Making it up as we go along, NASCAR-style

NASCAR has long fought the impression that stock car racing is the equivalent of professional wrestling on wheels. Rules have had a funny way of changing on the fly to suit one driver or another - or one manufacturer or another. No one ever had a win taken away if it turned out later that they had cheated by using illegal parts afterward. Spinning the car out in front of you wasn't punished - it was encouraged.

Now, twice in a week, the boys in Daytona Beach have monkeyed around with their own "playoff" system in order to protect the "integrity" of the racing. First they penalized Martin Truex because his teammate deliberately spun himself out late in the Richmond race last weekend. There was no evidence that Truex had anything to do with the manuever - yet somehow it was determined that deliberately spinning yourself out is a just not acceptable.

After penalizing the members of Michael Waltrip Racing, Truex was out of the playoff and Ryan Newman - who had been leading at the time of the spin - was back in.

But then there was Joey Logano. Apparently his team had a deal in place with another driver to let Logano pass him late in the race. By making the pass Logano picked up enough points to knock fan favorite Jeff Gordon out of the playoff. So, in true NASCAR fashion, the rules were changed in midstream and Gordon was added to the playoff.

NASCAR chief Brian France claims these changes were made to preserve the integrity of the racing. Meanwhile, in order to fill a field of 43 cars every week, teams are allowed to qualify then pull their cars into the pits early in a race in order to avoid damaging their cars. What happened that night in Richmond happens in race after race - it just so happened that this time it was in a race that was made the artificial end of a regular season.

The NASCAR rulebook, it seems, is written in pencil.

Last year I wrote about why Bud Selig would make a good judge as to 4th Amendment issues as he was able to ignore the fact that Ubaldo Jimenez lost a perfect game due to a blown call with two out in the ninth inning. Brian France, however, would be more than comfortable sitting on the bench today as he is more concerned with the outcome than the process.

Read More

Vacuum at the top

Earlier this month, after less than a year in office, Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson died from cancer. He had been out of the public eye since May when he announced he was suffering from cancer and was taking a leave of absence.

In the meantime, former state district judge Belinda Hill, the First Assistant District Attorney, became acting DA. And, over the last four months there has been a complete vacuum on the Sixth Floor at 1201 Franklin.

Organizational chart for the Harris County District Attorney's Office

The theme of Mr. Anderson's campaign seemed to be "I'm not Pat." He advanced few ideas on how to fix the perceived problems in the DA's office. Apparently just being one of Johnny Holmes' "boys" would be enough to cure the office's ills.

Aside from his decision that we need to lock up more folks for possession of drugs in amounts so small that there isn't enough to conduct confirmatory tests by an outside lab, he set out to kill Pat Lykos' illegal DIVERT program.

But no one wanted to do away with pretrial diversion for DWI cases - since the program reduced the number of cases taken to trial (and the number of not guilty verdicts rendered by Harris County juries) - so he got rid of the element that made the program illegal.

Under Ms. Lykos' scheme a defendant wishing to enter the program had to enter a guilty plea in open court that could then be used against them should things go south down the road. That made the plan deferred adjudication under a different name - something that is barred by state law. So the Anderson administration did away with the plea and gave the program a new name.

But when questions arose regarding who was eligible and who wasn't and what defendants would be required to do as a condition of their "probation," there was no one around to answer them. No one was in charge. With Mr. Anderson out of the picture, no one wanted to step up and take any heat for unpopular decisions.

And so the program, which in reality is nothing but a contract entered into by a defendant and the DA's office, found itself in a tug-of-war with the judges, the prosecutors and defense attorneys. Judges decided who could apply. Judges decided whether or not to allow cases to sit on their dockets for a year while the defendant fulfilled the terms of the contract.

All because no one was willing to take charge. And let's be honest about it, no one believed that Mr. Anderson would be returning to his office. It wasn't a situation in which Ms. Hill was just keeping a seat warm. She was, for all intents and purposes, the unelected chief prosecutor in Harris County.

State law dictates that if an officeholder dies less than two years into his or her four-year term that a special election must be held at the time of the next general election. This means that Gov. Rick Perry will have to appoint someone to be the interim District Attorney until next November when the voters of Harris County will select someone to fill the rest of Mr. Anderson's term.

Rumors have it that Gov. Goodhair has shopped the position to various folks who have been prominent in the Harris County criminal (in)justice system but that no one has expressed any desire in serving as the temp. It looks like Belinda Hill will get the nod by default. But whatever's going to happen needs to happen fast because so long as no one's in charge confusion will continue to reign at  1201 Franklin.

Read More

Mucking it up down in Richmond

I finally reached a point last Saturday night where I couldn't sit and watch the BYU offense run at will against the Longhorn defense I was told was much improved over last year's disaster. Well, numbers don't lie and the defense laid an egg of epic proportions in the Utah desert.

So I flipped over to the stock car race. For those of y'all who don't follow NASCAR, a few years ago they implemented one of the dumbest ideas in all of sports. They decided that instead of crowning a champion based upon his performance over the course of the entire season that they would create a 10-race "playoff" to determine the champion.

The details aren't important but how much sense does it make to put 12 drivers racing for a championship on the same race track with 31 other drivers who are just racing for money? But that's neither here nor there.

On Saturday night as the race wound down Ryan Newman was leading. If he won the race he would be in the playoff and Martin Truex would be out. If he lost, he would be out while Martin Truex would be dancing.

With but a few laps remaining Clint Bowyer spun bringing out a yellow flag. The cars came into pit and, when all was said and done, Ryan Newman was no longer in the lead. When the checkered flag flew, Ryan Newman was out of the playoff and Martin Truex, Clint Bowyer's teammate was in.

The next morning all anyone could talk about was the suspicious finish to the race. Then NASCAR got involved and pulled audio that led them to believe that Michael Waltrip Racing (MWR), the team of both Truex and Bowyer, had manipulated the end of the race to benefit their drivers. As a result, NASCAR fined the team a significant amount of money, took away 50 points from the drivers and suspended their crew chiefs. Adding insult to injury, the penalty knocked Truex out of the playoff and put Newman back in.

So, if we are to believe NASCAR in this, the person who caused the mess suffers no harm while Truex, an innocent bystander, is docked points for something he had no control over. Where is the justice in that?

But what was the problem? NASCAR is full of multi-car teams that share garages and testing data. The teams build cars for each driver using data they have gathered from races and testing sessions. They swap crew chiefs and pit crews sometimes.

MWR did what teams do - they worked to get the best possible outcomes for their drivers. It's a time-honored tradition in auto racing. In Formula 1 drivers are under team orders to do what benefits the team leader. This was no different.

The plot thickens as NASCAR looks into whether Joey Logano's team made a deal with another driver to take a dive.

