Trayvon Martin And Guns

There has been a lot of talk about guns since the Martin shooting, a lot. Anybody who has ever followed this blog know that it takes a pro-2nd Amendment stance - and that firearms are not toys. This is also a place that has no tolerance for bigotry.

There seems to be an idea that the ability to carry a gun brought on this shooting or that standing your ground caused it. As far as I can tell an idiot stalked a black youth while armed and caused a confrontation that he resolved with a shooting. If there is a question, it ought to have to do with conduct that whether it was bigotted or not was entirely reckless in its stupidity. It is real sure that if Zimmerman had been armed with a lollipop the outcome would have been different, but making every gun owner a Zimmerman is stupid.

I've read a bit about Florida's manslaughter law and it seems to completely trump the stand your ground statute in such a situation. I do not understand the lack of detention of Zimmerman in the face of what was obvious - a dead unarmed teenager engaged in lawful behavior. In the absence of what would appear to be reasonable behavior by law-enforcement one gets pushed into thinking bigotry.

I'll support right to carry and right to carry concealed, but while doing so I want to state unequivocably that there are outcomes to behavior. If you play goddam cowboy with a gun and kill somebody who shouldn't have been you're in a serious jam, really serious jam. If law isn't real clear about this, and I'm not sure isn't in contrast to manslaughter and stand your ground, it should be. It should be very clear to anyone carrying that use of force at that level involves real responsibilities. This is what is lacking in the Martin case and has so inflamed people - aside from what looks an awful lot like blatant race based... bullshit.

I find it pointless to talk about any bigotry on Zimmerman's part, if it is there - he's one of very many people. There isn't spit I can do about bigots beyond mock and condemn them. Bigots or anyone else who kill or harm people need to understand that the law is going to stomp a mudhole in them if they do so without real justification. What Zimmerman's treatment seems to suggest is that this isn't so, that law-enforcement hands out free passes to some in such a case and that encourages the kind of behavior that led to this pass.

I like firearms but I never mistake them for toys, they are dangerous in all cases and need to be treated in such a way. There is a reason that the first law of gun handling is that all guns are loaded until proven otherwise - it can kill someone in the blink of an eye and you don't get do-overs. Everything follows from that and legal responsibilies also should.

Law, Morality, and Relgion

It is frequently asserted that laws are moral and that religion has a hand in that. Sometimes this gets mixed up in the concept that without religion there is no morality. This idea is understandable, no religion will last that creates social conditions that end in disorder and chaos, which means that any lasting religion will set out codes of behavior that result in some sort of social comity.

Governments that aren't a religion have a similar goal, social comity and lack of disorder and chaos. Having common goals often results in similar restrictions and requirements. A religion that teaches that murder is against the teachings and rules of the deity is certainly increasing social comity and decreasing disorder and chaos and it calls that stricture morality (god-given morality). A government concerned with social comity and lack of disorder and chaos will also place restrictions on murder, it requires no deity to do so, nor even morality - it is simple self-interest and survival for it to do so.

Governments have a couple tools at hand to achieve the ends of order and comity, punishment and reward, generally monetary or physical. Because a government deals with the temporal and worldly it really can't count on a deity to take immediate care of those rewards and punishments. It will deal with malefactors in a temporal manner, taking their money, their freedom, or their lives and do so with force. The tools the government has are abjectly amoral, it will force you rather than appeal to your "better nature." Once a law is established you are not asked about it, you are told and that telling is backed up by force. Compelling is not about morality, it is not an appeal to morality, it is not backed by morality, it is plainly unconcerned with the entire concept.

You can certainly build a government around damn near any document the populace will bear, holy books or other concepts of order and comity but once that is done the whole affair becomes at best amoral. It is popular to call Nazi Germany evil and immoral and the behavior of individuals involved does offend most of us at a moral level. That government wasn't destroyed because it was amoral or immoral, it was destroyed because it failed the basic goals of order and comity. It failed them internally and more importantly, internationally. The wholesale slaughter of a citizenry is not order, it is force at ferocious levels and it has nothing to do with comity.

There certainly is a moral component to the idea of slavery, it offends a basic empathy. As a feature of government it fails on another level, it certainly has nothing to do with comity for the subjected group and fails as order in the face of the resistance of that group to subjugation and the need for extreme force to maintain it. It is easy to forget that order requires very broad agreement or extreme force and extreme force is in itself disorder if applied at all broadly. It is certainly extreme force when a police officer shoots an armed robber, but that level of force is applied individually and rarely.

Drug laws are frequently put forward as a moral issue dealt with by law. It is pretty easy to track the success of those laws. Drugs certainly do have effects on comity and order, getting run over by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver is real in terms of order as are deaths from overdoses or psychological consequences. These outcomes are entirely separate from the morality of drug usage and because drugs are treated differently than the issue demands for comity and order the laws fail. Tremendous amounts of enforcement result in huge incarceration figures and huge profits for avoiding the laws leading to disorder and enmity afflicting entire communities.

It is entirely reasonable to have a moral code that aligns with laws and to wish to conduct a life in accordance with or in excess of law, it another thing to think that those laws are moral or religious. Through out history there have been governments that operated under cover of morality or religion, enforcing dogma as law. In the shorter term when their populations are homogenous they tend to be pretty efficient at keeping themselves in power. Over time they become increasingly forceful with their populations which fails the goals of comity and order and finally results in failure. The time scales of failure have accelerated through out history progressing through millenia to centuries to decades. Minus the intervention of outside interests, Iran should prove an interesting test case.

