Turning the tables

1. 
   
   
   ACLU‏Verified account @ACLU May 8
   
   Federal hate crimes laws were passed to correct the centuries of inaction and injustice that too often was the response to violence based on immutable traits and identities, including race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.
   44 replies114 retweets289 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   ACLU‏Verified account @ACLU May 8
   
   There's no possible interpretation where being a law enforcement officer fits that definition. Congress should vote this down quickly and decisively.
   35 replies98 retweets316 likes
   
   
   
   
   
   

These tweets were posted by the ACLU on May 8, 2018 as a reaction to a Senate bill that would classify violence against police officers as a hate crime. Such a law already exists in Louisiana.

Apparently the irony of the situation was lost on the leadership of the ACLU as this is just the latest logical extension of the push for hate crime legislation over the years. I've written before on why hate crime legislation should be found unconstitutional and how it's just a bad idea.

For every offense that someone wishes to attach the label "hate crime," a criminal act was already committed. If a person yells out a racist epithet and then shoots and kills the target of his ire, he's looking at a murder charge. There is no reason to try to enhance the sentence because of what he said beforehand.

With the right in power, the state's backlash against Black Lives Matter is in full force. There are plenty of dog whistles - from Blue Lives Matter to US flags with a blue stripe to ribbons to support law enforcement - about our everyday lives. The next step is to make it a hate crime to attack a police officer.

Never mind that assaulting a police officer is already a more serious offense that assaulting someone on the street. Never mind that killing a police officer makes you eligible to get the needle. No. We need a law that we can use against folks who have the temerity to stand up against police brutality and racist killings.

And this is how you do it. You give the same people who cower under the table when faced with charging a police officer for killing an unarmed black man yet another charge they can use against a person accused of assaulting a police officer.

God told me I couldn't bake you a cake

Suffer (bring) the children to me.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Those are some of the platitudes in the Bible with regard as to how to treat other people. But apparently not from the Bible that Cathy Miller of Bakersfield (CA) or her ilk read.

For you see, Ms. Miller is just the latest person to claim that her religious beliefs allow her to discriminate against those she just doesn't like. Amazing how we keep running into these folks.

Ms. Miller owns Tastrie's Bakery. A same sex couple came to her shop and asked her to make a cake for their wedding. Being more intent on discriminating against the couple than in making money, Ms. Miller refused. She said that her religious beliefs made it impossible for her to bake a cake for a lesbian couple.

The couple then filed suit against Ms. Miller, arguing that her refusal to make them a wedding cake was a violation of the state's civil rights statute. Ms. Miller, on the other hand, argued that making a cake was an artistic expression protected under the First Amendment which meant she could choose the customers for whom she was willing to bake a cake.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled in Ms. Miller's favor stating that designing a cake was different than baking a cake as it was an act of artistic expression. He did caution Ms. Miller that she could not refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple.

But here's the problem. Whether a baker designs a cake specifically for someone or just bakes a cake to put in the display case is a distinction without much meaning. Baking a cake is baking a cake. You throw some ingredients into a bowl, you mix them up and you throw it in the oven. When it's done you take it out and ice it. It appears that the only difference would be whether the baker baked the cake before or after the couple ordered it.

What Ms. Miller did is no different that what white business owners did during Jim Crow and what bankers did for years afterward. She is refusing service because she doesn't like a customer because of her sexual orientation. That is no different than refusing service because a person is black or catholic or a woman.

The fact that she relies on her religious beliefs to just discrimination tells you everything you need to know about religion. The fact that a judge ruled that it was okay for her to discriminate so long as she waved a bible in the air tells you all you need to know about the pernicious effect of religion on civil society.

School board members acting like petulant children

This is how democracy works in this country.



The Vermillion Parish school board met to determine whether to give the school superintendant a raise. Ms. Deyshia Hargrave had the nerve to question the school board as to why they were giving the superintendant a raise when teachers hadn't had a raise in years.

In the meantime class sizes have increased along with the duties of the teachers.

Instead of answering Ms. Hargrave's questions, the presiding officer of the school board decided to have her removed from the meeting. The officer, who showed himself to be nothing more than a lackey for the administration, roughed up Ms. Hargrave before arresting her on charges of remaining when forbidden and resisting arrest.

School board meetings are supposed to be open to the public. Members of the public in attendance have the right to ask questions and make comments during portions of meeting. Now I understand that many school board members would prefer to make their decisions in private where they are away from the glare of the light and can avoid taking responsibility. But that isn't how it's supposed to work.

The school board in Vermillion Parish - just like many school boards across this country - showed where their priorities were. It's a whole lot easier to raise the superintendant's salary that it is to explain to the public that taxes need to be raised to pay for school improvements and teacher salary increases.

But what happened in Vermillion Parish was uncalled for. Yes, board members who favored the pay increase - and the superintendant himself - certainly didn't want to be questioned about it. They expected everyone in attendance to just go along with the proposal. But when your response to being questioned by not just a member of the public, but your own employee, is to have her dragged out of a meeting and arrested, you have shown yourselves to be incapable of leadership.

This video should be broadcast as part of a civics lesson on how not to govern.

