The Bionic Man

What is sports? Sports has always been ultimately a competition, man against man (or perhaps woman against woman or team against team) to see who, with the magnificent body they were born with, could achieve victory over a worthy opponent.

Then during the 1970's, there was a very popular television show. Part James Bond, part science fiction (yes, there was even an episode featuring Bigfoot), the show was called the Six Million Dollar Man. It featured Lee Majors, who played the role of Colonel Steve Austin, who in the story almost died in a plane crash and was fitted with artifical legs, an artificial arm, and an artificial eye. Only they were not the usual prostheses. With them, he could run seventy miles per hour, lift cars and throw them out of the way, and watch what people were doing who were hundreds of yards away. Later, the series created a spinoff, called The Bionic Woman, featuring Lindsay Wagner as Jamie Sommers, who had similar replacements to Austin's (except that she got an ear instead of an eye.) In fact, NBC is primed to reach back into the archives and bring back a new version of the Bionic Woman series this fall.

While the series are long since gone, they did introduce a new word to our lexicon: 'bionic,' a word which was used to describe the artificial, robotic prostheses with which they were attached, but now used fairly commonly to describe artificial attachments which are robotic in nature but operate at the direction of a human body and human nerve and muscle stimuli. What made the series remarkable was the idea that such replacements could be made better than the human tissue that they replaced. At the time it seemed remarkable.

Not so anymore. Of course artificial replacement parts, such as wooden peg legs and glass eyes have been around for a long, long time. They have served a mixture of aesthetic purposes and functionality, but no one ever figured that, for example, a person who had lost his or her legs and had artificial ones put on, would ever be as good (or better) than he or she was beforehand.

But now we have the case of sprinter Oscar Pistorius. Pistorius' story is an inspiring one. He was born without fibulas-- the bone that hurts when someone kicks you in the shin-- and when he was less than a year old, his legs were both amputated below the ankle. But Oscar Pistorius had a dream. His dream was to be a great athlete. And he has gotten state of the art prosthetic legs, and has set world records in the 100 meters, 200 meters and 400 meters at the paralympics. But he isn't content to just compete against other athletes with disabilities. So Pistorius has been trying to qualify to run for Great Britain in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

And that has caused some concern with the folks at the International Association of Athletic Federations, the body which governs track and field events internationally. After carefully reviewing recent tapes of Pistorius competing, they have determined that his new prosthetics actually give him an advantage because they have better air resistance than actual human legs. They have not suggested (yet) banning Pistorius from the Olympics (and something tells me that right now they are putting the proverbial finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing before making an announcment on the subject) but certainly the die has been cast-- not only for this year, but for the future.

You see, almost all science fiction sooner or later becomes reality (just read Jules Verne about going to the moon, or about submarines, and you will know what I mean.) About the only thing that is fictional anymore about the 'six million dollar man' is the pricetag-- they never envisioned the cost of health care in the United States. But other than the obvious fact that they theoretically don't want people walking down the street who could rip trees out of the ground, they could probably build parts not much below the level of those in the show today if they wanted to. Certainly the prosthetics they are building are just as good, if not better than what other people have naturally-- and Oscar Pistorius is a great example.

But here is the dilemma: people who are 'differently abled,' for the most part don't want to be considered as such. Hence the push for prostheses which can allow people to do everything that they would want to in a world full of people who don't have their different ability (in fact, the reason Pistorius first started running was that he was recovering from a rugby injury.) They likely don't want to be better than other people, just not different from them. And we have now reached that plateau. But then when we come to the hair's breadth that separates a gold medalist from a silver in the Olympics, how finely tuned can we make that be? For that matter, if Oscar Pistorius had been born with ordinary, or even the best of fibulas, would he have been good enough an athlete to get to this point? Certainly he'd have had the same heart he has now, but the bald fact is that many athletes have heart, but sooner or later most of them run into someone who is just plain a better athlete.