NASCAR was upset because it appeared MWR made deliberate moves to impugn the integrity of the race. Really? NASCAR is legendary for the invisible "debris on the track" yellow flag when someone gets too big of a lead late in a race. NASCAR encourages drivers to "beat and bang" on the track. Drivers have spun out their competitors late in races in attempts to win -- and everyone then says "that's racing."

Sure, maybe the ending of the race left a bad taste in some mouths - but so what? NASCAR still tries to market itself as a bunch of good ol' boy moonshiners driving around in circles in souped-up sedans. The reality is that NASCAR is a buttoned-down corporatized enterprise that's more concerned with image, television ratings and sponsorship dollars.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, what happened on Saturday night was "just one of them racin' deals."

Read More

Two wrongs don't make a right

The Congress shall have the power ... [t]o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,  and make rules concerning captures on land and water.  

-- US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8

*****     *****     ***** 

WAR noun, often attributive

a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic :soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end war against disease;

c : variance, odds 3— war·less  adjective 

-- Merriam Webster dictionarynoun, often attributive \ˈwȯr\

*****   *****   *****

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me. 

-- "War" by Edwin Starr

I don't care what you call it. Limited strikes. Targeted strikes. It doesn't matter. It's still war. Whether you want to say the bombing campaign will only last a few days. So fucking what. You're still declaring war on Syria.

And why?

Because somehow the national security of the United States of America is at stake? Really? I don't care if you made some ad lib about chemical weapons and a red line. That's a "you" problem. Do you really expect us to buy your argument that because you made a comment about a red line that it's now a matter of national security that we drop bombs and fire missiles on Syria?

I still can't fathom how Barack Obama not only won, but was even nominated, for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has taken George W. Bush's lead and run with it. Instead of ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he extended them. Instead of closing the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, he kept it running. Instead of looking for a humanitarian way of ending the slaughter in Syria, hr has chosen to perpetuate it.

No one has ever deserved the Nobel Peace Prize less than President Obama. There are few bigger hypocrites than our President (though John Kerry rates a close second).

Syria has descended into a brutal civil war. That's what happens with dictatorial regimes. No one in Washington cared as a hundred thousand Syrians were killed. No one cared until someone used chemical weapons. What difference does it make how a civilian is killed. You are just as dead if you are shot in the head as if you breathe in poisonous gas. What makes the use of chemical weapons so special?

Back in 2012 I had to sit through a presentation at the Rusty Duncan Advanced Criminal Law Seminar (put on by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association) in which TCDLA President Gary Trichter introduced a man who piloted a plan whose mission was to drop bombs on Tokyo in World War II. We were supposed to hail this man as a hero since he was able to eject himself from his plane and make it to safety.

But how much honor is there is dropping bombs from high up in the sky on cities in another country? This wasn't the story of a war hero - it was the story of a war criminal. I was appalled at the presentation. We look at the Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on US ships in Pearl Harbor as evil people, yet we celebrate people who set out to drop bombs on civilians.

There is no justification for dropping bombs or firing missiles on Syria. There is no humanitarian purpose served by dropping bombs or firing missiles. The military's function is to destroy - not to build.

Read More

Taking away the voice of the people

Last week Wallace Jefferson, the first black Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, announced that he was stepping down from the Court on October 1, 2013. His stated reason is financial. Judge Jefferson has one child in college and two others in high school and is making a mere $152,000 a year (but a pay raise authorized by the legislature would make that $170,000).

I'm quite certain that he will be stepping down from the bench and into a corner office at either a white shoe or boutique firm in San Antonio without missing a step. I'm interested to see just how quickly he moves into that office.

Once he leaves the bench, the fair-haired one, Gov. Rick Perry, will have yet another opportunity to appoint a conservative jurist to the bench.

Now, for those of y'all who think that partisan elections are a bad way to pick judges, you should love the Texas Supreme Court. It is, for the most part, made up of judges who were appointed by Gov. Perry who periodically run in retention elections to determine whether they get to keep their seat.

Chief Justice Jefferson was appointed to the Court in 2001, he was then appointed Chief Justice in 2004.

Justices Phil Johnson and Don Willett were appointed to the Court in 2005.

Justice Eva Guzman was appointed in 2009. This followed her appointment to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2001 which followed her appointment to a state district court.

Justice Debra Lehrmann was appointed to the Court in 2010.

Justice Jeffrey Boyd was appointed to the Court in 2012. Interestingly enough, prior to that appointment he served as Gov. Perry's chief of staff. Prior to that he served as the governor's general counsel.

Of the nine judges on the Texas Supreme Court, only Nathan Hecht, Paul Green and John Devine were ever elected to their seats. Thus, the overwhelming majority of the court (which presides over civil matters) is answerable to no one. As they are all Republicans, so long as the GOP controls statewide races in Texas, their seats will remain safe. Aside from lawyers who practice before the court, the only other folks interested in the Supreme Court are business interests who have an interest in keeping their buddies on the bench fed.

So, before you start waving the banner to get rid of partisan judicial elections in Texas, just ask yourself if you really want a governor to have the power to appoint every judge across the state.

Read More

Why would he lie?

We've all heard it at trial whenever there is a question about the veracity of a police officer's testimony. The prosecutor will ask the jury why a police officer would risk his job and his reputation for the sake of lying to get one conviction. Judges who came to bench straight out of the DA's office or who have never defended anyone accused of a crime can't fathom why an officer would lie. And jurors, most of whom have never set foot inside a courtroom, tend to believe the police because that's the way they were raised.

That's exactly what Kyle Reeves, then a prosecutor in Brooklyn, said to the jury in 1997 when a defense attorney accused the state's main witness, Louis Scarcella, a former homicide detective. And, as is par for the course, the jury bought the story.

The defendant, Jabbar Washington, said that Det. Scarcella told him what to say in his confession and beat him until he said it. Interestingly enough, Mr. Washington's confession began with the same two sentences that suspects in other cases interrogated by Det. Scarcella said.

“Our experience all around the city is that errors by police and errors by prosecutors go hand in hand and frequently become a toxic mixture,” said Steven Banks, the chief attorney for the Legal Aid Society, which represents many of the defendants whose cases are under review. “There are a series of circumstances that should have set off alarm bells both at the precinct and in the prosecutor’s office.” 

Now the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles Hynes, has ordered an investigation into about 40 cases investigated by Detective Scarcella. Earlier this year Mr. Hynes revealed that an innocent man spent more than two decades behind bars due to a "flawed investigation" by Detective Scarcella.

Doubts about Det. Scarcella's integrity began to rise long before that trial in 1997. At least six defendants in murder cases have claimed that Det. Scarcella made up their "confessions" himself. In a rape trial back in 1983, a judge said that the defendant was more credible than the detective due to the number of times Det. Scarcella responded "I don't remember" under cross examination.