H/T David Begnaud

See also "Louisiana teacher handcuffed forcibly after asking questions at board meeting," The Guardian (1/9/2018)

Let them eat cake

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case about the baker who refused, on religious grounds, to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple.

Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog did an excellent analysis of yesterday's questioning from the Supremes. She believes the court will split (again) 5-4 in favor of the baker but wonders just how narrowly they will craft the opinion. She based her analysis on the change in tone of Justice Kennedy's questions from start to finish.

First, I must point out, once again, that religious belief is still the most popular justification for discrimination. Now I could go on and on quoting portions of the Bible in which Jesus preaches a message of equality and love and brotherhood. But I'm not.

Jack Phillips likes to call himself a christian. But he believes that the holy word gives him the right to discriminate against those whom he doesn't like. The latter day charlatans who preach that homosexuality is a sin worse than any other act like they are quoting the word of god when they launch into their hateful spiel. The only problem is the book they are quoting from has been translated countless times from multiple languages. There's no guarantee that the words they are quoting in 2017 are the same words written in the original texts.

But we digress.

The issue is whether a privately run business has the right to decide whom they wish to provide with services. This is different from the argument in the 1960's that private buses, trains, hotels and restaurants were public carriers. Mr. Phillips claims that forcing him to make a cake for a same sex wedding would somehow violate his right to free speech. I'm not really buying that one because food is not speech. Food is food and food is for eating.

Does requiring him to bake the cake violate his right to freedom of religion? As far as I can tell, no one is telling him what to believe or how to do it. However, would requiring him to bake the cake trample upon his right to the free exercise of his religion? That is a much closer question, I think.

What does it mean to exercise one's religion? Baking and selling cakes is a commercial enterprise, not a religious one. Maybe he says he's spreading the word of god by baking cakes - but is that exercising one's religion?

And what if in exercising that religion a person, or entity, intentionally discriminates against another based upon that person's race, sex, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation?

And, as an aside, at what point do we finally acknowledge that religion serves more to divide us than to unite us? White protestant churches were very prominent in the fight to preserve Jim Crow segregation in the South. All of the major protestant denominations split in the 19th century over the question of slavery.

Back in college I took a class on sociology and religion and our professor played for us a recording of an Emo Philips routine that I have looked for off and on for years -- and finally found it.



There are some serious issues that need to be addressed in this case. The Court must decide how much discrimination in private commercial enterprises is acceptable. If the Court decides it is acceptable then the Court must decide whether the enterprise wishing to discriminate must give a reason for its choice. If so, the Court must decide where to draw the line for a legally valid rationale for discrimination. Finally, the Court must decide which groups can be discriminated against for which reasons. It remains to be seen whether the Court will develop a balancing test to determine how large a community has to be in order to permit discrimination.

Regardless of the decision, the law of the land will most likely be determined by the vote of one justice - Anthony Kennedy. Not quite what the Founding Fathers had in mind, I daresay.

Fuck Troy Nehls and fuck you for voting for him

Yes, it's low-hanging fruit. But I've been under the weather the last couple of days and it's the best I can do.

I'm sure there are some folks down in Fort Bend County (once you cross the Brazos, you're in a whole different world) who are offended by the language. So fucking what.

I'm offended by police brutality, racism, the growing gap between the wealthy and the working class, war, Donald Trump and his band of wingnuts who take the flack for every stupid thing that comes out of his mouth.

Troy Nehls should know better. Should. But he doesn't because he comes out of the police culture which has become more of an us-against-them mentality as the old white guard tries desperately to cling on to power in a changing landscape. This is the man who is supposed to be the point of the spear for law enforcement in Fort Bend County and he doesn't even know the fucking law is. He might want to review the oath he took upon assuming office. When he says "jump" he expects folks to ask "how high?" and not "why?"

The prosecutor he spoke to who said she would be glad to prosecute the owner of the truck might want to spend the weekend boning up on Con Law, particularly First Amendment jurisprudence. Might be the only thing between her and disbarment.

Now, if this is the way Mr. Nehls overreacts to a situation in which someone expresses an unpopular (at least in the land across the Brazos) opinion, what kind of judgment would he show when the stakes get bigger?

But, in a world where "Blue Lives Matter" is code for "I don't give a shit how badly the police mistreat people of color," what else should we expect. It will never cease to amaze me how much the folks who claim they don't want big government are more than happy to have that same government poke its nose into the business of those who say or do something that is unpopular with the great white mass.

Taking a stand by sitting down

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

 -- Colin Kaepernick

It would appear that San Francisco 49er quarterback Colin Kaepernick has sent flag-waving pro football fans into a tizzy with the stand he made on Friday night.

If you somehow missed the shitstorm on Twitter, at Friday night's game, Kaepernick remained seated on the bench when the National Anthem was played. When asked he said he would not show pride in a flag for a country that has for centuries oppressed people of color.

Apparently his willingness to take a stand when young black men are being shot dead by police while the officers go on paid leave has left white football fans in the dark. Professional football (along with baseball and auto racing) at times seem nothing more than delivery vehicles for a pro-militaristic, pro-imperialist philosophy that we are all expected to bow down before.

In the eyes of professional sports (and to some extent college sports), true patriotism means supporting military operations overseas - regardless of the reason young men and women are being sent to another country (generally one populated by people of color) to kill, rape and destroy.