Hell, the US may prove interesting in that regard.

Palin And The Law ?

The Immoral Minority has a story up about Sarah, Willow, and law enforcement. I have no idea but the comments sound as though some locals have some idea. It does sound as though wealth and position will out.

Idiocy Of Split The Difference

One of the real stupid ideas in circulation lately is that if there are two radically different approaches - say Liz Cheney and the ACLU - that half way in between is where sensible people land. This asininity assumes that there is equal stupidity or looniness in each position and that the middle isn't. The real big problem is that assumption which says that one idea is equal to the other; stating that the moon is green cheese and stating that it is rock are two radically different assertions but the moon isn't broccoli because that seems to be a middle.

Dick and Liz Cheney may have an emotional appeal to the fear ridden, and terrorists do terror for the sake of creating fear. Are we really supposed to buy into the idea that arresting and indefinitely detaining people for uncommitted crimes is a sensible middle? I don't often link Glenn Greenwald because he usually uses an awful lot of words to make his point; and I'm already guilty of that. In this case there simply are not enough words written on this, so Glenn is doing what should be done by a lot more people than just himself and a couple bloggers.

Some things are just plain awful.

Gay Marriage, Where?

What would you have thought Up East Vermont would have in common with Corn Belt Iowa? If you had said gay issues you'd have made a rational guess and have been right and probably on completely the wrong basis considering two unlikely states have decided to acknowledge gay marriage.

Two completely different avenues lead to these results; in Iowa the State Supreme Court threw out legislation limiting marriage to a men and woman and in Vermont the Legislature over turned the Republican Governor's veto of a bill authorizing same sex marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court went directly to the question I have always had on the issue which is equal treatment under the law. As a heterosexual the sexual element of same sex marriage is of no interest to me, what is of interest to me is that my law abiding fellows are treated the same under the law as any other law abiding fellows. I am not in the least interested in the religious views or or moral views of opponents, I make no proposal to interfere with them in the least. This is a question of law and contract not of religiosity.

Vermont took the legislative approach to treating its citizens equally. The legislature took the electoral risk of first passing the bill and then the greater one of over-riding the Governor's veto. I am always a fan of legislators taking a stand and risks in the interests of their citizens.

A marker has been set for other states and particularly for so-called progressive states. Time to step up.

Torture And The Rule Of Law

Before anybody starts howling it's not torture, let's be clear, we have prosecuted as war crimes the action of waterboarding. We, the USA, have prosecuted it and people were imprisoned or hanged for doing it. Dick Cheney has now admitted to being a part of it.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared," Cheney said in an interview with ABC News.

Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: "I do."

That doesn't exactly leave a whole lot of suspense involved in it, now does it?

One of the selling points the US has made to other countries trying to dig out from under dictatorships has been about the rule of law. Words are written down and called law and it trumps individual desires. It is written down with a sense of permanence and universal applicability so that it has respect. It is absolutely necessary that it has wide respect because it is impossible for a governmental agency composed of a fraction of the population to force a disrespectful populace into compliance. Law will not be respected if it is seen to only apply to part of the population, particularly if the elites are seen as exempted.

This isn't intended to white wash or ignore inequal representation before the law or inequality of sentencing, it simply means that if torture is illegal for me to conduct it is also illegal for the President to conduct and we both would have to defend ourselves before the law. If such a thing is to be ignored in regard to Administration officials then exactly why is it that any citizen is expected to comply with any federal law short of that? Suppose that I declare that absent the rule of law at the Federal level the social contract is broken and that I am exempt. By what right does the Federal government proceed against me?

In the possesion of any American who cares to copy it is the Vice-President of the United States of America stating that he knew about torture, helped put the process into effect, and still approves of it without being coerced into such an admission. Does the government of the US understand in any quantifiable fashion what it is asking of the citizenry to follow any law up to this one that held the death penalty? This is disregard of laws up to murder of federal officials or treason.

If these offenses are not charged the Federal government has abrogated all ability to proceed as a lawful enterprise, no law passed or to be passed has any ethical bearing on the citizenry. You cannot run a government in such a fashion - no matter what the political considerations you finally run into a wall. No "Truth and Reconcillation Commission" is worth spit in that regard, this is not about politics it is about law. The US has to make a decision on this matter of whether it is a nation under rule of law or rule of personality and if it is the latter I firmly assert that I am not exceeded in any fashion by that piece of human excrement Dick Cheney.

Political Religion And Secular Pragmatism

I'll open with a disclaimer, I belong to no organized religion and advocate no position on religious beliefs or unbeliefs whatever - publicly or privately.

The Bill of Rights First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Amendment's position on religion is more clear than some people care to recognize. The Establishment clause is pretty broad in that it refers to "no law" and the generic "religion". While there is no statement specifically calling for a "wall of separation" the language is clear that such a wall exists concerning laws. The verb "establish" per Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: \i-ˈsta-blish\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Anglo-French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1: to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2obsolete : settle 7
3 a: to make firm or stable b: to introduce and cause to grow and multiply
4 a: to bring into existence : found b: bring about , effect
5 a: to put on a firm basis : set up b: to put into a favorable position c: to gain full recognition or acceptance of
6: to make (a church) a national or state institution
7: to put beyond doubt : prove

The definition is pretty clear, what isn't quite as clear is what is religious and what isn't when referring to law.