As an aside, earlier this year I tried a case in front of Judge John Clinton in Harris County. When it came to light that, despite the fervent denials of prosecutors, that both police officers had been investigated by internal affairs, I asked the judge for a continuance so that I could obtain the records I had previously requested from the city. I told the judge that since we now knew these files existed that I needed an opportunity to review them to find out if there was anything else we weren't being told. Judge Clinton, a former police officer, then said that he just couldn't fathom that a police officer would risk his career by lying on the witness stand.

It's this attitude on the bench that has led to the utter decimation of the Fourth Amendment because, in a world in which defendants always lie and the police never lie, nothing is ever suppressed.

Another question that sticks out in this case is why on earth the Brooklyn DA's Office - the same office that vouched for Det. Scarcella over the years - is even involved in the investigation. Even a blind man can see the blatant conflict of interest. Once a person is convicted, the prosecutor's office will fight tooth and nail to keep that person behind bars - regardless of the evidence before them.

The critics note that Mr. Hynes, 78, is seeking re-election and that Mr. Scarcella’s daughter works in the office as a prosecutor. In a brief interview, Mr. Hynes said that so far no glaring problems had been discovered in the review. He said the detective’s sloppy work was not brought to the office’s attention until a year ago, when it reopened the case that led to an exoneration. Even in that case, he found no reason to blame the prosecutors. 

“I am not going to second-guess the assistants involved,” Mr. Hynes said. “They are very good trial lawyers.”

We see it in almost every exoneration case. Prosecutors will argue til they're blue in the face that the defendant had a fair trial and that the evidence was overwhelmingly in support of the verdict. They will fight to keep evidence from being retested. They will fight to keep new evidence out. And so, unless Mr. Hynes' office finds that every conviction involving Det. Scarcella should be tossed out, there will always be questions of just how honest the investigation was.

I mean, after all, Det. Scarcella's being investigated by the same office who told jury after jury what an honest cop he was.

Read More

Trying to revive the spirit of George Wallace

The states of Texas and Mississippi have decided that the 14th Amendment just doesn't apply to them when it comes to recognizing same-sex marriage. Despite a Pentagon directive that the National Guard units in the states extend benefits to same-sex spouses in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the DOMA case, someone in Texas decided to ignore it.

Officials cited the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman found in the Texas Constitution as justification for denying equal protection to the spouses of same-sex marriages. Maj. John Nichols did tell those affected by the decision that they could apply for benefits at federal installations and that the Texas National Guard would not deny them benefits.

This is precisely the issue I wrote about some time back regarding the inevitability of the legalization of same-sex marriage. These acts of defiance by Texas and Mississippi bring into question whether same-sex spouses are being treated the same as traditional spouses.

Forcing same-sex couples to apply for benefits at a federal installation discriminates against same-sex couples as they are being required to do more to obtain the benefits they are legally entitled to receive. All that remains is for one couple to refuse to bow down and then walk over to the courthouse to file suit alleging that their civil rights were violated.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Pentagon officials said Texas appeared to be the only state with a total ban on processing applications from gay and lesbian couples. Spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said federal officials will process all applications from same-sex couples with a marriage certificate from a state where it is legal. 

Alicia Butler said she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse - an Iraq war veteran - in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child. 

"It's so petty. It's not like it's going to stop us from registering or stop us from marrying. It's a pointed way of saying, 'We don't like you," Butler said. 

She said she was concerned the state would withhold survivor benefits if something happened to her wife while she was activated on state duty rather than on federal deployment.

It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a state to recognize the out-of-state marriages of some of their residents while not recognizing those of others - particularly since the only reason is the sexual orientation of those involved.

The leaders of both Texas and Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves. Being seen as supportive of same-sex marriage may not be a vote-getter in either state, but guaranteeing equal protection under the law to the citizenry should trump base politics. Of course we all know that the State of Mississippi has a pretty abysmal record when it comes to equal rights. We also know that the establishment (white) churches played a large role in defending segregation in the 1960's. The circle of good ol' boys who have run Mississippi for generations is slowly, but surely, coming to an end and they are doing everything they can to cling to power for as long as possible.

The right wing in this country (and others) have long used religion as their justification for fighting the extension of equal rights to the populace. That great opiate of the masses has been very effective in keeping the oppressors in power.

These western fundamentalists are every bit as wrong as their Islamic fundamentalist cousins in, and around, the Middle East. I find it very amusing to listen to the wingnuts express their hatred for those who would advocate theocracy in other parts of the world while they do their best to build a theocracy at home.

Read More

Barbecue and Longhorn football - it doesn't get any better

This past Saturday I took my youngest on a field trip out to Austin to watch the Longhorns open their 2013 campaign. This season marks the 50th anniversary of the first national championship for Texas. On the way up to the Forty Acres we stopped in Lockhart for some barbecue.

That building you see across the street from the CVS parking lot on US183 is the famous Smitty's Meat Market.

Here's my assistant standing at the entrance to the market. The entrance, by the way, is in the back of the building. The dining area sits in the front of the building on the courthouse square.

Waiting in line for our 'que and staring at the mouthwatering sight of ribs, briskets and sausages on the massive pit.

Here's the business end of the pit. That's an open fire burning at the end of the pit. It was in the mid-90's on Saturday outside and over 100 inside. My daughter thought it was so hot she refused to stand by the pit and sat on a bench instead.

As usual I ordered brisket and sausage. Since we were packing up the meat to eat up in Austin we didn't order any sides (my wife packed a variety of fruits and some edamames for a little balance to our dinner). We had a choice of crackers or good ol' white bread. I chose the bread (for making sandwiches). The meat was wrapped up in heavy duty butcher paper and put into a heavy brown paper sack along with the bread.

The meat smelled heavenly as we made our way up to Austin. After watching the football team walk into the stadium we headed back to our car - parked just behind the Tower - to eat. There are few things better than eating good barbecue on game day out in a parking lot underneath the Tower.

If you find yourself heading out to Austin along I-10, you need to make the side trip out to Lockhart. The barbecue is worth driving a little bit out of your way.

Read More

The militarization of elementary school

Every Wednesday

Military shirts

Spring Branch T-2-4 Plan 

By 2017, SBISD will double the number of students completing a technical certificate or military training, two-year or four-year degree.

Pine Shadows Elementary School will support this plan by encouraging staff and students to wear a technical school, military shirt or two or four year college shirt/t-shirt every Wednesday, beginning September 4, 2013.

And so begins the indoctrination into unquestioning support of the military in our schools. I guess they have to learn somewhere that we should all cheer and support the murder of innocent men, women and children and the wanton destruction of property and land around the world. Who couldn't get behind that?

Our schools are for learning. Violence is the last resort of those who can't think of a better way to get what they want other than destroying someone or something. Shouldn't our goal be to get away from that kind of mindset? Shouldn't we be teaching our children why war is not the answer?

It's got to start somewhere. At some point we have to get away from trying to solve every problem with a gun or a bomb. Our role as stewards of the earth is to leave it in better shape than it was when we came along. Is perpetuating a war mentality the way to do that?