On occasion we hear a hue and cry for athletes to take a position on some hot button topic of the day. But that would seem only to apply when the athlete takes the position that the mainstream wants them to take. Pat Tillman is lionized because he walked away from football to join the army in order to invade a sovereign nation. Colin Kaepernick takes a stand against racism and racial violence and he is pilloried by the ignorant masses.

And, speaking of the ignorant masses, you might want to take a gander at this article by The Intercept's Jon Schwartz. It seems that if you listen to more than the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner the symbolism gets a bit complicated and messy.

Francis Scott Key was a slaveowner when he penned the song. For those who don't remember your history, Mr. Key wrote the anthem after the attack on Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 - a war that was fought because the United States decided to invade Canada. During the war the British promised a life of freedom for any black man who enlisted to fight on their side. They also made promises to the Native Americans (who were already learning that the US government was not to be trusted).

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

-- Star Spangled Banner

Of course I could write many more posts about the intellectual dishonesty of the phrase "land of the free" but I'll save them for another day.

Colin Kaepernick may not be the best quarterback in the league - he may not be the best quarterback on his own team - but he is the most courageous. By taking a stand against racism and racial violence in America he is risking his own livelihood. If he is cut by the 49ers he may find he isn't welcome by any other team in this proto-fascist league.

Thank you, Colin, for taking a stand.

Two years awaiting trial; so much for the presumption of innocence

One way to quell dissent is to lock up the dissenters so that no one can listen to them.You can do this by overcharging on a criminal complaint, by asking for an unreasonable level of bail or both.

Cecily McMillan has been held behind bars by New York prosecutors for almost two years. Her trial on charges she assaulted a New York City police officer was to begin yesterday. After clearing procedural hurdles, and scheduling around court holidays, jury selection is scheduled to begin on Thursday and the government should present its case on Friday.

Ms. McMillan was charged with felony assault after she elbowed an officer beneath his eye at a Zuccotti Park protest back in March of 2012. Prosecutors claim Ms. McMillan deliberately elbowed the officer in the face as members of Occupy Wall Street fought with the police. Ms. McMillan claims that someone behind her grabbed her breast and she swung her elbow to protect herself. After her elbow made contact Ms. McMillan was viciously beaten by the police and arrested.

There was no need for Ms. McMillan to suffer the beating she did. She was one person. The officer wasn't seriously injured. Yet the beating commenced. And once it began there was no stopping it until the adrenaline ran out. What happened to Ms. McMillan on the street was far worse than what happened to the officer.

Now aside from the legal issues of what constitutes intentional or knowing action in this case, there is a bigger issue. The crime for which Ms. McMillan was charged is a Class D felony for which she faces a maximum sentence of seven years.

But let's keep in mind that Ms. McMillan is innocent unless proven otherwise beyond all reasonable doubt by the government. And for that reason alone she should not have spent the last 23 months confined to a cell. Her confinement was a means to coerce her into entering a plea that would resolve the case and leave her with a criminal record for the rest of her life.

Her confinement also shows the divide between the attitudes of prosecutors and the rest of society. For a prosecutor, a sentence is but a number that can be thrown around as if it were handed down by a god. There are no consequences for a prosecutor - he or she is going home every evening after work regardless of what happens.

For the rest of us, those numbers represent a tragedy. Someone's mother or father or daughter or son or sister or brother is going to be taken away. Arrangements must be made so that whoever is left on the outside can take care of everyone else. The situation is only magnified when judges and prosecutors play games with bail and lock up innocent folks for months or years while they await resolution of their cases.

Now there can be little doubt that the police in New York City (and elsewhere across the country) overreacted in their response to the Occupy! movement. There was no reason to clear parks by force when folks all over this country were organizing and exercising their constitutional right to assemble and petition the government for their grievances.

If things got out of hand that night at Zuccotti Park then we should be looking at the leadership of the New York City Police Department who instead of carrying out their supposed duty to protect and defend the residents of New York City, turned their weapons on the citizenry to clear a park at the behest of Wall Street interests.

Even if you believe the government's account of what happened that night, there is no excuse to lock up a young woman without a criminal record for two years. If bail were set at a level higher than that which she could afford to post, then it should have been lowered. After all, bail is not a punitive measure, it is merely a means of guaranteeing a defendant's appearance in court. Holding someone behind bars for two years serves only to make it more difficult to defend a case. It certainly doesn't advance the cause of justice.

Update: And sometimes right wins out

A few weeks ago I wrote about Ron Martin of Frisco, Texas who was arrested and charged with violating Frisco's sign ordinance after holding up a sign warning drivers to slow down before a speed trap.

On Wednesday the charges against Mr. Martin were dismissed because the prosecution could not point out to the court the provision of the ordinance that Mr. Martin allegedly violated.

The resolution of the case was proper given the fact that we all know that he was arrested not for holding up a sign but for not jumping when the officer told him to jump. The charge was nothing more than an attempted justification for a wrongful arrest. But where's the justice?

Mr. Martin was arrested. The case cost him time and money. He has been vindicated. But what about the officer who saw fit to arrest him on a trumped-up charge? The officer knew Mr. Martin hadn't done anything wrong. He knew there was no legal reason to arrest him and charge him with a criminal offense. That, however, didn't stop him.