The sticking point is what law is about. One would take this on the surface as being pretty easy, defining what you cannot or can do under the force of the state. There is a huge "but" included in that. Is law about morality or is it about order? This dispute has been going on since, it seems, time immemorial. The stance of the religionists is that morality is the question. This view has a lot of precedence and has been practiced in the US - generally as complete failures. The huge rub is the idea that you can institute morality under threat of force. This is what law means, the state's view of a behavior is enforced, that is backed up by its full resources, including guns and bars. Once you get to the core of it you find that morality and law plainly are not congruent. In reality what law is about is social order.

Social order is a recognition that the disparity in human motivations result in behaviors that must be regulated in order for us to live in close proximity to each other. It is a fact that humans kill each other and the state has separated that behavior into categories from acceptable and approved to levels of disapproval. Soldiers are encouraged and trained to do so, people in general are discouraged. They are discouraged from doing so because unrestrained killing in a society leads to chaos because it leads to more killing. The state's interest in the morality of the act is disposed of by its sanction of it in its own interest, soldiers, and the levels of constraint including allowance for the citizenry. Killing ranks at the top of the morality scale concerns and yet the state does not disapprove in certain conditions. Morality is absolute, it certainly recognizes trade offs and conditions, but it is degrees of wrongness. Stealing to feed your family is still stealing and is still wrong, but a difference is seen in the motivation. For an example: a Catholic would still be required to confess this as a sin but the penalty the priest would apply would recognize the motivation. The law has no such quibble, the judge might consider it but is not legally induced to do so.

Here is where the crunch occurs, there are a lot of behaviors that religions or moral structures many people hold simply don't allow for. Two of the current big ones are homosexuality and abortion. These actions are disapproved of strenuously and vocally by a large number of voters. Homosexuality, where it regards consenting partners, is not much of a moral issue, it is primarily a religious and psychological question. If you take homosexuality as simply a behavior and remove all questions of religion and feelings from it, as a matter of social order it is immaterial. The question of love, sex, and gender is meaningless to social order, there are no economic or social impacts, beyond the issue of stability regarding homosexual marriage which is positive. The fact of homosexuality may bother people on an emotional level but it has existed as a matter of fact for all of recorded history. Being bothered on an emotional level may be annoying, but it scarcely rises to the level of law. It is a fact that many religions proscribe the practice and push to have their view enforced. It is the legal enforcement of a socially harmless activity that creates harm. It creates harm not only to government by putting it in a position counter to its mandate but also to the religion itself.

Backlash against the Mormon church for organizing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours of volunteerism to back California's Prop 8 is occurring within the Church. Outside the Mormon church people who have held no particular regard for it are finding themselves offended by their aggressive campaign. Being offended by Mormonism is no different than being offended by Lutheranism, silly behavior about a personal issue. It is entirely another issue to be offended by the actions of a religious organization, in this case Church of Latter Day Saints, and I am offended. I am offended enough that I will not purchase from a Mormon controlled corporation, such as Safeway. I don't care in the least about their views of homosexuality, I find that entirely their business, but I am outraged by their behavior within the legal sphere. It is an unacceptable legalization of their religious views and since legal punishment seems out of the question, economics becomes the tool. They need to be punished severely enough to dissuade them from going there again. Let me be very clear, this is about the Church not individual Mormons.

The issue of abortion is much more complex since it is not only a matter of religion and psychology, it is matter of a lives. Here there is a collision of religion, morality, ethics and social good that has explosive arguments scattered all through all of these. It is a simple matter to argue that it is a matter of reproductive freedom, but that argument taken fully would hold that at anytime previous to delivery an abortion is acceptable. This stance does not have any real support so the argument descends into arguments about the start of life, another logical dead end. Once a sperm has penetrated and egg and cell division has started life has begun, whether the body can take it forward or not. This is the crux of the explosiveness of the arguments, taken to their logical ends the results are counter to social order and sensibility and create huge uproars over procedures misnamed partial birth abortions or morning after pills. The Catholic Church disapproves and this leads to matters regarding Barack Obama like this:

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.

Political activity is punished within a religious organization and while this example concerns Catholicism it certainly is not limited to that. It is certainly acceptable religious behavior to proscribe an activity itself to its practitioners, it is another to proscribe a vote to allow others to engage in it. This stance is that the views of the Catholic Church must be applied to all and any dissent is punishable, an assumption of governmental powers by a church.

One cannot nor should expect that the religious views or moral construct of a person do not carry into the body of government with them. While it probably has little to do with their capacity to participate in governmental activities, it should do no more than inform their personal choices. The measure of political success for society involves the order of that society. It is important to note that certain aspects of societal order are removed from the government's hands, freedom of speech is a glaring example. This is also the case with the Establishment clause, the government is proscribed from such religion based behavior and that would include gay marriage or abortion. In each the measure should be its effect on social order and how best to deal with it - secular pragmatism.

The Establishment Clause makes it clear the the institution of religion through law is prohibited and religion is composed of its beliefs and tenets. The fact that a religion's tenets may comply with a law, theft for example, is not evidence that the law is based on that consideration. The fact of religious or moral proscription of theft does not affect the social order considerations, it may reflect religious dogma that it is a social order consideration. Secular pragmatism would ignore the religious and moral considerations of a law and attempt to order society in the least intrusive manner congruent with the success of that society.

It is very tricky business where something like abortion is concerned. The balancing act is extreme, abortions are going to happen with social costs incurred whether they are legal in some degree or not. The job of government in this case is to try to minimize the negative outcomes of the inevitable. No government is capable or qualified to legislate morality, there is entirely too much of its function that is not moral for it to do so. The government can certainly instruct in what is congruent with social order and take legal action to help encourage orderly behavior. Reliable and available birth control, applicable sex education and adoption support do more to lower abortion rates without governmental interference than all the confessions for a vote ever will.