And what of the future? If prosthetics are just as good as human muscle and nerve today, then it stands to reason that it won't be that much longer before standard prosthetics will be much better than human parts. What do you do then? Create an artificial 'Olympics' (just as we've had paralympics for years) for people who can do things that others just can't? That would be a tragic trick for the differently abled-- to no longer be segregated in athletic contests because they weren't physically as good as or able to compete with others, but rather because they were stronger, faster and physically superior athletes than their friends and neighbors. It is already true that the world record for the wheelchair marathon is faster than the record for running a marathon (that has been true for quite a long time now,) but no one suggests that wheelchair marathoners should be eligible to compete against the distance runners in the Olympics.

Beyond that, if things continue as they are, then unlike Pistorius, who is merely competitive (and who recently finished last in a field of elite runners at the British Grand Prix) there is little doubt that prostheses will be developed that will make those who have them better. And if so, might not even some who are not differently abled, but who are just as competitive, maybe even consider having arms or legs amputated just to get the new attachment? Far fetched? Maybe, but if you think that people haven't been willing to do horrible things to their bodies just to get a small competitive edge, then look no farther than the surge of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs (for that matter, if they are competing against people who have become better athletes through robotics, it suddenly becomes a lot harder to point fingers at an athlete who uses steroids or other drugs to 'even the field' by 'improving' their natural body.)

I don't believe, despite what the report said, that Oscar Pistorius is really advantaged significantly by his prostheses, and if he runs and wins it will be a tremendous source of inspiration to millions of people, so I believe the IAAF should allow him to run next year. I also believe he should be allowed to compete (if he earns his place on the British team) because the issue hasn't really been looked at like it should, and it is unfair to punish Pistorius because the IAAF has suddenly figured out that technology has caught up with them.

However, this issue is not going to disappear, in fact it will grow enormously in the near future, so I would also recommend that the IAAF establish a committee now, including world class athletes, medical and coaching professionals and advocates for the disabled who will establish guidelines (maybe specific standards for the prostheses which will be used, just as NASCAR has standards for cars and most other sports where equipment is important, from golf to baseball, have standards for that equipment) that will allow the differently abled to compete on an equal field, but without gaining by virtue of the explosive growth in science, an advantage which is not commensurate with the spirit of sportsmanship.

What is a 'trivial' candidate anyway?

That's a good question, following an open mic exchange between Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and current third place candidate John Edwards at the conclusion of last week's NAACP debate. The exchange, according to CNN, went like this:

The open microphone caught the following exchange:

Clinton: “We’ve got to talk, because they are just being trivialized.”

Edwards: “They are not serious.”

Clinton: “No.”

Clinton: “I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that. That got somehow detoured. We got to get back to it, because that’s all we’re going to do.”

Clinton: “Our guys should talk.”

This is insulting to those of us who plan to vote in the Democratic primary.

To begin with, the field of eight, including the two of them, plus Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson has already been 'selected' by the powers that be from among dozens of announced candidates. To cite one example (a ten year old who clearly knows the score), ever hear about Susie Flynn, Democratic candidate for President? I thought not. Of course the field of eight could be defended in that its members did meet certain qualifying standards before being invited to debates, having eiher been elected at some time to the United States Congress, the United States Senate or as Governor of a state (though Richardson is the only governor and he would qualify anyway as a former congressman.) But exceptions to that bar have been made in the past, as for example four years ago when former General Wesley Clark and civil rights leader Al Sharpton were included in the debates. However, one can certainly argue that members of congress or the Senate or state Governors have been close enough to the top that they have a realistic idea of what the Presidency entails and what it would take to win a campaign for President. Not 'trivial,' in other words. And yes, I do consider all of them to be serious candidates.