We've seen President Obama and the other cheerleaders for bombing Syria talk about the women and children who were killed by the alleged chemical weapon attack from their own government. Yes, we should be appalled. But where is the outrage over the innocent men, women and children who have died at the hands of American artillery and armaments? Where is the outrage over the scores of people killed by drone attacks who had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist plot?

I'm pretty sure that won't be a topic on "wear your shirt supporting death and destruction" day at my daughters' school. I'm sure they won't be talking about the hundreds of thousands of people around the world killed as a result of our government's militaristic policies and support of right-wing dictatorships.

I cling to the belief that one day we will live in a world without war. I doubt I will see that day but I hope that someday my grandchildren or their children will live in that world. Encouraging unquestioning support of the military and war culture gets us nowhere near that goal.

Read More

Our missiles are bigger than your missiles

Barack Obama is now swimming in a stew of his own making. He drew the red line and now he's having to figure out what to do now that it's been crossed.

All of this talk and bluster about how the Assad regime committed a heinous act by launching a rocket loaded up with a chemical agent is quite hypocritical, however. The United States used chemical agents against Iraq in the first Gulf War. The US dumped Agent Orange over the countryside in Vietnam. The US dropped two atomic bombs on major cities in Japan. No one was made to answer for those atrocities.

The President wants to launch missiles are certain military sites over a two-day period. Why? If the missile attack is in retaliation for the chemical weapon attack, why not attack the actual stores of chemical weapons? Why declare ahead of time that you'll only be blowing up stuff for a couple of days? And what of the innocent civilians who are going to be killed in the attacks? How will their deaths be any different than those who died in the chemical weapon attack?

The alleged chemical weapon attack in Syria killed some 1,400 people - not an insignificant number - but there were more than 100,000 killed in the prior two years; along with over a million refugees. What makes the use of chemical weapons any more heinous than the slaughter of tens of thousands of people by use of bullets and bombs?

And then we have the hypocrisy of Congress. Our elected representatives wrote George W. Bush a blank check after Colin Powell went before the UN and lied about Iraq possessing stores of weapons of mass destruction. They couldn't wait to authorize the president to do whatever he wanted to do to Iraq.

There was little debate about whether military action was called for. There was little debate about exactly who has the power to declare war. Now Republicans are up on the high horses about just who has the authority to get the US involved in someone else's civil war.

That horse, my friends, has already left the barn.

Congress stood by and allowed Harry Truman to send troops to Korea. They stood by as president after president got the US more and more entangled in Vietnam. They stood by as Ronald Reagan and George Bush sent troops into Central America. They stood by as Bush the Younger got us stuck in the morass of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Congress long ago abdicated its power to declare war.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose an attack on Syria. Doing so for partisan political purposes, however, isn't one of them.

Read More

Going to the bank

As you might expect, once word went out that the Houston Astros were on track to bag $99 million this year, someone with the ball club had to get up and say it wasn't so.

The Astros, who own the worst record in Major League Baseball, have the lowest payroll of any team after getting rid of just about anyone who makes anything approaching serious money. The two exceptions are Jose Altuve (who just signed a long-term deal) and Eric Bedard (I can only suppose he's got some serious dirt on Jim Crane).

According to Forbes magazine, the Astros are on pace to bring in more money in 2013 than the last eight World Series champions combined. The number may be a bit high because it doesn't take into account the bath that the Astros took as a stakeholder in CSN-Houston, the regional sports network they started up with the Rockets. But, even factoring in a $24 million loss, the Astros are still pulling in over $70 million this season.

Team president Reid Ryan (son of one of the greatest pitchers of all time) told everyone who would listen that Forbes didn't know what they were talking about. He insisted that the Astros were losing money.

Here's a link to Jim Crane claiming he's losing money hand-over-fist.

Now, if he were arguing that the Astros weren't making as much as Forbes estimated, I might buy into his argument. But, to argue that the number is off by more than $100 million is really stretching it.

I understand why Mr. Ryan stood up to deny the report. If I were the president of the worst ball club in baseball, I wouldn't want folks to know just how much money we were raking in. If I were the president of the ball club with the lowest payroll in baseball, I wouldn't want folks to know how much money we were raking in.

The scary thing is these numbers don't even reflect the windfall every Major League team will reap from the new national TV contracts beginning next season.

The numbers from Forbes are further evidence that Jim Crane has no intention of putting a winning product out on the field. Why spend the money on high-priced free agents when you can field a bunch of rookies and players too good for Triple A but not good enough for the Majors and still make money hand over fist?

Yes, it's Mr. Crane's money - but we aren't talking about a small market team here. Houston is the nation's fourth largest city and home to countless major corporations. There is plenty of money in Houston to field a competitive team. But that's not the game plan.

So, Houston, sit back and enjoy your AAAA ball club scrap and fight to keep from losing 100 games year after year. Meanwhile, Jim Crane and his buds will be sitting back and raking in the cash - whether you go to the ballpark or not.

***

Here's an article from another writer at Forbes who says the claim the Astros were swimming in cash was wrong.

Of course there are all sorts of ways to cook the books to make them say whatever you want them to say, too.

Read More

Are y'all ready for some football?

Well it's that time of the year again. Fall is approaching. Temperatures are falling (to the lower 90's). And the natives are back on the 40 Acres.

It's time for another season of college football and I will be in Austin this evening with my youngest daughter to watch the 'Horns kick off their 2013 campaign. It will be her first trip to Memorial Stadium and I think she will be blown away by the experience.

So just kick back and enjoy some of my other favorite college fight songs:









But then there's this story about how television has become the tail that wags the dog of college football.

Read More

Everything you need to know about DWI

I'm waiting for the special "No Refusal" edition that includes a rubber hose, needle and syringe for conducting forcible blood draws.

H/T Gary Trichter

Read More

School district climbs in bed with oil industry

What a surprise to find, on my way back from lunch, that HISD's new Energy Institute High School is practically just around the corner from my new office.

The Energy Institute is a partnership between the IPAA (Independent Petroleum Association of America) and HISD and is designed to train students for careers in the energy industry.

Whatever.

This latest magnet school in Houston is just another example of the abdication of government responsibility in providing an education to our nation. We can spend billions of dollars a year killing innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen - but we can't provide adequate funding for education. We can spend millions of dollars to build shiny new playpens for billionaire owners of professional sports franchises - but we can't provide adequate funding for education. We can subsidize entire industries to "protect" them from foreign competition - but we can't provide adequate funding for education.

Local school districts are left to beg for money from local industry to make up for shortages in funding. Those industries - in this case the energy industry - then helps plan a curriculum that (and let's not be naive here, folks) puts themselves in the best light.

Don't believe me? Just listen to Houston's NPR station, KUHF and listen to the number of commercials mentions of donors that are in the energy industry. Then listen carefully to whether or not the local reporters ever cover a story that is critical of the oil or gas industry. Actually, listen carefully and you'll find that very few of the local stories the station broadcasts during its hourly news updates are anything more than reworded press releases from government agencies or local industry.