Secular pragmatism would look at the social outcomes of gay marriage and measure the costs and benefits to society. Stable relationships and legal structures for inheritance and responsibilities are net gains whatever the sexual orientation of couples; the social order negatives involve the discomfort for some of Mr. & Mr. or Mrs. & Mrs. as titles. Confusion about the role of government in marriage does not exist when secular pragmatism is used, the state's view of marriage and the religious aspect are not congruent nor interfered with. The First Amendment bars the government from interfering in the "free expression" of religion, which obviously bars it from forcing religions to acknowledge gay marriage, or especially forcing them to perform one. Marriage is one of those issues where there is a similarity between government's interests and religion, but that similarity should not be confused with congruence. Government's interest is purely social order, divorced (if you will) from the religious aspects of marriage and the outcomes are not the same. The government allows divorces for rather simple reasons for social considerations, regardless of any religion's views of divorce.

Because government's aims are of an entire secular nature, it is dangerous for both institutions to become intimately involved with each other. It is impossible for the government to hand out money without attached strings - it is taxpayer money and responsibility is demanded. When religious tenets are legally instituted on the basis of that fact, religion is granted a place in government that it should not have and society is allowed to object, in very strong terms. This places the onus for law on religions, see Mormonism above. When the citizenry rightfully revolts from the institution of religious law the religious will be made to suffer. When religion usurps the function of government is will be made to pay the costs and success at that endeavor of instituting religious laws encourages further attempts which will elevate the level of resistance. Theocracy is incredibly dangerous for the members of religion, at some point they will be made to pay. JFK's Presidential endeavor was hampered by the assertions of Papal interference. Mitt Romney's chances for elective office votes with some segments of society that might have supported him before became nil with this activity. His religion has rightfully become a measure of his electability, simply because it is demonstrably officially an advocate of theocracy. Their business activities become targets for the same reason, if you object to theocracy then its advocates must pay.

The sad part of this is that it has become a measure of a religion's success to interfere in the secular behavior of the government. This very success undercuts its appeal where it needs to have it, within the community of the religious and others who are informed by religious thinking. It is indubitable that religions have had success within social thinking, churches were a large part of the Civil Rights campaign, but that success is undermined by the enforcement of their dogma. Enthusiastic atheists frequently point to the disasters of the influence of religion, particularly in governments. The problem for religions is that the arguments are good and compelling and speak to those who might become members otherwise. Those whose own behavior and sensibilities are congruent with a religion's find themselves confronted with that religion imposing those views and are offended, rather than joining.

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights understood that a line between government and religion was to the benefit of all concerned. Government functions better by staying in its actual role, religion is not interfered with, and the citizenry is free to choose as it will and finds it easier to obey laws with sense behind them.

The Hunting Of The Snark - Gitmo

“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.” - Lewis Clark and Court of Appeals DC Circuit may make you wonder what the heck.

With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents. -NYT

“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."

All this about Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, who has been held in Gitmo for more than six years for being an enemy combatant. “Those bare facts,” the decision said, “cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.”

The DC Circuit finds BushCo to be Alice in Wonderland? This blog and my previous communications with people regarding this bunch has consistently been that just because they say so doesn't mean it is so. This man has been held for six years in nasty circumstances, longer than many manslaughter convicts on the basis of "I told you." Does any thinking person not have a problem with that?

I have no idea if this person is a nice guy or a nasty bad man and quite evidently neither did the military. On a scale of potential damage I'd put George II above this guy. The point is whatever a human being is like happens to be irrelevant unless you have some kind of proof. Just in case it has missed your notice we United States citizens were under this same "law." Where is January 20th, 2009?

I Guess We Did Torture

Just post WWII:

Sergeant Masatoshi Sawamura was convicted and sentenced to 30 years hard labor for, among other things, "forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time, sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion, in the nude; throwing a bucket of ice cold water over PW in cold weather;water treatment which entailed forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using among others a hose, tubes; picking up and throwing PW to the ground; banging head against a wall; raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck in an effort to make him give information."

Reuters reports that George II instructed Michael Hayden to testify to Congress regarding waterboarding, and he did:

Hayden's admission, the first time a U.S. official publicly disclosed the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them, drew calls for a criminal investigation. Critics worldwide condemn waterboarding as torture, but the Bush administration has refused to define it as such.

Numbered among the critics worldwide would evidently be the US Military Commission that tried and convicted and sentenced Sgt. Sawamura among others. Neither George W Bush nor the USA was around when the Spanish Inquisition practiced waterboarding, but you might note that one of the all purpose terms for inhuman cruelty and torture is "The Inquisition."

Now somehow you're to be reassured by the statement that we haven't done so for five years, which somehow minimizes the fact. But before you get too comfortable BushCo mouthpiece Tony Fratto noted,

"It is dependent on the circumstances."

I'll just bet that makes you feel better. When Michael Mukasey had to testify before Congress,

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, opened Wednesday's hearing by saying, "This administration has so twisted America's role, law and values that our own State Department, our military officers and, apparently, America's top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal."

"Never mind that waterboarding has been recognized as torture for the last 500 years," Leahy said. "Never mind that President Teddy Roosevelt properly prosecuted Americans soldiers for this more than 100 years ago."