Further, among those eight, the only reason why Clinton, Barack Obama and Edwards are the front runners at all is because the national press gave them the most coverage, even before they announced. So the idea that they can claim that they are somehow 'more serious' than the rest of the candidates is also pretty insulting. They have better poll numbers and better fundraising numbers because the news organizations that cover politics assumed they would be the frontrunners before the campaign, which in term gave them higher name recognition which led to higher poll numbers and that in turn becomes a positive cycle of positive publicity, fundraising and polling (though if they don't meet expectations, that can just as quickly become a negative cycle-- just ask John McCain.) But as we get closer to the primary season, voters want to hear from all the candidates and make up their own minds, not just based on poll numbers. As it is, the fundraising advantage that the early frontrunners have will still give them an advantage early next year (the meaningful primary season this year runs from mid-January through February 5). But even a candidate who is now buried in the polls can and has jumped up and made a move at the right moment. Heck, Edwards of all people should know that, since he came from way behind just to finish second in 2004. For that matter, while Clinton is clearly in first place at this point and Obama is clearly in second place in the Democratic primary field, Edwards' hold on third place, while still a given, is not all that secure as Bill Richardson has been moving upward for the past couple of months to the point that he is now much closer to Edwards than he is to Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or Gravel, the neighborhood where his poll numbers were residing about three months ago.

What this shows really is that there is a certain amount of conceit among some of the front runners that 'they' are 'it.' Though to his credit, Obama kept his distance from that exchange between Clinton and Edwards.

And as we all know, pride cometh before the fall.

Georgia District Attorney sends out Kiddie Porn Tape

Recently I did a post on Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia teen who is serving a ten year prison sentence and facing a lifetime as a registered sex offender because he engaged in sexual activity with a girl from the same high school he went to. The Georgia legislature, embarrassed by Wilson's case, passed a new sex offender law that makes it a misdemeanor, rather than a felony when two minors have sexual relations with each other-- but Wilson is still in prison because he was convicted under the old law and Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker is resisting a judicial order to let him go.

Well, I'm sure you remember the old saying about when the 'sh*t hits the fan?' Apparently it has now.

Douglas County District Attorney David McDade has now sent out copies of a pornographic tape shot at a party and used in prosecuting Wilson, which shows several teenage girls (including their faces) as well as Wilson and shows graphic video of teenage sex. He has released it to dozens of media members, organizations and individuals, claiming he was doing it under the state's open records act.

Federal authorities are now saying that McDade may have violated Federal pornography laws by sending the tape out.

McDade, an ally of Baker in keeping Wilson behind bars and serving in the office in which the original case was brought forward, said that the state's open records act left him no choice. But that isn't so, according to Federal authorities:

David Nahmias, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said earlier this week: "We have advised that the videotape at issue constitutes child pornography under federal law and should not be knowingly distributed, received or possessed outside of law enforcement and judicial proceedings."

Nahmias said Tuesday that federal laws prohibiting the distribution or possession of child pornography "are intended to protect the children depicted in such images from the ongoing victimization of having their sexual activity viewed by others, potentially for years to come. ... These federal laws trump any contrary requirement of the state's open records act that may exist."

It seems that in their zest to make Genarlow Wilson an example to deter teenagers from engaging in sexual activity, the Georgia authorities may have themselves been willing to commit felonies. And as prosecutors themselves, there is little doubt that they knew what Federal law was on the subject, even before Nahmias advised them that he considered the tape to be child pornography. And they did it anyway.

If you or I knowingly had in our possession and mailed out copies of a tape that depicted teenagers, with their identities not in the least disguised, engaged in sexual acts, then we would go to prison, probably for decades, and then have to register as sex offenders when we got out. But here we have law enforcement authorities doing the same thing, all in their zeal to defend their original actions in seeking such a harsh sentence for Wilson.

Genarlow Wilson should never have faced felony charges and should not have to register as a sex offender. But maybe those who have prosecuted him, especially David McDade, should.

State Chair resigns

State Chair David Waid sent a letter to all of us who are members of the state committee announcing his resignation as Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Waid, who was just elected to another term as Chair, said that he is resigning to spend more time on his consulting business and with his family.