(And, what do you know, here's a reworked press release turned into a "news" story from KUHF about the opening of the school.)

So just how do you think a high school funded by the energy industry will cover major oil spills such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion? What about the dreadful environmental record of the nuclear industry? How about the ways in which the US government has carried out foreign policy directives aimed at making life easier for the oil companies? And how exactly would the practice of fracking be covered in science class?

The school district even provided a listing of what oil companies make up the Advisory Board for the new school on its blog:

To kick off the grand opening, Energy Institute High School hosted its first Advisory Board meeting at the Hattie Mae White Educational Support Center. The board, which consists of executives from Halliburton, Shell, Apache, and other top energy companies, is charged with providing HISD and Energy Institute staff insight into the field and how to prepare for energy careers. They will collaborate with the district to develop and continually update the institute’s curriculum.

Energy Institute students will explore the energy field through guest speakers, mentoring, field trips, summer camps, paid externships, and scholarships. All classrooms will utilize state-of-the-art technology, and teachers will receive training and real-world insight from industry leaders. The institute will begin with ninth-graders and add a grade level each year, eventually serving grades 9-12. 

So the oil companies will "collaborate" on the curriculum with the district. Is that we call it these days. These are companies that have an agenda. They have a mission - to maximize profits. That's not what public schools are about.

But what does Superintendent Terry Grier care? He's already gotten plenty of money from the IPAA to fund indoctrination efforts at two other high schools. As the old adage goes, we aren't discussing what you are, we're just negotiating a price.

Read More

Wake up America!

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, we will hear countless clips from the "I Have a Dream" speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr. What you won't hear much of is the speech given by a 23-year old John Lewis.

Now before we go any further it's important to realize that each of the speakers had to hand in copies of their speeches to the organizers of the march - lest someone get a bit too militant for Uncle Sam's tastes. It is also worth noting that the mainstream media is all over the 50th anniversary of the march and the question repeated over and over again is whether Rev. King's dream has been realized.

The coverage shows the fascination we have in memorializing events after a certain number of years have passed. Instead of focusing on the woeful job our government has done in ensuring freedom and equality, we'll have an orgy of praise for the anniversary of a speech. Instead of focusing on the shameful minimum wage and the absurdity of a full-time worker living below the poverty line, we'll talk about a dream. Instead of focusing on the ways our criminal (in)justice system has criminalized being young and black, or instead of focusing on the disparity of sentencing in drug cases, we'll hold hands and slap ourselves on the back for how far we've come in the last 50 years.

Mr. Lewis was the leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). He was beaten and almost killed during the Freedom Rides. He is now a 13-term Congressman and a member of Georgia's congressional delegation. He is also the sole surviving speaker from that day.

While Rev. King's speech has a deep resonance with those who champion freedom and equality, Mr. Lewis' speech talks about the nuts and bolts of oppression. His speech is a cry to organize to fight. His speech is a condemnation of the two major parties who worked together to preserve Jim Crow. It is a call for economic justice.

We march today for jobs and freedom, but we have nothing to be proud of.  For hundreds and thousands of our brothers are not here.  For they are receiving starvation wages, or no wages at all.  While we stand here, there are sharecroppers in the Delta of Mississippi who are out in the fields working for less than three dollars a day, twelve hours a day.  While we stand here there are students in jail on trumped-up charges.  Our brother James Farmer, along with many others, is also in jail. We come here today with a great sense of misgiving. 

It is true that we support the administration’s civil rights bill.  We support it with great reservations, however.  Unless Title III is put in this bill, there is nothing to protect the young children and old women who must face police dogs and fire hoses in the South while they engage in peaceful demonstrations.  In its present form, this bill will not protect the citizens of Danville, Virginia, who must live in constant fear of a police state.  It will not protect the hundreds and thousands of people that have been arrested on trumped charges.  What about the three young men, SNCC field secretaries in Americus, Georgia, who face the death penalty for engaging in peaceful protest? 

As it stands now, the voting section of this bill will not help the thousands of black people who want to vote.  It will not help the citizens of Mississippi, of Alabama and Georgia, who are qualified to vote, but lack a sixth-grade education.  “One man, one vote” is the African cry.  It is ours too.  It must be ours! 

We must have legislation that will protect the Mississippi sharecropper who is put off of his farm because he dares to register to vote.  We need a bill that will provide for the homeless and starving people of this nation.  We need a bill that will ensure the equality of a maid who earns five dollars a week in a home of a family whose total income is $100,000 a year.  We must have a good FEPC bill. 

My friends, let us not forget that we are involved in a serious social revolution.  By and large, American politics is dominated by politicians who build their careers on immoral compromises and ally themselves with open forms of political, economic, and social exploitation.  There are exceptions, of course.  We salute those.  But what political leader can stand up and say, “My party is the party of principles”?  For the party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland.  The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater.  Where is our party?  Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington? 

Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march in the streets of Birmingham?  Where is the political party that will protect the citizens of Albany, Georgia?  Do you know that in Albany, Georgia, nine of our leaders have been indicted, not by the Dixiecrats, but by the federal government for peaceful protest?  But what did the federal government do when Albany’s deputy sheriff beat Attorney C.B. King and left him half-dead?  What did the federal government do when local police officials kicked and assaulted the pregnant wife of Slater King, and she lost her baby? 

To those who have said, “Be patient and wait,” we have long said that we cannot be patient.  We do not want our freedom gradually, but we want to be free now!  We are tired.  We are tired of being beaten by policemen.  We are tired of seeing our people locked up in jail over and over again.  And then you holler, “Be patient.”  How long can we be patient?  We want our freedom and we want it now.  We do not want to go to jail.  But we will go to jail if this is the price we must pay for love, brotherhood, and true peace. 

I appeal to all of you to get into this great revolution that is sweeping this nation.  Get in and stay in the streets of every city, every village and hamlet of this nation until true freedom comes, until the revolution of 1776 is complete.  We must get in this revolution and complete the revolution.  For in the Delta in Mississippi, in southwest Georgia, in the Black Belt of Alabama, in Harlem, in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and all over this nation, the black masses are on the march for jobs and freedom. 

They’re talking about slow down and stop.  We will not stop.  All of the forces of Eastland, Barnett, Wallace, and Thurmond will not stop this revolution.  If we do not get meaningful legislation out of this Congress, the time will come when we will not confine our marching to Washington.  We will march through the South; through the streets of Jackson, through the streets of Danville, through the streets of Cambridge, through the streets of Birmingham.  But we will march with the spirit of love and with the spirit of dignity that we have shown here today.  By the force of our demands, our determination, and our numbers, we shall splinter the segregated South into a thousand pieces and put them together in the image of God and democracy.  We must say: “Wake up America!  Wake up!”  For we cannot stop, and we will not and cannot be patient. 