The question that has to occur to you is just exactly how it is that law suddenly became conditional? If you follow the reasoning of BushCo, there are things that are torture only if it is convenient for them to be torture. If it becomes in "circumstances" convenient to torture then it is not torture. I'm pretty sure Sgt Sawamura had found circumstances that made it convenient to engage in behavior that the US (in a more honorable time) found worthy of 30 years hard labor. George II might find that kind of labor a bit less fun than clearing ranch brush for photographers.

Sometimes it almost seems as though history has a sense of humor. A naval aviator shot down by fellow soldiers of Sgt Sawamura becomes President, has a kid who hides out in Texas during a war as an aviator and then becomes the President who engages in the same behavior Sgt Sawamura did. Ah, it must warm a father's heart with pride...

***Update

The Dick just got done calling it a tougher program for tougher customers, so those tough US soldiers who wouldn't cooperate with the Japanese deserved it? Seems we were bombing the snot out of Tokyo and killing a bunch of soldiers on islands across the Pacific...what an asshole.

BushCo Union Busting

There has been a fair amount of reporting regarding BushCo's relaxation of regulatory boards rules or lack of enforcement. Some government agencies have switched direction, such as the DOJ electoral enforcement arm, seemingly now tasked with a contradictory agenda. One that has escaped much notice is the Labor Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards.

The WaPo reports on a Center for American Progress study that shows:

Political operatives in the Department of Labor are using federal reporting requirements to undermine trade unions and conduct a "political misinformation campaign" against them, a report released yesterday charges.

There certainly seems to be a pattern of harassment by an office lead by Don Todd, a former Republican National Committee strategist best known for his role in the Willie Horton ad. The 1959 Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act tasked the Dept of Labor according to Department of Labor spokesman Richard Manning with "the express purpose of safeguarding the hard-earned dues of union members and their right to democratic union elections." That's what he says, on the other hand the Bill states:

Declaration of Findings, Purposes, and Policy
(29 U.S.C. 401)

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds that, in the public interest, it continues to be the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect employees' rights to organize, choose their own representatives, bargain collectively, and otherwise engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection; that the relations between employers and labor organizations and the millions of workers they represent have a substantial impact on the commerce of the Nation; and that in order to accomplish the objective of a free flow of commerce it is essential that labor organizations, employers, and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations, particularly as they affect labor-management relations.

(b) The Congress further finds, from recent investigations in the labor and management fields, that there have been a number of instances of breach of trust, corruption, disregard of the rights of individual employees, and other failures to observe high standards of responsibility and ethical conduct which require further and supplementary legislation that will afford necessary protection of the rights and interests of employees and the public generally as they relate to the activities of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives.

(c) The Congress, therefore, further finds and declares that the enactment of this Act is necessary to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives which distort and defeat the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, and the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and have the tendency or necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by (1) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce; (2) occurring in the current of commerce; (3) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods into or from the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or (4) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing into or from the channels of commerce.

It certainly seems that by definition the Act also has to do with Employers, you know, people BushCo likes if they're big enough and rich enough. BushCo has been a part of the diminution of union membership and certainly has fought any legislation favorable to labor organizing activities.

The amount of information required from unions has increased by 60% since Todd took over, including expanding the conflict of interest form from 3 pages to 9 pages and include 100,000 new filers in the AFL-CIO alone. Shop stewards who volunteered to work on health and safety committees would be required to submit forms defining any or no relationship between lending institutions with their car loans or mortgages and their union or any other company with business with their union. Having dealt with conflict of interest forms I can assure you that it would be a meaningless nightmare for those people.

The Act's purpose was not to be an arm of harassment for unions or employers, the purpose was to have some measure of control of the corrosive effects of money on the relationship between labor and management and to protect labor's money. BushCo and their never ending campaign to use government as an arm of the political party doesn't see it that way.

The Death Penalty and Deterrence

The recent Supreme Court moratorium on lethal injection executions has brought back to the fore the argument about whether the death penalty is a deterrent. The individual executed is certainly deterred but the effect on the broader population seems to be the question; and that question is central to the debate over capital punishment. In the 1976 ruling that reinstated capital punishment Justice Potter Stewart wrote for three of the majority that while the studies of the time were inconclusive, “the death penalty undoubtedly is a significant deterrent.”

The NYT notes the new controversy involves studies done over the past decade primarily by economists showing a significant deterrence and studies primarily in law journals debating that. While it may seem odd for an economist to study the death penalty the models for measuring an effect are based on economics - "To economists, it is obvious that if the cost of an activity rises, the amount of the activity will drop." Lawyers point out that while the studies seem broad, one looked at 3054 counties over 20 years, the actuality is that there are only a few death cases and executions, in 2003 there were 153 death penalties and 65 executions, about one in 300 homicides results in a death penalty so the chances of receiving one for a murder are rather slim.

The economist's models attempted to account for varying crime rates, conviction rates and other factors and came up with murders declining as executions climbed. Various studies have indicated between 3 and 18 lives saved per execution. However,

“Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program,” Professor Shepherd of Emory wrote in the Michigan Law Review in 2005. She found a deterrent effect in only those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996.

The facts surrounding prison life may have more of a deterrent effect,

A 2003 paper by Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich published in The American Law and Economics Review found a “a strong and robust negative relationship” between prison conditions, as measured by the number of deaths in prison from any cause, and the crime rate. The effect is, the authors say, “quite large: 30-100 violent crimes and a similar number or property crimes” were deterred per prison death.