Some of Waid's opponents were concerned that he might do this back when he ran against Randy Camacho for Chair. However, he was re-elected anyway by an overwhelming margin because of what he did last year. And what did he do? Oh, only helped lead the party to overwhelming victory last year, as not only were the Governor and Attorney General easily re-elected, but Arizona became one of only three states west of the Mississippi where Democrats picked up multiple congressional seats. And he made sure that the 'blue wave' didn't stop there, s Democrats picked up one seat in the state Senate and six state house seats (including beating Cheryl Chase, a former Democrat who picked the wrong year to switch parties.)

He will be missed.

Why I haven't jumped onto the impeachment bandwagon.

These days, it seems that one can't go very far in the liberal blogsphere without running into someone advocating impeachment, of both Bush and Cheney, for the crime of leading the United States into a ruinous war in Iraq. This started a couple of years ago, and I thought it would peter out as the fad of the day, but instead it seems to have grown stronger and picked up adherents. In fact at our next state party meeting in August, a resolution has been put forward by the Progressive Caucus of the Arizona Democratic Party, not only supporting impeachment, but directing the members of our Congressional delegation to support it.

And the thought is certainly appealing and I can understand where the sentiment comes from. It originates in the 2000 election, and the belief (which I share) that this President was never legitimately elected, and used a combination of dirty tricks, luck and a Supreme Court decision to strongarm his way into the White House. Then, once there, he has indeed been guilty of pushing America into a war which it turns out was a vat of acid that has eroded our military capability, our financial wellbeing and the status of the United States as a superpower. On July 2, 2003 he told insurgents then starting to pick off American troops in Iraq, 'bring it on.' For a President to dare an enemy to attack American troops in the field is reckless, cowardly and inexcusable.

Mostly, President Bush has been wrong because his ideology is wrong. The rest of the time, he's been wrong because he is incompetent.

But I oppose impeaching him.

The first reason is because whatever harm he has already done (and it's been an awful lot), he has by now been effectively neutered. He can't even get the members of the Senate from his own party to stand firm in favor of his war. The so-called 'surge,' has had mixed results at best, and has resulted in a rapid approach of the half trillion dollar mark in terms of the cost of this war, and now in three consecutive months it triple digit U.S. military fatalities-- a figure exceeded now five times in the past nine months, but only three times in the three and a half years of war prior to last October. George Bush and Dick Cheney will leave office on January 20, 2009-- scarcely a year and a half down the road-- weakened and with no legacy at all. None. Even Jimmy Carter, who Republicans love to lambaste, left office with the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt, and the passage of a new and comprehensive energy policy (which we'd have been much better off if we'd followed through with) in his bag of mementos.

Beyond that, though, impeaching the President would be unlikely to succeed. Even if you could get enough House Democrats to back it (unlikely for a measure with 10 cosponsors as of this writing), and also back impeachment against Dick Cheney (which would require a completely seperate trial), to convict in the Senate, you'd need the votes of sixteen Republicans (seventeen if Lieberman voted not to convict, which is likely). True, up to ten Republicans have recently raised some concerns about Iraq (with Snowe of Maine, Smith of Oregon and Hagel of Nebraska having outright signed onto a Democratic measure for withdrawal), but that is not the same as signing onto removal from office, and to get up to seventeen is unrealistic. Period. And then you'd have to go through the whole thing all over again and get up to that number again for Cheney. Truth is, I don't see it happening. Besides, if it did then it would end-- not Bush and Cheney's career on January 20, 2009, but rather Nancy Pelosi's career (she'd be compelled by the Constitution to resign from the speakership and become a caretaker President for a year-- and with the party nominee likely chosen by this February, she wouldn't even have the option Gerald Ford had to try and run for a full term.)

Further, it is hard to see what good this could possibly do for us on matters that are important to us. How does impeaching President Bush get us any closer to universal health care, a living wage for all Americans, an end to poverty and most importantly getting us out of Iraq? There is only one way to be sure of the first three-- which is to expand the Democratic majority in Congress and elect a Democratic President next year. Hard to see how impeaching Bush will do either. As to Iraq, Republican Senators are now defecting in numbers that suggest that we could, especially as the election gets closer, be able to put through a real withdrawal bill. But again, it's hard to see how impeachment would help us get that done. It could hurt though, a lot.