What's to stop the next officer from doing the same thing?

When promoting traffic safety is against the law

Sure, the police set up speed traps in order to make the roads safer. Their goal is to encourage motorists not to exceed the speed limit. They accomplish this goal by making an example of some drivers in hopes that others are deterred.

But if that's the purpose, why is Ron Martin of Frisco, Texas, facing criminal charges?



It seems that back in October Mr. Martin stood in a median with a sign alerting oncoming motorists that there were police cars ahead. Naturally the first reaction of a driver in that situation is to slow down so he or she doesn't get tagged by radar or laser.

And if motorists approaching the speed trap are slowing down and not getting pulled over, shouldn't the police be happy because people are driving safer?

Apparently not.

"I observed a couple cars drive by traveling westbound waving at us,” the police officer wrote in Martin’s arrest report. “Mr. Martin was observed standing in the center median of the six-lane divided roadway ... holding a sign in his right hand up over his shoulders that read 'Police Ahead.'"

Mr. Martin was arrested last October and charged with holding a sign on public property. The Frisco sign ordinance says it's okay to hold a sign provided you're standing on private property.

According to the Frisco Code of Ordinances, the purpose of the sign ordinance is to provide

uniform standards for the erection and maintenance of signs. All signs in this chapter shall be erected and maintained in accordance with these standards. The general objectives of these standards are to promote health, safety, welfare, convenience and enjoyment of the public

Here are the provisions of the sign ordinance regarding human signs:

Human sign.

(1)

Time: No sign permit required. Human signs may be displayed from sunrise to sunset each and every continuing day.

(2)

Place: Human signs shall be located on private property or adjacent right-of-way where a sale, event, promotion, or the like is taking place. Human signs are not allowed in residential districts.

(3)

Manner: Human signs may not hold or carry wind devices, flags or balloons. Human signs shall only be persons who stand or walk on the ground on private property. Podiums, risers, stilts, vehicles, roofs, or other structures or devices shall not support a human sign. No more than one human sign per business location may be actively engaged per major thoroughfare. A person who wears or holds a human sign shall be over the age of 12 years old.

Here is the provision regarding so-called instructional or informational signs:

Instructional/informational sign.

(1)

Time: A sign permit is not required. No restrictions.

(2)

Place: No restrictions.

(3)

Manner: The maximum area of an instructional/informational sign is 16 square feet. (Refer to definition section for additional information.)

Based on the stated purpose of the ordinance and the types of signs referred to within the ordinance, Mr. Martin's argument that the ordinance doesn't apply to his sign because he isn't a business would appear to hold water. The provision under which he was charged even refers to signs promoting businesses.

The sign Mr. Martin was holding would seem to fall under the provision for instructional or informational signs which have no restrictions placed on them. His sign informed oncoming motorists that there was a speed trap ahead. By providing the warning, Mr. Martin was promoting safer driving which would benefit the community.

We all know the police didn't confront Mr. Martin because he was holding any old sign in the median. They came after him and handcuffed him because his sign warned oncoming motorists that they were down the road trying to make traffic stops. Those traffic stops generate ticket revenue. The tickets those stops produce is the only evidence that the officers have that they did anything during their shift.

NH police view Occupy protesters as terrorists

From the website Common Dreams comes this story of the increasing militarization of the police:

In a bid to bring armored vehicles to the small, capital city of Concord, New Hampshire, the local police department is trying to exploit peaceful activist groups such as Occupy New Hampshire and the libertarian Free State Project as "terror threats." 

Through a right to know request, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union (NHCLU)—as part of an ongoing project against the militarization of local law enforcement agencies—obtained a grant filed by the Concord Police Department requesting $258,000 from the Department of Homeland Security for an armored BearCat vehicle. 

"The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type," the grant states, adding that—with groups such as the "Free Staters" and Occupy NH active and presenting "daily challenges"—the "threat is real and here."

As the expression goes, if all you've got is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail. Or, to paraphrase, when you want your police department to get the same cool toys someone else has, soon everything looks like an existential threat.

The proposal also exposes the change in attitude of police departments across the country over the past three decades. Once upon a time, officers walked a beat. They got to know the neighborhood. Their job was to protect the citizens from criminal acts.

Now we have police officers who dress like soldiers, who carry automatic rifles and drive armored personnel carriers. With politicians increasingly wanting to declare war on something or other, a war mentality has overtaken police departments across the nation.

The mission has changed from protecting and serving to hunting down the bad guys. And, increasingly, it's an us-against-them mindset.

The characterization of the Occupy movement as a domestic terrorist group is a perfect demonstration of the view the government has taken of political dissent - particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 over-reaction. Turning police departments into paramilitary outfits only serves to dissuade people from exercising their rights to assemble and petition the government for redress. It only serves to intimidate those who would defend the protections afforded under the Fourth Amendment.

The record of the Occupy movement is quite clear. The only time violence erupted during an Occupy event across the country was when the police initiated the use of force. Those protesters at UC-Davis weren't being violent. They were sitting on the ground. It was the police, wearing shields and covering their badges, who broke out the tear gas and fired in into the faces of college students. It was the police in Oakland who fired percussive grenades into a crowd of protesters who were exercising their First Amendment rights.