The math doesn't seem to be quite as clear as it does at first blush, questions remain as to whether murders are actually capable of making those rational calculations, and worse considering the solution rate for murder and then the number of death penalties imposed if the calculation might fall on the side of murder. When things like criminal thinking errors (I'll never get caught), obsessions, passions, greed, and a host of other mental malfunctions get tossed into the mix one really has to wonder if fear of execution has much to do with anything.

Some folks like to do the trade game of one life, the executed, for many and in terms of a dead murderer saving several lives it seems almost reasonable. There is the little matter of the state killing a helpless human being after having them contemplate that idea for some extended period of time. There is to me not only the wrongness of the act, but the worse attribute of the responsibility being spread amongst all the citizens who are so divorced from the actual deed. There is the final horror of the whole thing, humans and their systems are not infallible, some innocents will be in the mix and once you have been a part of that, you are not one iota different from the most cold blooded of killers, considering all that goes with an execution.

This nation should be able to come up with a workable alternative to capital punishment, but .then there are a lot of things we really ought to be able to come up with...

John Ashcroft and Immunity - Wrong, As Usual

John Ashcroft states in a NYT OpEd that granting immunity to telecoms accused of being a part of US governmental wiretapping is the proper course. He uses up a lot of words to make two points:

Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company’s, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong.

The lawsuits also risk the disclosure of national security secrets that must be kept from public view if our intelligence agencies are to be able to protect us effectively. When critics of immunity are being honest, they will admit that the main reason they want the litigation to continue is the hope that it will force disclosure of information about the underlying programs — information they hope will advance their own political or ideological disputes with the administration. But that is a bad consequence, not a good one.

He engages in a lot of folderole to make the authoritarian "Daddy knows best" argument, which has the problem that US citizens and the Court system are not three year-olds sticking their tongues in light sockets. If the government takes illegal actions that does not absolve others engaging in that action, Nuremberg made a farce of the "just following orders" defense. If John Ashcroft had a particle of the competence required to be AG he would recognize that. It is a matter of Constitutional Law that the Executive branch is constrained by the Judicial and Legislative branches and finally by the citizenry - the First and Second Amendments provide for the citizenry's resistance. The case has been made that the 9/11 hijackers could have been resisted and in one case were, this is another hijacking, no less palatable or sustainable due to the lack of Arabic surnames.

One telecom, Qwest, did resist, the others just folded, whether due to the legal assurances of the DOJ & Executive or the political advantages available is a moot point. Under law they had no requirement to comply with the government's requests nor any shield for doing so. They walked off the edge of a cliff with no push and now want a parachute. As a private citizen you'd get hung for it.

There is no fear, what so ever, that classified details of techniques will dribble out, court cases have been carried through before without such problems - despite the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning rendition. Ashcroft brings forward a strawman argument based on Americans' terrorism fears. I am personally sick of the garbage brought forward predicated on some possible future terrorist act. That makes the government complicit in the terrorism and to a large extent the most active player. We have kept this country the nation it has been through adherence to law and the basic law of the land is the Constitution and Amendments. If the criminal conspirators in the Executive branch and their enablers in the Legislature and Judiciary don't like the laws they are free to propose Amendments, until that time they are simply criminals and deserve exactly that much consideration.

Make noise, stand up for yourselves and your nation, John Ashcroft may have access to the pages of the NYT, but there are a heck of a lot more of us.

A Serial Rapist Next Door

David Prollitt was convicted of and imprisoned for the rapes of five women in five towns in the late '70s and early '80s in Connecticut. Now he has been released after 24 years and is moving into his sister's house in Southbury, Conn. He will be on Probation for five years with 24 conditions of probation including wearing a monitoring device and face an additional 15 yrs for violations.

His neighbors are very unhappy, police advised residents not to panic, to lock their doors, buy alarm systems, and look out for their neighbors. Calls to Gov. Rell lead him to ask Atty Gen Blumenthal to ask for a delay of Prollitt's release, Superior Court Judge Susan Handy refused stating that Prollitt had completed his sentence and was "entitled to release." Friday afternoon prior to Prollitt's arrival about 2 dozen neighborhood residents gathered across from his sister's house with signs and explained their points to reporters. Prollitt arrived in a caravan of cars with reporters and cameras trying for any view of him. What seems to have been lost is the presence of five sex offenders in the town of 19K and in Waterbury, pop 107K ten miles north east, 250 more. Some are advocating the type of indefinite civil commitment allowed in 20 other states, including NY & NJ.

I do not have an answer for the problem of released criminals, most criminals will be released short of the draconian solution of life or death sentences for a vastly expanded list of crimes. California has tried expanded sentences and the result is a prison system that is broken, broke, and eating an unconscionable portion of the state's budget, shortly it will take a larger percentage than all education. We need to face the fact that people who have committed crimes are going to be released back into the community and pose whatever threat they still pose.

The threat that they pose depends on what their psychology at release is and their opportunities on release, both to re-offend and to create a legal life. It seems that fear of jail time does not do the job, so another alternative is required. This is not some "soft on crime" issue, it is about the safety of the citizenry and the economic costs of crime and imprisonment. We need to address this, we have a huge prison population which means we have a huge number of releases coming. Harsh sentences for re-offending do are an after the fact solution, someone has been victimized at that point. Emotional baggage will not deal with this, it will require pragmatism and real research and an investment.