I hope we have the good sense to stay focused on what matters-- next year's election. Because if we try to impeach the President, and then on January 20, 2009, a Republican is taking the oath of office, we would only have ourselves to blame.

Bush administration's ideology was more important than your family's health

So says former Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

WASHINGTON — President Bush's first surgeon general testified Tuesday that his speeches were censored to match administration political positions and that he was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem cell research and teen pregnancy prevention.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard H. Carmona, who was surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation — not the doctor of a political party."

Early in the administration, when the issue of federal funding for stem cell research arose, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role by discussing the latest scientific research. Instead, he said, he was told to "stand down" because the White House already had made a decision to limit stem cell studies. He said administration appointees who reviewed his speech texts deleted references to stem cells.

Carmona's remarks were the latest in a series of complaints from government scientists about what they say are administration efforts to control — and sometimes distort — scientific evidence in order to support policy decisions.

NASA scientists have complained, for example, of political pressure to tone down warnings about global warming. Environmental Protection Agency officials have complained that technical information on such subjects as power plant emissions and oil drilling have been ignored.

Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, recently dissented from the administration's position by saying its restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were holding back progress and should be lifted.

Scientists outside the government also have complained about what some call the administration's "war on science."

In the case of the surgeon general, Carmona told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, "the reality is that the nation's doctor has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget, and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas."

It is true that in the past some surgeon generals have felt some political pressure, including at least two who also testified with Carmona, --former Surgeon Generals C. Everett Koop (Reagan) and David Satcher (Clinton), but as Carmona testified, other former surgeon generals told him that they had never seen the level of ideological interference that he has experienced from the Bush administration.

If, as the administration claims, embryonic stem cell research holds no hope for curing diseases, then why wouldn't they want the Surgeon General to tell us about all the research he's seen on it? And, if as they claim, abstinence only is the program best suited for preventing teen pregnancies, then again why wouldn't they want the Surgeon General to tell us about the research backing them up?

Obviously, the answer is because they have seen the resarch, and know it doesn't square with their ideological position. So, they will force the messenger to square with it anyway.

USOC apologizes for Congo joke in Brazil.

It would be easy to blame the fact that the rest of the world perceives Americans as arrogant, prejudiced and in denial of reality on President Bush and the Iraq war, perhaps along with anti-immigration hardliners. But that would be too convenient. And it would also be an oversimplification. At most, all Bush and the anti-immigration crowd have done is confirmed and strengthened feelings that have existed towards Americans for years.

It is a prevalent opinion around the world, and opinions like that have to be earned. And so it was today, after the United States Olympic Committee, shortly after arriving in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, had to apologize for the actions of one of their workers who scrawled, 'Welcome to Congo,' on a message board, apparently comparing Brazil with the war and poverty torn central African country.

SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- In a joke that made Brazilians cringe and forced the U.S. Olympic Committee to apologize, a USOC worker scrawled "Welcome to the Congo!" on a board in the organization's Rio de Janeiro media center for the Pan American Games.

Rio's O Globo newspaper published a photo of the message on its front page Saturday, and ran a headline saying the joke was "full of prejudice." The message was condemned in a nation extremely sensitive about being compared to less-developed countries, especially by Americans -- who often are perceived as arrogant by Brazilians.

The controversy occurred as American athletes arrived in Latin America's largest country to compete in the event that starts Friday.

The USOC issued a "deep apology to the people of Brazil and Rio de Janeiro" in a statement Saturday, and said the worker who wrote the phrase was disciplined and is no longer a member of the U.S. delegation to the games.

And on top of that, even when trying to explain the 'joke' away, a USOC member also made us look like wimps:

The picture in O Globo showed USOC media employee Kevin Neuendorf in front of the whiteboard, and the story quoted him as saying it was written because "it's really hot in Rio."