The threat to our social order doesn't come from peaceful protesters - the threat comes from the increasing militarization of our nation's police departments.

Plugging leaks

The Obama administration has gone after more whistleblowers and journalists for leaking classified information that all other administrations combined. Quite ironic considering Barack Obama ran as a candidate who would bring more transparency to governance.

Of course the problem isn't that a government employee was leaking information to a journalist or that the journalist wrote a story about it - because the Obama administration leaks classified information to the press all the time.

The distinction is, as usual, whose ox is getting gored.

In the latest fiasco, the FBI subpoenaed home, business and cell phone records from dozens of AP employees in an attempt to find out who the source for an article about how the government thwarted a terrorist attack was. According to the government, the records were subpoenaed so that investigators could map out telephone calls and somehow "triangulate" who was making them.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I suspect the real reason the government issued overly broad subpoenas and did it without consulting with the AP beforehand wasn't so much to find the leaker, but more to create a chilling effect for the next reporter who came across sensitive information. Being subjected to having los federales dig around in your private affairs might just be enough to make some reporters think twice before pushing the send button.

Strangely enough, I don't remember anyone in the White House throwing a fit when the news came out that Anwar al-Awlaki had been added to the President's (illegal and unconstitutional) hit list. I don't recall any heads being made to roll when details of the Osama bin Laden murder became known. The Obama administration made quite liberal use of the government sieve when it served their purpose during the fall.

It's only when neither the president, nor his cronies, are in control of the leaks that problems occur. Bradley Manning leaked materials that proved our government violated international law and conventions regarding torture. He exposed the hypocrisy in Washington and caused much consternation when foreign leaders found out how they'd been played off one another.

In order to show Private Manning who was in charge, the government instituted a smear campaign against him and subjected him to torture. The cables were published on the Wikileaks website so our government turned its focus to Julian Assange who served the role of journalist. But, just as the government tried to silence Daniel Ellsburg when he provided the New York Times with a copy of The Pentagon Papers, the Obama administration went after Mr. Assange and Wilkileaks in any manner they could.

It'a all about control. It's all about the spin. Somewhere George W. Bush is sitting and smiling as he watches President Obama take his ideas for the War Against the Constitution and transform it into something that even W's supporters didn't think possible.

Speaking out

Brooklyn College finds itself today in the middle of a sea of controversy over a forum being held on campus by a group, BDS, calling for boycotts, divestitures and sanctions against Israel for its policies in the occupied territories.



The reaction among elected officials in New York was very predictable. State legislators and city councilmen all called on the school to cancel the forum. Some went so far as to advocate cutting funding to Brooklyn College if it didn't cancel the event. The politicians are upset because someone has the gumption to criticize Israel.

Critics say that the forum will be one-sided because no other group, or individuals, were invited to participate. Well, guess what, media coverage of Israel in this country is extremely one-sided. While these politicians have a problem with the forum, they have no problem with the human rights abuses Israel has committed in the West Bank and Gaza. While they have a problem with free speech, they have no problem with Israel violating international law by encouraging new settlements in the occupied territories.

Maybe these grandstanding politicians should take some time to review the First Amendment. It's a beautiful thing this right to free speech - but it comes with a price. Not all speech is pretty. Not all speech is popular. Some of it, in fact, is downright nasty. That's just the way it works.

Today it's your ox getting gored - tomorrow it'll be someone else's. But we don't get to cherry pick the speech we want to be protected. If we start taking away the right to say something that's unpopular then sooner or later you're going to lose your right to say what's on your mind. And there won't be anyone to fight for you right to say it.

As to the criticism that only one side will be heard, I can only say so what. I went to plenty of events while a student at UT in which two opposing speakers debated each other. The problem is folks go to those events because they agree with one point of view. No one is going in with an open mind. The participants spit out their applause lines and gimmick phrases and the crowds respond like Pavlov's dog.

Colleges and universities are our hottest beds for the free exchange of ideas. That's something that's sadly missing out in the "real" world. And politicians aren't interested in ideas. They are only interested in the views that their pollsters tell them will get them over the hump in the next election. The last thing we need are politicians dictating to colleges what can and can't be taught or debated on their campuses.

If you want an unquestioning and compliant populace, then shut down all debate and force people to conform to the views held by those defending the status quo. But, if you want a vibrant and colorful society, then you've got to loosen up and allow the free flow of ideas to rain down.

H/T Democracy Now!

One night in Hudspeth County

Rusty Fleming wants all you budding country and rock stars to know that they don't much care for drugs down in the Valley in Hudspeth County.

Willie Nelson and Snoop Dog found that out. And now Fiona Apple knows.

But this isn't about celebs with pot in their tour buses being nabbed by those eagle-eyed officers of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office. Nope, this is about that little thing we call the presumption of innocence.

Fiona Apple was performing in Houston the other night. While on stage she let the audience know what she thought of the hospitality she was shown down in Hudspeth County. Let's just say she wasn't altogether impressed with the accommodations.

That's where our friend, Mr. Fleming, comes in. He's not the sheriff. He's not the officer who took down the once famous pop star. Mr. Fleming is the public information officer for the department. He's a glorified P.R. man.