Read More

History doesn't have to repeat itself to create a farce

farce

  [fahrs] noun, verb, farced, farc·ing.

noun

1.

a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather 

than upon the development ofcharacter.

2.

humor of the type displayed in such works.

3.

foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.

4.

Cookery. forcemeat.

When Col. Tara Osborn denied the request by Nidal Hassan's attorneys to withdraw from the case, she put her stamp on the farce of a trial the court-martial has been.

It has been apparent from the beginning that Maj. Hassan was angling for a needle in the arm. He did nothing to challenge any of the jurors for cause. The prosecution had the task of qualifying the jurors for a case in which the death penalty was an option. After hearing juror after juror announce that he could vote for the death penalty if the evidence warranted, Maj. Hassan never asked any juror if he could consider a life sentence given the evidence that would be heard.

During his opening statement, Maj. Hassan told the jury that he had done exactly what he was accused of doing. That admission all but guaranteed a guilty verdict. From there Maj. Hassan chose not to confront the witnesses against him (with rare exception).

Finally, after all the damning evidence against him, Maj. Hassan chose not to put on a defense.

Toward the end of the prosecution's case that Maj. Hassan's former attorneys (who had been appointed by the court to serve as stand-by counsel) asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case. Their argument was that Maj. Hassan was doing everything he could to receive a death sentence. That was the point at which Col. Osborn had the opportunity to do the right thing.

She had a choice. She could have allowed the attorneys to withdraw from the case - as was their ethical duty given the circumstances. There is no legitimate purpose in forcing attorneys to stay on a case when their client is aiming for death. If a defendant chooses to tank his own case, there is no need for an attorney to sit on his hands behind him.

Or she could force the attorneys to stay on the case in order to protect a death sentence. By forcing the attorneys to stay on the case she was doing what she could to prevent Mjr. Hassan from challenging a death sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Why worry about ethics when we need some finality?

Maj. Hassan didn't need the assistance of counsel during his trial. He never objected. He never attempted to introduce any evidence. The attorneys were nothing more than potted plants to the proceedings.

And so, as a result, we end up with a farce of a trial that will end with Maj. Hassan being condemned to die at the hand of the state.

Postscript:

This afternoon the punishment phase of Maj. Hassan's trial came to a conclusion. Maj. Hassan rested without taking the stand on his on behalf. While his behavior during the trial should raise serious questions in the minds of the jurors as to whether the death penalty is justified, the die has already been cast.

Maj. Hassan will be sentenced to die and Col. Osborn will have done her duty in seeing that the wheels of justice spin right on along regardless of the circumstances and ethical considerations.

Read More

Why not just reduce the number of federal prosecutions?

Under the sequester, federal agencies were required to cut their budgets across the board. Of course when business travelers felt the inconvenience caused by cuts to the FAA the government quickly found a way around the sequester lest our elected representatives be blamed for the snarls at the airport.

Over the in the courthouse, the sequester has caused federal public defender offices to reduce their budgets. And, since criminal defendants in federal court don't have a particularly sympathetic lobby, no one has stuck their neck out to prevent the unintended consequences of the sequester.

In order to reduce their budgets, local federal defenders' offices have had to lay off staff. As a result of recommended caseloads this means that the federal defenders' offices can't handle as many cases. Someone has to step into the breach - and those someones are private attorneys taking on appointed cases.

Federal defenders' offices are set up to defend a large number of clients at any given time. They share staff. They share investigators. Hell, they even share cars when traveling to visit clients in federal detention centers. Private attorneys don't have the advantage of this shared overhead. A private attorney has to pay his receptionist or assistant. He has to pay his investigator. He doesn't have anyone to carpool with when traveling hours to visit a client. And he's billing the court for his time and his expenses - as is his investigator and any expert witnesses he may retain.

The plain fact of the matter is it costs the taxpayers more money for the courts to appoint private attorneys to handle federal criminal cases than it does to use the federal defenders' office. So the sequester - meant to rein in spending - is actually increasing the costs of providing representation to federal criminal defendants.

Of course we just can't let this practice continue. So, in order to reduce spending, a panel of federal judges decided to reduce the hourly rate paid to private attorneys appointed to represent federal criminal defendants from $125 an hour to $110 an hour. And the courts will have the ability to delay some payments of fees for up to four weeks to keep them off the current fiscal year's spreadsheet.

But that's not addressing the problem. That's just sweeping it under the rug and hoping everyone forgets about it. If the cost of these federal prosecutions is too high, then maybe we should take a nice long look at the types of cases that are being filed.

There is little reason to try a dope case in federal court, for instance. The last time I checked, every state had laws on their books prohibiting certain drugs. Sure, the severity of the offense may vary from state to state and some states have even had the temerity to legalize small amounts of marijuana. But the point remains that there are few drug cases that need to be tried in federal court.

The same goes for most assaults and murder cases. Those activities are outlawed by the states. Sure, there may be some jurisdictional issues when an offense takes place on federal property, but murder is murder and assault is assault. If a person is convicted of the crime, does it really matter whether he serves his time in a state penitentiary or a federal prison?

So my solution to reducing the cost of prosecuting federal criminal cases is to reduce the number of cases prosecuted. If the defendant can be charged in state court, let the state court take care of the matter. The role of the federal courts all along was to take over matters involving actors from across state lines when one state's courts might be friendlier to a in-state party than to an out-of-state party. The only federal crime outlined in the Constitution, after all, is treason.

Read More

A little good news for disgraced Galveston jurist

Down on the island, the saga of disgraced jurist Christopher Dupuy took another turn this week as Ryan Patrick, a visiting judge from Harris County (and son of the right wing extremist State Senator Dan Patrick) dismissed five felony indictments that had been filed against Mr. Dupuy.

The five dismissed charges included two felony retaliation charges and three charges of abuse of office.

The judge also ordered Mr. Dupuy not to file any more pro se motions now that he has appointed counsel.

The ruling from Judge Patrick still leaves intact two felony aggravated perjury charges and four other misdemeanor charges.

As I have said many times before, the citizens of Galveston County got just what they deserved when they pulled the straight ticket lever without knowing anything about the fitness of Mr. Dupuy to serve on the bench - other than the fact he had an R after his name.

While I am not ready to stand in the line of folks demanded non-partisan judicial elections because I think they would be even more corrupted by campaign money than what we have now, something needs to be done to encourage the electorate to educate themselves - even if to a minor degree - as to who is running on the down-ballot races. The folks running for those down-ballot positions have a greater influence on our lives than most people realize.

It's those folks on the down-ballot races who draw the lines for both state and federal legislative districts. It's those folks on the down-ballot races who draw up schemes to deprive people of their right to vote. It's those folks on the down-ballot races who shut off debate and pass measures restricting women's right to make decisions about their bodies. It's folks on those down-ballot races who pass laws making it easier for the state to invade your privacy and ignore the Fourth Amendment. It's those folks on the down-ballot races who create a justice court system that serves as nothing more than an assembly line for the county to extract money from motorists accused of speeding. It's those folks on the down-ballot races who blindly sign search warrants allowing the police to strap folks down and stick needles in their arms.

