often write that, theoretically, the local lawmakers are in the best position to make these decisions for the public interest, not judges who understand nothing about economic development in general, nor know nothing about a local economic situation in particular. In Kelo, the liberal judges may have wanted to prevent future “conservative” judges from denying municipalities the use of eminent domain when the purposes are truly motivated to support the general welfare, and have them deny the takings on the basis of whatever technicalities that could have been devised in the New London case.

EDIT: Here is a quote from the case,

Just as we decline to second-guess the City’s considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City’s determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project. “It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch.” (citing another case)

-Stevens’s majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London

END EDIT

But courts also have the role of protector of constitutional rights and liberties. Couldn’t the “liberals” have struck a better compromise between the two? Russ Mokhiber and Robert Weissman think so:

The homeowners in the case argued for an aggressive ruling, recommending that economic development should never be permitted as a rationale for eminent domain actions.

But there are less-far reaching alternatives that would also curtail abusive eminent domain actions.

As a second option, the homeowners suggested that economic development takings should only be permitted if “the government can show a reasonable certainty that the project will proceed and yield the public benefits that are used to justify the condemnation.”

This eminently reasonable approach would put a check on takings for vague purposes to be determined later — as is the case in the in Kelo v. New London case, and many others.

It would also require some kind of contractual certainty that land transferred to private parties would yield the promised benefits. That would halt the kind of abuse that occurred in Toledo, where 83 homes were condemned to make way for a truck staging area for a refurbished DaimlerChrysler plant. DaimlerChrysler said the plant would provide 4,900 jobs, but it ended up employing less than half as many.

Another useful approach was proposed in a law review article by Ralph Nader and Alan Hirsch. They argued that the government should have to show a compelling interest in eminent domain cases where condemned property was to be transferred to a private party and the party whose land is taken is relatively powerless politically.

Although the Supreme Court has now settled the issue as a matter of U.S. constitutional law, there is still an opportunity for more reasonable approaches to be adopted. States, under constitutional law or legislation, may impose the reasonable restraints on use of eminent domain that the Supreme Court refused to establish.

Quote is from ZNet, here.

I am currently working in a legal services office that is handling a case with a very similar situation as New London. The local municipality is trying to use their takings power to remove a large, lower-income, mainly hispanic residential neighborhood. They argue they need to make the the residential area less congested to eliminate “blight” (funny, NYC has incredibly congested residential areas, and its doing just fine). They will be tearing down hundreds of low-income homes and rental properties. In their place, they will be putting up hundreds of middle to upper-income condominiums, amongst other things. And it won’t be any less “congested.”

The Kelo decision has no substantial effect in this case, since the state takings law offers more protection than federal law.

But our senior attorney, who is handling the case, clued me in on some of this: you will never see middle or upper income housing torn down and replaced by low-income/rental housing and housing projects. It is clear that Kelo, and eminent domain in general, will only be targeted against poor communities. Once the poor, usually minority, residents are removed, they will be looking for new housing. The prices for all housing will be driven up; the affordable housing has been replaced, thus reducing the supply of affordable housing, thus increasing the demand. The local community organizations in these taken neighborhoods will be disintegrated, thus eliminating the only political power the low-income residents have, thus giving them even less say in local government (and they already did not have enough political power to prevent the taking). Furthermore, with Kelo on the books, people and businesses will be less willing to invest in low-income communities, for fear that at any time the municipality will eliminate their investment, offering only takings compensation. The compensation should be fair market value, but the compensation will always be discounted. The very existence of a taking necessarily devalues businesses and housing. The compensation also ignores all of the other enormous personal, social, and financial issues associated with being uprooted from one’s home and community. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Kelo is just one example of how the court’s “liberals” may decide cases in ways that stand in opposition to the interests of poor communities, the very people any good progressive is looking out for. As we often saw with O’Connor, in Kelo and in many other cases, and as we often see with other justices, we never know what kind of judge we’re going to get, even if we think we understand a judge’s ideological underpinnings, and even if we don’t agree with a judge on any issue of policy. This isn’t to say we’re totally in the dark. But I’m not too afraid, though perhaps I should be. If someone can fill me in on any scary details about new nominations, or new ways the court may swing, I would appreciate it.

EDIT:

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. “That alone is a just government,” wrote James Madison, “which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

-O’Connor’s dissent in Kelo v. City of New London.

END EDIT

UPDATE, 7/20/05:

Since Duc linked to this older post in his latest post, I thought I’d revisit it just for a sec. Here’s a post from Mary of The Left Coaster which tries to make a case that we should be concerned about Republican vs. Democrat nominees. Interesting stats. But what do they really show? They probably show us that ambiguity and uncertainty in the law may result in a judge’s policy preferences deciding the case at hand. But the stats may actually tell us that either Democrat-appointed judges are more willing to stretch the law, or that Republican-appointed judges are more willing to stretch the law… you just can’t tell by the numbers alone. I don’t mean to belittle the value of looking at these stats. But we may reach more sound conclusions by looking at the cases themselves.

I will also point out that these stats are generally irrelevant for our current situation with Judge Roberts (unless the stats were meant to show why we should be obedient to Dems when they try to scare us during elections with SCOTUS appointment horror stories). There was no doubt that we were getting a Republican appointee. The question remains whether this man is a partisan hack or a corporate hack… or perhaps we’ll see he is a principled judge who happens to rule in conservative friendly ways because the law is in fact conservative… or perhaps we’ll see just the opposite.

And, once you’re a Supreme Court justice, to whom must you answer? Nobody. Does the judge have fealty to Bush? Perhaps. But now that he’s in, there is no reason to suspect that any past cronyism needs to be maintained. If Roberts was never engaged in cronyism to begin with, but instead possessed an honestly held philosophy about the public good that led to his support of Bush, then can we really say this guy is bad? Misguided, perhaps. And possibly destructive. But if he’s honest, then we can expect him to largely decide cases honestly. And if the results are bad, that may say more about the state of the law and the nature of the Constitution than it says about the judge.

Not the best analysis, but I’m a bit busy right now. Though I criticize the worriers a bit, I really value the fantastic job the various blogs are doing in learning about Judge Roberts and spreading the info. Just playing a little Devil’s Advocate.