And he wasn't too happy with what Ms. Apple had to say the other night. He was so out of sorts he penned an e-mail to express his feelings.

First, Honey, I’m already more famous than you, I don't need your help. However, it would appear that you need mine.... 

Two weeks ago nobody in the country cared about what you had to say, -- now that you’ve been arrested it appears your entire career has been jump-started. Don’t worry Sweetie, I won't bill you... 

Next, have you ever heard of Snoop, Willie or Armand Hammer? Maybe if you would read something besides your own press releases, you would have known BEFORE you got here, that if you come to Texas with dope, the cops will take your DOPE away and put YOU in jail 

Even though you and I only met briefly in the hallway, I don't know you but I'm sure you're an awesome and talented young woman and even though I'm not a fan of yours, I am sure there are thousands of them out there, and I’m sure that they would just as soon you get this all behind you and let you go back to what you do best—so my last piece of advice is simple "just shut-up and sing." 

Sincerely
Rusty Fleming

Not so fast there, Mr. Fleming. Yes, Ms. Apple was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana (well, technically marihuana, since no one in the legislature knows how to spell) and hashish. Yes, the dope was found on her tour bus. But that's about all we know.

Ms. Apple is innocent unless the state can prove her guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. There are plenty of folks arrested for possession of marijuana every day in Texas that see their cases dismissed or hear two word verdicts from juries.

Besides, Mr. Fleming, the last time I checked we have this little thing called the First Amendment that protects our right to say anything we damn well please - no matter how much it pisses off those in authority. And so, if Ms. Apple wants to get up on stage every night and tell the audience what an awful experience she had in Hudspeth County, good for her.

Of course the one thing no one's talking about is the junk science surrounding drug-sniffing dogs. Their handlers will claim that the dog will alert them by sitting, barking, rolling, jumping and anything else a dog does on a regular basis. We all know that the handlers can make those dogs do whatever they want them to.

Ms. Apple's tour bus was stopped at a border crossing and the dogs were brought out to sniff around it. It was a drug dog's supposed "hit" that got the police entre into the bus where they found the goodies. And that raises another issue about the continued erosion of the Fourth Amendment.

Let's see, the police can't use a thermal imaging device to peek inside a home to see if someone's growing marijuana with the aid of heat lamps but they can run a dog around the outside of your car to see if the dog can "smell" some wacky tobacky. And when that dog scratches his back or licks his balls we'll call it probable cause to search the vehicle.

Hmm. Tour bus for a rock star? Do you supposed that there just might be something illicit in that coach? We'll just call out the dog and tug on his collar a bit. That ought to do it. No judge down here is going to question it.

Hudspeth County is but a microcosm of what's wrong with our criminal (in)justice system. And, just so no one thinks I'm picking on a rural county in the Valley - what happened down there the other day happens in every county across the country on a regular basis.

Project dehumanization

It's certainly not unusual for the state to do whatever it can to dehumanize a person accused of a crime. Whether that be parading them around in bright orange jumpsuits, shackling them in the courtroom or treating them like animals in the jail. The goal of the state is to reduce an inmate or a pre-trial detainee to nothing but a number. Because once a person is reduced to a number, it becomes easier to treat him as something less than human.

You can add forcibly shaving a beard to that list.

Maj. Nidal Hasan is facing a court martial over accusations he murdered 13 military personnel at Ft. Hood in 2009. At the time of the alleged crime, Maj. Hasan did not have a beard. During his stay in pre-trial detention he grew one in the course of practicing the religion of his choice.

Oh, but this beard will never do. So said the judge presiding over his court martial, Col. Gregory Gross, who ordered the beard shaved off before Maj. Hasan's next court appearance.

But Col. Gross was overruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a panel made up of four civilian judges appointed by the president. The appellate panel ruled that forcing Maj. Hasan to shave his beard would violate his First Amendment right to practice the religion of his choice.

Well this was just too much for military prosecutors who could not allow a defendant to have any say-so in how he's treated while awaiting trial. What kind of precedent would that set? Next thing you know the detainees in Guantanamo might be given the power to tell the guards to stop the torture.

The prosecutors point out that active duty personnel aren't allowed to grow beards - but then the Army is trying to boot him out of the army and lock him up for life. What purpose is served by forcing him to shave his beard?

There is no rational reason. If the court is somehow distracted by Maj. Hasan's beard then it's probably a good thing they aren't out in the field where they could be distracted by lights, sounds, bombs, artillery fire and every other moving thing under the sun.

The only reason to force Maj. Hasan to shave is for the Army to show him that it's in charge. To show him that he's less than human. That's he's not entitled to practice the religion of his choice. What would happen if Maj. Hasan was Jewish and insisted on wearing a yarmulke? What if he were Christian and insisted on wearing a crucifix around his neck? Would the court have a problem with that?

If you want to break down a man, you take his individualism away from him. You take away everything that makes him different from those around him. You take away his hair. You take away his clothes. You take away his ability to choose. Then he becomes putty in your hands. It's the type of mind control and brainwashing the military has practiced for years.

It's dehumanizing. And, in the case of Maj. Hasan, it's wrong.