You have been warned.

Read More

The high price of exposing the truth

Yesterday Col. Denise Lind sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for exposing the truth. He exposed the lies, deceit and criminal acts perpetrated by our government. He exposed human rights abuses. He exposed war crimes.

Yes, the documents he provided to WikiLeaks embarrassed the US government. Yes, it put government officials in tricky positions after their lies and deceit were exposed to the world.

Bradley Manning never stood a chance at trial. The convictions were a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether Col. Lind would play along and convict Mr. Manning of aiding the enemy. While she made the right call on that charge, she gave the government its bone with the sentence she pronounced.

President Obama told the world - before the trial ever began - that Mr. Manning was guilty. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead, Mr. President. Let's just gloss over the fact that Mr. Manning didn't pass the documents to the "enemy." His actions hurt no one. He wanted to foster debate on the policies of our government. He wanted to let the world know the truth about what has been done in our name.

Among the materials he provided to WikiLeaks was footage of an American helicopter gunship mowing down civilians - including journalists and a father and his children.

Mr. Manning was subjected to torture by his own government while awaiting trial. Of that there is no question. It's the reason that Col. Lind gave Mr. Manning additional credit for the time he served before trial.

So, while Mr. Manning is serving his 35-year sentence for exposing the truth, there are five men who acted with the intent to harm Americans who are serving shorter sentences for their crimes.

David Hicks is an Australian national who fought alongside the Taliban. He was captured, sent to Guantanamo Bay and sentenced to seven years in prison.

John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Noor Uthman Mohammed was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a Qatari citizen who was living in the United States on a student visa. He admitted to providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Kevin William Harpham is a white supremacist in the US who pled guilty to trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade in Seattle in 2011. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

So, while Barack Obama campaigned for the White House in 2008 on a platform in which he promised to end the wars in the Middle East, to close down Guantanamo Bay and to promote greater transparency in government, President Obama stood up and declared Bradley Manning to be an enemy of the United States. Bradley Manning followed a higher duty than preventing the US government from being embarrassed. He followed a higher duty than covering up the war crimes committed by US military personnel in the Middle East.

For that he is looking at spending the next 30-plus years behind bars.

Sometimes the price we pay to expose the truth is quite high. Bradley Manning deserves praise and thanks for what he did - not 35 years behind bars.

Read More

Cutting and pasting

This is the mission statement from a Justice of the Peace court out in west Texas.

Precinct 1 will provide timely, fair and cost effective disposition of all matters properly presented to this court.  We subscribe to these guiding principles and values: 

To serve the public and foster a friendly accessible environment, treating all individuals equally with dignity, respect, honesty and fairness. 

To operate with a pro-active, innovative and progressive approach to program development and implementation, remaining open to suggestions for improvement. 

To respect the interests of the taxpayers and our funding unit by continuously seeking greater efficiencies for improved service in coordination with elected officials, county departments and other units of government. 

To comply with all Trial Court Performance Standards promulgated by the Michigan Supreme Court. 

To encourage the spirit of teamwork among courts and service units to exemplify a unified Circuit Court. 

To serve as an example worthy of emulation by other courts in Texas and the United States. 

Yes, it sounds like something worthy to aspire to - except I can't think of why performance standards written by the Michigan Supreme Court have anything to do with how we practice in Texas. And I haven't the slightest idea what a "unified circuit court" is supposed to be considering that JP courts in Texas aren't courts of record and the judge isn't required to be a licensed attorney.

I'm guessing that someone found this up on some court website in Michigan and decided it sounded good and copied it to their court's website. I just hope the "justice" dispensed in that court isn't also a cut-and-paste job.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Read More

Going after the fourth estate

Glenn Greenwald is a very bad man.

At least that's the impression the Obama administration wants to give you. It was Mr. Greenwald who introduced us to Edward Snowden. It was Mr. Greenwald who informed the world as to how the US government was spying on its citizens and its own allies.

Of course in President Obama's world Mr.Snowden did a great disservice by exposing the NSA's dirty laundry. According to President Obama, he was looking at ways to reform the NSA long before Mr. Snowden met with Mr. Greenwald. Strange, though, that Mr. Obama's announcement of reforms to the agency weren't made until after Mr. Greenwald's articles were published in The Guardian. Funny how the announcement came after the House of Representatives narrowly defeated a bill that would have restricted NSA activity.

The US government went hard after Pfc. Bradley Manning who exposed human rights abuses committed by the US in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The US and Britain went hard after Julian Assange who published the documents provided by Mr. Manning. And now they're both going hard after Mr. Greenwald.

This past weekend British authorities detained Mr. Greenwald's partner David Miranda, a Brazilian citizen, who was stopping over in London on his way back to Rio de Janiero from Germany. Under an anti-terrorism law passed in 2000, Mr. Miranda was held at the airport for nine hours - the maximum a person can be held without being charged under the law - and questioned by six agents. His phone, laptop, video games and memory cards were all confiscated.

And why was Mr. Miranda detained? Could it possibly be because he assisted Mr. Greenwald in his work? Could it possibly be because he was in Germany with American-filmmaker Laura Poitras who has been a frequent target of US government coercion because of her work exposing government lies and hypocrisy? Could it be because it was the only way the US and British governments thought they could get to Mr. Greenwald?

The national security state will do whatever it takes to survive. The detention of Mr. Miranda is but the latest example.

Read More

Book review: Rise of the Warrior Cop - The militarization of America's police forces

In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko takes a look at the current state of policing in these United States and asks "how did we get here?"

How did we come to a point in which police officers wear camouflage gear, carry assault-type weapons and raid houses in tanks? When did the police move from being a part of the community to being an occupation force within the community?

He starts out asking whether there is any Constitutional authority for the police as they exist today. You see, back in the early days of the Republic, there was no organized police force. Yes, there were constables who served process and sheriffs who might raise a posse of able-bodied men; but there were no police departments. And there certainly weren't professional police officers who dressed and acted like soldiers.

Mr. Balko points to the Castle Doctrine and the Third Amendment as two ideas that served to limit the authority of the police. The simplest way to look at the Castle Doctrine is to think of one's home as being inviolate. If the government wants inside your house, they must obtain a warrant from a judge after showing probable cause to believe you are breaking the law. The Third Amendment is a companion notion that says the government can't force you to allow troops to stay in your house or on your property. Oh, but such ideas do get in the way of the government getting its nose all up in your business. And the Right was ready to do something about in 1969.