Swift, State Secrets, BushCo

State Secrets have been used as an excuse to shut down litigation and effectively enough for the director of the National Security Archives at George Washington University, Tom Blanton to note, "...when the government raised the ‘state secrets’ claim. It was a neutron bomb — no plaintiffs left standing." In the case of Belgian banking consortium Swift, it may not do, Chief Judge James F Holderman of the Chicago Federal District Court ruled that the suit based on Swift providing the Federal Treasury Dept with a broad range of documents may proceed. In the past 6 years BushCo has used state secrets 39 times compared to 59 times in the preceding 24 years according to NYT.

Swift routes trillions of dollars each day between banks, brokerage houses and other financial institutions. Millions of private financial records were provided to the Federal government since several months after September 11, 2001. This access was supposed to be for the purposes of tracing money supplied to terrorists.

It begins to look as though courts are wanting to have a look at what is behind some of the government's claims of state secrets.

Same Sex Marriage In Iowa - Move, Larry

Polk County Iowa Judge Robert Hanson has ruled that Iowa's decade old gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and that the county must process marriage applications by same sex couples. The ruling would apply to any Iowan who wished to apply in that county. Two hours after the ruling was publicized Gary Seronko and David Rethmeier applied for license. From AP , "I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun expects a rush after taking 5 calls from gay couples. County Attorney John Sarcone said the County will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and sought an immediate stay from Hanson. House Minority Leader Christopher Rants (R-Sioux City), "I can't believe this is happening in Iowa. I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.

Judge Hanson, "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," on the basis of constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

This would seem to me to be correct reasoning in demanding that all law abiding Iowans be treated the same under the law. I applaud the judge but I doubt the durability of his ruling, though it certainly would be nice to have Iowa prove me wrong.

Padilla Verdict

Somehow the "right" takes great solace in Padilla being found guilty and somehow finds it an indictment of the left. While I may not cruise a whole lot of blogs I haven't found any who maintained that Padilla hadn't committed a crime, I didn't; but what I did find was a whacking bunch who objected to BushCo's methods regarding detention. GeorgeII had decided that he had the kingly power to decide how an American in America should be treated under the law. That was the objection, that and the detention conditions. If anything a conviction justifies the Constitutionally mandated treatment of Americans, certainly not the authoritarianism of say, Jules Crittenden who proves just what a cretin he is by referencing Geo. Washington's treatment of a British soldier/spy during the Revolution - which in case anybody is as historically ignorant as Jules - pre-dated the Constitution by quite awhile. " Military tribunal, execution." This twisted logic involves John Andre' the British officer caught out of uniform trying to work out Benedict Arnold's surrender of West Point.

By the way, just for Jules' illumination, violating an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution by an officer or government official is treason and since Habeas Corpus is Constitutional law and since GWB decided to violate it he should be given that treatment, apparently. Since I've already stated in other posts that I disapprove of capital punishment I'd be happy with an orange jumpsuit and house of many bars. The Supreme Court wouldn't approve of a George Bush pardon of George Bush so maybe...

I have no particular reason to believe the jury got the Padilla verdict wrong and sending him away for a good long time is a good idea, applying the same principle to some one with considerably more ability to harm this nation - GWB - seems apt to me. I'd almost be willing to bet the jury would come in quicker.

The entire reason the government is so constrained in its approach to individuals in criminal law is simple, it is a balancing of the resources of each, the full strength and resources of the government can be brought to bear on an individual, rightfully or not, and in order to achieve some semblance of justice the individual must have protections from the application of that power. The fear mongers and the fearful would undo that balance, they would just trust GeorgeII, I do not trust him at all and particularly I don't trust his unknown successors down through the years.

During the past two decades this country has become more "rightwing" in the sense of approving of authoritarianism, the paternalistic view that government knows best and I see no sign of rebellion to that course. There is a world of difference between asking the government to help you do something and having it do things to you. Government is an exercise in power and expecting it to not use power is foolish wishful thinking. Government will go where ever it is allowed to, it is the nature of the thing and people which is why people who had lately revolted from the most powerful nation on earth and one intimately connected to their sociology set such high bars for government. We keep forgetting this, gun banners are too ignorant to understand the MAD (mutually assured destruction) component of the Second Amendment and the fearful are too scared to understand that the provisions of the Fourth are one assurance that the government cannot simply become vindictive.

Time passes and sociology changes and fear ebbs and wanes but people do not stop being human and having character defects, at some point those defects will be in operation high within government, it is inevitable; the question being, how much power do you want available to such a person? People will just insist on not understanding that government is not a moral construct, it cannot be one, it is composed of laws and law enforcement - these are not suggestions - these are rules backed by force, which is not a system of morality. The morality is only present in those framing the laws and enforcing them, even the Constitution is not a moral document, it is a series of limitations placed on those who would govern.

When we acquiesce to the fear of a Padilla and allow extraordinary measures we allow the future to run off the rails set in place by the Constitutional Convention, we become subject rather than citizen, we sell our children's future for questionable present gain. Freedom and liberty are a risky proposition, but then being alive is a dangerous business and it is ultimately fatal, oh well, maybe the trick is doing it well - not cringing and whining.

...And With Justice For Some

If you were taking the Pledge of Allegiance seriously, maybe you should re-think. Reflect on your station in life, are you a big political player or maybe rich? If you belong to a political party that makes a big deal out of law and order, and personal responsibility it's OK to perjure yourself and obstruct justice as long as you're a part of a corrupt secretive administration. You see, what counts is who your friends are and who you work for.

Five hours after the appeals court refused to intervene in Scooter's case, the President did, George II said 2 1/2 years was too severe. That Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals." For the critics of the sentencing and even prosecution it is worth pointing out that darn near everybody professionally involved - prosecution, judge, appeals were Republican appointees and they agreed he should go to jail. But... Scooter has friends.