The government knows best

The State of Texas has decided it is qualified to tell doctors how to run their practices and what to tell their patients. According to a proposed rule for the state's Women's Health Program, doctors would not be allowed to provide abortion counseling for their patients.

The gag order would extend to other doctors in the practice - even if they aren't participating in the program - as well as to other patients who are not in the program.

The purpose of the rule is very clear. It's yet another attempt by the far right to limit women's access to abortion. It's yet another example of the government getting involved in an area in which it has no business being involved. Our beloved state legislators are barely capable of doing that job (and everyday I am thankful that they are only allowed to meet for 140 days every other year); they are not qualified to stick their noses in the conversations that doctors have with their patients.

I understand that there are those who are adamantly opposed to a woman's right to have an abortion. Ironically, most of them have no problem with the state murdering inmates - but that's another story for another day. Of course most of them are also opposed to the coverage of birth control under the Affordable Care Act - but intellectual consistency has never been the calling card of the far right.

The proposed rule would seem to run afoul of that little thing we refer to as the First Amendment. The rule would impose a limitation on the ability of doctors to speak freely with their patients. It would subject the doctor to penalties should he provide abortion counseling to his patient.

Once again we find the far right cheering on the government's attempt to invade the privacy of its citizens without any apparent irony considering the tea baggers' insistence that the power of the government must be limited.

Death by a thousand cuts?

Last week Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Matthew Sciarrino, Jr. ordered Twitter to hand over three months worth of Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris' tweets and his personal information. Mr. Harris was one of hundreds arrested for holding a protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last October.

Manhattan prosecutors allege that Mr. Harris' tweets during that period belie his contention that he thought the group had police permission to march across the bridge. The tweets, of course, were deleted after the fact.

In his ruling, Judge Sciarrino declared that Mr. Harris had no standing to challenge the district attorney's subpoena for the records as the information was held by Twitter. In the past Twitter has argued that the individual tweeter "owned" the information and had standing to challenge any government requests for the records.

Now Twitter may find itself in the position of being forced to challenge each and every one of those requests itself. If that's the case, just how much longer can Twitter fend off government requests for user information? At what point does it become too expensive to stand up for principle?

But maybe that's the price that is to be paid for the one social media providers that has refused to bend over and grab its ankles when the government comes calling for records. Other firms have opened their doors wide open whenever someone wearing a dark suit, sunglasses and an earpiece comes a-knocking asking for user records. Twitter has been alone in standing up to the government in its attempts to data-mine user information.

So, if you can't get what you want, just make it so damn expensive and inconvenient that that other side finally just says "here, come and get it." That's what the government's strategy is. And that's something that should worry us all.

Because it's not just the content of the tweets that's at issue. It's something that many people still have a hard time coming to grips with in our social media age - once it's online, it's out there for all to see and it doesn't go away. But it's more than just a case of wishing you hadn't tweeted something - it's about the user's personal information, followers, IP addresses and locations.

Maybe you lost your ability to keep your tweets to yourself when you hit that send button, but did the people who follow you lose their freedom of assembly? Does the government have any business digging around to figure out where you were when you sent that tweet? Does the government have any business knowing whose computer you were using?

When Matthew Harris hit that send button, his tweets became as much a part of the public record as if he had stood on a soapbox and spoken through a bullhorn. But that doesn't mean his followers gave up their right to be left alone by the government.

Plead guilty and pass the Bible

We've had our share of judges in Harris County who didn't someone understand the reason the Founding Fathers wanted a separation between church and state. There are plenty of wingnuts out there who think there should be a much closer relationship between the government and their particular religion. Of course if the state were cozying up to a different religion there might be a different response.

Now he have a judge in South Carolina who felt it appropriate to require a defendant in a felony drunk driving case to read the Book of Job and write an essay about it.

Cassandra Tolley has had a rough life. She was abused as a child and set on fire. She was unable to overcome her demons and turned to alcohol. She got drunk and crashed into another car, injuring two people. She pled guilty and the judge, Michael Nettles, sentenced her to eight years in prison followed by five years probation.

Then came the reading assignment.

Ms. Tolley didn't object and the seemingly arbitrary condition was entered into the court's order.

All of the attorneys that were interviewed for the story seemed to think the condition was a stroke of genius on Judge Nettles' part.

No one questioned what business it is of the court's what books a defendant reads. No one questioned what business of the court's it is if and how a person practices religion.

If Ms. Tolley wants to read the Bible and write a book report, great. Have at it. But having that assigned as a condition of her sentence crosses over the line.

Religion has absolutely no place in the courtroom.

Of course there was no problem in this case. It wouldn't have been as big a story if someone had objected. But what about the next defendant? What book of the Bible will Judge Nettles assign next? And the more important question is what happens if a defendant opts not to undergo compulsory bible study? Had Ms. Tolley not accepted her assignment, would her sentence have been more severe?

That's the question that needs to be answered. If the court is handing out a more lenient sentence because a defendant is okay with reading the Bible, that means the court is handing out a more severe sentence to a defendant who doesn't want to participate in the judge's bible study therapy.

And that's the danger of mixing religion and the state. Judge Nettle's sentence is an endorsement by the state of Christianity. What about Muslim or Jewish defendants? Will the judge assign chapters out of the Koran? The Talmud?