The origins of the paramilitary forces that patrol our cities trace back to President Nixon and the first so-called War on Drugs. Nixon's proposals to legalize no-knock raids (up that point, with rare exception, when executing a warrant, the police had to knock and announce themselves and give the folks inside the house time to respond) and to suspend bail and suspended sentences marked the beginning of a decades long march to the occupation of our inner cities.

Mr. Balko chronicles the rise of SWAT units throughout the country as well as government garage sales of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Much more disturbing is a look at how the police use force and intimidation to serve warrants in drug cases. Why go through the effort of tracking the suspect and arresting him outside his home when you can send in a tank full of paramilitaries to knock down the door, point guns indiscriminately and shoot the family pet all in the name of confiscating a few ounces of marijuana or cocaine? Of course doing some homework - rather than just relying on the words of informants - might prevent the police from busting down the wrong door and scaring the shit out of the wrong family.

We have seen the use of paramilitary police units to quell dissent at international conferences and national political party conventions. And who could ever forget the image of a Cal-Davis police officer wearing full riot gear discharging pepper spray in the faces of college students who were doing nothing more than sitting in front of an administration building during a protest?

By declaring war on this or that our political "leaders" have created a culture by which the police no longer see themselves as part of the community; instead they see themselves at war with the "bad" guys at large. This us-versus-them culture has created a situation in which the use of force is now the default response to a situation instead of a last resort.

We have allowed the occupation of America to thrive over the past four decades. It is time to stop the rising militarization of our law enforcement agencies. It won't be easy to undo what's been built up since the Nixon days but if we don't start now we will reach a point where it's too late.

Read More

Making your bed and sleeping in it

Oh, be so careful what you wish for. Millions cheered when Muhammed Morsi was deposed last month in Egypt. No, he was no friend of democracy. But, what can you expect when the country has never known anything but authoritarian rule?

Mr. Morsi somehow believed that his election gave the Muslim Brotherhood the authority to impose an Islamic state on the people of Egypt. Never mind that he won with barely a majority of the voters. He took his win and did his best to ram his party's theocratic ideology down the throats of the people.

He seemed to forget that the revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak wasn't the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the work of the masses who were willing to stand up and risk their lives to overthrow a dictator.

After the fall of Mubarak it was the Muslim Brotherhood who was in the best position to take advantage of the power vacuum, having been an organized - albeit banned - party from the better part of the 20th century. They had the infrastructure, and the money, to put together a winning slate of candidates.

What they didn't have was the ability to compromise and to work with others in forming a coalition to develop democracy in Egypt. For Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood, it was their way or the highway. And it was this attitude that brought about the crisis that resulted in a military coup in early July.

And make no mistake about it, it was a coup. The Obama administration can parse words and play games all they want - but when the military forces out a popularly elected president (no matter how much dissatisfaction their is with his rule), it is a coup.

There were those who welcomed the military into the streets in late June. There were those who cheered when the General Sisi announced that Mr. Morsi had been removed from office and placed under arrest. There were those who claimed that the military was acting to save the revolution.

Are they cheering now?

There are at least 281 more than 500 people who were killed by security forces today when the military-backed government made their decision to clamp down on dissent. What kind of a government turns its military on its citizens?

And, as I have asked before, what does this portend the next time a popularly elected president runs afoul of public opinion? What happens the next time the people gather together to demand that their voices are heard?

The government also imposed a month-long state of emergency. The purpose of the decree? To quell any and all dissent. How is this any different than life under the Mubarak regime? But I suppose that is a tricky question for those supporting the coup. So, come on , President Obama, explain the difference. Explain how the current situation is doing anything to advance democracy across Egypt. Or is this all about appeasing defense contractors who need markets to sell their tools of death and destruction?

I'm no fan of Muhammed Morsi. I'm no fan of anyone who wants to mix religion and politics. Could Mr. Morsi have handled his brief time in office better? There is no doubt about it. If he had been more interested in building a democratic Egypt than he was in deciding who folks could pray to, he would still be the nation's president. Had he been more concerned with improving the lot of the Egyptian people rather than telling them how to live their lives the nation wouldn't be under de facto military rule.

But that doesn't begin to excuse what has happened in Egypt over the past six weeks. And it doesn't being to excuse the shameful behavior of our government in the affair. The Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that our nation's supposed commitment to democracy and human rights is nothing more that empty words.

Never forget that what the military giveth by force of arms, the military taketh as well. Those who support the coup have made their deal with the devil and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. Or so long as they stay within the good graces of the military.

Read More

Stepping back from stop-and-frisk

Earlier this week US District Judge Shira Scheindlin declared New York City's stop and frisk program to be unconstitutional. She found that the program targeted minorities in poor sections of the city and subjected them to the humiliation of being forced to lean up against a wall while a police officer patted them down.

The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and the police chief, Ray Kelly, were predictable in their blasting of the judge's decision. They attempted to explain how the police wouldn't stop anyone without reasonable suspicion that something was afoot - that something was generally walking or standing while black or brown.

It helped that the numbers didn't bear out the official rational for the program. As my fellow blogger, Scott Greenfield, has pointed out on prior occasions, it was rare for the police to find anything remotely illegal on any of the folks whose privacy and right to be left alone they violated.

But the larger question is not whether the program was constitutional or not. The larger question is how we got here in the first place. How did we get to the point that the Fourth Amendment means nothing? How did we get to the point where we don't have the right to be left alone by those in the employ of the government?

It's because of the entire nature of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Just think about it. When do questions of Fourth Amendment violations arise? If you said only when the defendant was caught with something he or she shouldn't have had, you're right.

The only time the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is litigated is when someone has been charged with a crime. For those folks who had nothing illegal on them, in their car or in their house, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sure, the cops may have searched their person, their car or their home without a warrant or without probable cause, but if nothing was found then no criminal charges were ever filed.

And, if no charges are filed, there is nothing to litigate.

Every suppression hearing before a judge involves a defendant who is actually guilty of the crime with which he's been accused. Just about every case brought before an appellate court questioning the constitutionality of a search is brought by the person who was convicted of the crime.

Instead of looking at the process and determining whether or not the police stepped out of line along the way, the judges are weighing whether or not the deterrent effect of the Exclusionary Rule outweighs the conduct the defendant is accused of. In other words, courts aren't looking at the actual words in the Fourth Amendment, they are looking at the defendant's conduct and determining whose conduct was worse - that of the defendant or that of the police.

That, my friends, is a fight the Constitution will lose, more than it wins. It's why we have the so-called automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's why we have Terry stops. It's why judges rule that someone sitting in the back of a patrol car with their hands cuffed behind them isn't considered under arrest. It's why the police are allowed to make pretextual traffic stops for behavior that wouldn't even be looked at twice in the middle of the day. It's why the NSA is allowed to collect the metadata from your emails. It's why the NSA is allowed to intercept phone calls without notifying either party to the call.

But, much like the blades of grass pushing up through the charred and desolate remains of a wildfire, the Fourth Amendment showed some signs of life this week.

Read More