I suggest that my readers do not try this course, you are neither important enough nor well connected enough to stay out of jail. Now Scooter will have to pay his fines and do his probation and his reputation is "ruined." The "s are deliberate and meaningful, because his reputation is just exactly as good as the rest of his cohorts and now proven so. Politicians sometimes exaggerate their capabilities but they seldom engage in outright lies and this bunch seldom seems to avoid them.

I'll bet that if you paid any attention to the Paris Hilton junk, the one thing that struck you was that a little rich girl actually got spanked and maybe in the run up to this commutation you thought this might hold. Not in this administration, connections are all, you make fortunes, save corporations, stay out of jail, ad nauseum if you're hooked up. Of course, wealth, power, and connections have always been valuable and of great usefulness, but there was at least a pretense that the rest of us were in the game to some extent.

You had better understand that this is the natural outgrowth of "conservatism" as practised today. The "conservatives" will squeal, "not so," and try to make the point that this isn't conservatism while it actually is. It is the practice of unfettered greed with the government augmenting it while following practices that constrict working wages. It is called keeping the government out of the way, it's called "personal responsibility" (providing it only applies to the powerless), privatization of governmental services (providing you're hooked-up), the abdication of governance because it isn't important. If you follow each and every tenet of the Republican Party as enunciated over the past dozen years you will find its practice in effect today and of benefit to 0.1% of the population, the absolutely incredibly wealthy. Republicans are wont to call these kinds of statements "class warfare," and they'd be right, what they miss is that they are the ones waging it.

Paris Nonsense - Fox Is An Ass

The circus continues and grows in frenzy. Fox is beating the drumbeat for its star, the punishment is outrageous, one DUI and no one goes to jail. Then they manage after about 15 minutes to finally get around to violating probation, but nobody goes.

I don't live in LA, CA or CA period. I do know judges, and I've known them for most of my life. Let's get something straight, Paris went into court for two traffic offenses after being suspended. One offense right after the other right after being busted and getting probation, and she went in front of a judge after essentially demonstrating "what you say doesn't matter to me in the least." Judges don't like that. Judges find that to undermine the judicial system, and I can tell you I do not want to go in front of a judge that way. I would expect to get drop kicked through the goal posts.

The world will probably run off its rails with something like this going on. I cannot think of a single reason to treat Paris Hilton any differently than anyone else, for good or ill. But quite obviously the news will do so, Fox would have and has had conniption fits about such violations happening with poor people, but certainly not a Hilton or a Scooter. I'm not a lock 'em all up sort nut, but I certainly do advocate equal treatment under the law. Obviously expecting Fox to tell the truth is silly, but it doesn't make the behavior any less irritating. You don't suppose they're trying to grease the rails for the Scoot, do you?

Guantanamo, The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Giving trouble to BushCo has turned into the Guantanamo function in legal circles. The Supreme Court tossed the first BushCo Military Tribunal setup, now the Military Judge, Lt Col. Peter Brownback has tossed the case against Canadian Omar Kadhr because his classification as an offender - enemy combatant - does not match the charge of unlawful combatant required to be prosecuted. The charge was dismissed without prejudice which means it can be brought again, but the rules are going to be a problem.

Adding to the difficulties is that none of the detainees have been classified as unlawful combatants. If that were not quite sufficient to complicate matters there is the little matter that the Military Commissions Act made some actions crimes retroactively, grandfathering them. What this means is that at the time the action was committed it was not a crime, it became a crime after the fact and that is a very large Constitutional problem. The Constitution certainly hasn't figured very largely in quite a few of the BushCo activities, maybe he'll get smacked down again...and again...and again. Makes you wonder why we have jails...

Virginia and the NY Mayor

The state of Virginia recently passed a law making under-cover firearms purchases by non-law enforcement individuals a felony. This might seem like a rather odd sort piece of legislation but its target is rather large - NY,NY Mayor Bloomberg (R). It seems the Mayor has inflated ideas of his status, he has been sending undercover investigators to other states to make straw-man purchases of firearms, an illegal activity under federal law. Now, I know little of Mayor Bloomberg and since his city has draconian firearms regulations he does have that agenda in his own town, I'll repeat that, his town. He has people violate or attempt to violate federal law in order to issue law suits against other state gun shops. NY,NY law enforcement or private investigators have no police powers any place other than NY,NY. The feds can go to any state to enforce federal regulations and within a state or other entity their own law enforcement has power to do so. Anybody else is committing a crime and the fact that the feds have not arrested and prosecuted Bloomberg's undercovers makes a statement about the exaggerated import of NY,NY.

The unequal application of law in this country is an abomination and while we see it all the time that does not mean we should be complacent about it. The motive for the commission of a crime has no bearing whatever on whether the act is criminal or not and the status of the conspirators has no bearing either. What matters is whether they have standing under law to commit the act, and Bloomberg and his accomplices have no standing outside NY,NY. Bloomberg seems to believe that he as Mayor of NY,NY is so important that he can send people to our homes to commit crimes.

If you think about this in a clear and rational manner and apply the Federal Laws that everybody else is subject to you get a rather nasty outcome. The Mayor of NY,NY is running an organized criminal operation in violation of Federal Law, that would make RICO applicable on top of the violations of Federal Firearms Law. He not only isn't being prosecuted, certain elements are lionizing him. You try this crap...

Virginia sent him a letter of warning, he doesn't like it. I do. Law means what it means, for all of us.