The sentence is a step down a slippery slope. A slippery slope that seems so innocent. A slippery slope that most people won't think twice about. And that's why it's such a dangerous precedent.

Lynne Stewart: Warrior

Judges don't necessarily like us. We get in the way. We're the ones who force the state to do things like actually producing evidence.

Sometimes we represent the person who could be your neighbor. Other times we represent people accused of committing heinous crimes.

It takes a certain amount of courage to stand beside your client and tell the judge who has done everything imaginable to try to force your client to enter a plea, that you are announcing ready for trial.

Lynne Stewart did that. Ms. Stewart represented an alleged terrorist. A man the federal government accused of plotting to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. To the world outside the courtroom he was Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind cleric. To Ms. Stewart, he was her client. And she set about defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while representing Mr. Abdel-Rahman to the best of her ability.

Along the way she ran afoul of los federales. While other attorneys were willing to bend to the government's demands. The government told attorneys representing accused terrorists that they could not pass messages from their clients to any third parties - or they couldn't see their clients. The measures were designed to hamper the ability of the attorneys to provide adequate representation. Ms. Stewart wasn't playing that game.

Following her post-conviction work on Mr. Abdel-Rahman's case, Ms. Stewart was indicted for allegedly passing messages from her client to his terrorist network. After a jury convicted her, Ms. Stewart was sentenced to 28 months in prison. After sentence was pronounced she declared that she could do the time standing on her head.

Ms. Stewart appealed the case and the appeals court sent it back for resentencing. The judge, being none too pleased with Ms. Stewart's post-trial remarks, upped her sentence to ten years because he didn't think she was remorseful enough. The Second Court of Appeals then buried their heads in the sand and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding nothing wrong with adding almost eight years to a sentence because someone didn't bow down for the government.

Writes Scott Greenfield:

The choice was sign off on rules that shouldn't constitutionally exist or leave your client effectively unrepresented. Lynne signed off, not because she agreed, but because it was the only way to defend her client.  Faced with a catch-22 (in its truest sense), Lynne did what she had to do to serve the highest purpose of a defense lawyer.  That she falsely affirmed adherence to the SAMs to do was a lesser of evils, where she made the choice of putting the zealous representation of her client ahead of felching the United States government. 

But the second prong of the appellate argument, that she was punished for saying that she could do the sentencen standing on her head introduces a different constitutional right into the mix.  While one defendant was given an extra six months for smiling during sentence, Lynne's sentenced was increased by 92 months for expressing her opinion following her original sentence.

That's right. Ms. Stewart exercised her First Amendment rights and was punished for it. She didn't believe she had done anything wrong and was punished because of it. Ms. Stewart stood up against the government and defended her client. And for that she was punished.

Lynne Stewart is a warrior who did what many of us are afraid to do. She walked to the brink and refused to blink.

Watch what you say

Thanks to the wonders of the Freedom of Information Act, the Daily Mail of London has put together a list of all the words that the Grand Inquisitors at the Department of Homeland Security (which sounds like something straight out of the Third Reich) are on the lookout for day in and day out.

Every day some bureaucrat sits behind a computer terminal sifting through everything that's posted online - just looking for some of these very special words. That's right. Whatever you post on Facebook, Twitter or any other social networking site is being watched.

According to the Daily Mail...

The words are included in the department's 2011 ' Analysts Desktop Binder' used by workers at their National Operations Center which instructs workers to identify 'media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities'.

But, fret not, los federales aren't looking to add your name to their list just because you happen to write disparaging things about the government - or so they say. It is nothing short of ironic that, by most accounts, the most left-leaning president in American history has launched the greatest assault on the people's right to be left alone. No constitutional protection is safe these days.

It's long been said that it took someone like Nixon to make nice with the Chinese (hey, authoritarians just love to hang out with other authoritarians). It follows that it took someone like President Obama to lay waste to privacy rights and due process. It would've been too obvious with Bush.

So, in this day where the government is squeezing our right to free speech - unless you're a corporation or a billionaire who has a few millions to throw at political candidates - it's time to have a little fun. This is the list of words related to domestic security that will raise some eyebrows (and this is only one category - there are plenty more where these came from):

Assassination
Attack
Domestic security
Drill
Exercise
Cops
Law enforcement
Authorities
Disaster assistance
Disaster management
Domestic nuclear detection office
National preparedness
Mitigation
Prevention
Response
Recovery
Dirty bomb
Domestic nuclear detection
Emergency management
Emergency response
First responder
Homeland security
Maritime domestic awareness
National preparedness
Initiative
Militia
Shooting
Shots fired
Evacuation
Deaths
Hostage
Explosion
Police
Disaster medical assistance team
Organized crime
Gangs
National security
State of emergency
Security
Breach
Threat
Standoff
SWAT
Screening
Lockdown
Bomb
Crash
Looting
Riot
Emergency landing
Pipe bomb
Incident
Facility

Here's your challenge. By my count there were 51 words and phrases that the spooks are looking for on social networking sites. Write a short story (no more than 500 words) using as many of these words and phrases as you can. The winning entry will be posted on the blog later this month. I will be the sole judge of who wins and there is no set criteria. The deadline to enter is two weeks from today.

Send those entries to thedefenserestsblog@gmail.com .