O Globo noted that Rio is in the middle of its South American winter, and that the USOC office at the games is air conditioned. The average temperature in July in Rio is 78 degrees -- on Saturday, the temperature was in the low 80s.

translation: 80 degrees to an American is 'really hot.' And those are supposed to be our athletes! This is embarrassing.

I'm glad that the USOC made an apology to Brazil (which is not such a backwards country as some uneducated Americans may think-- the living standard in Brazil is probably about what it was in the U.S. twenty or thirty years ago, and most Brazilians now have access to the internet.

I might also suggest that they make an apology to the people of Congo (who are probably too preoccupied with trying to keep alive to have paid much attention to this story, but we should apologize anyway.) After decades of the tyrannical, corrupt and despotical rule of the dictator Mobutu ended about a decade ago, Congo has been wracked by war, violence, anarchy and starvation, in which the only attention the world pays to the country is when they also have the occasional outbreaks of Ebola. Congo is a tragedy, not a joke.

Attitudes like those held by the Brazilians can be stoked overnight by comments like these, and they aren't easy to erase.

Genarlow Wilson isn't a pedophile, and he should't be treated as one.

Genarlow Wilson needs to go free now. Period.

Teenagers will fool around sometimes. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and I advise my own kids to wait, and warn them about the dangers of AIDS, other STD's and the potential for pregnancy. I tell them about safe sex, but also tell them that I hope they wait. But the fact is, high school sex does happen, and when it does, it's not a felony.

Except that it was a felony when Genarlow Wilson, then seventeen, had consensual sexual relations with a fifteen year old girl who went to the same high school as he did.

Under Georgia's strict sexual predator act, he was charged four years ago with sexual assault on a teenager and slapped with a ten year prison sentence (where he is today) and told that when he gets out, he will have to register as a sex offender.

Largely because of his case, Georgia legislators softened the law and made it a misdemeanor when two minors engage in sexual relations with each other. But that doesn't help Wilson, who was convicted under the old law.

One man has been instrumental in keeping Wilson behind bars: Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker. Whether he is trying to prove he is tough on crime, or whether he is trying to curry favor with those 'values' voters who feel that any kind of teenage sex is so evil that it is worth throwing a man's future away in order to make a point, Baker has refused to budge and insists that Wilson serve out his entire term, and then register as a pedophile.

I'm not going to go into the racial angle here, as it has been reported on ad nauseum (Wilson, the girl he was with and Baker are all black; it is fair though to ask whether those voters who are so concerned about the 'morality' aspect of this would be as insistent on keeping him there if he were white.) I also will resist the urge to speculate on whether this case would ever have gone to trial if the girl were the seventeen year old and the boy was fifteen.

Instead I am going to focus on the substance of the charges. The Georgia legislature frankly didn't go far enough in 'fixing' their law. If the pair had waited for a few months, then she would have been sixteen and he would have been eighteen and even under the new law he would have been considered guilty of a felony. The fact is that this case cheapens sexual predator laws. We need tough sexual predator laws to protect children (both teenagers and younger kids) from 45 year old perverts hanging out on the internet, or the really nice guy who gives candy out down the street, or Uncle Lester who is always volunteering to watch the kids when the parents are gone. We know intuitively what a sexual predator is. It is a much older adult who takes advantage of a child who is not yet mentally or emotionally mature enough to comprehend the consequences of sex. Maybe it is a rapist, or maybe it is someone who likes to touch the girls where they ought not to be touched. But we know what one is.

We should also know what one isn't. Two years difference in age doesn't qualify for slapping the 'pedophile' label on someone for the rest of their life. Heck, I'm two years older than my wife. Does that make me a pervert? No? What if we'd met in high school? We didn't, but I know people, now happily married, who did meet in high school. And guess what? One of them is always a little older. I know, that sounds astonishing, but it's true.

Frankly, labelling Genarlow Wilson as a sex predator will, if it happens, make sex predators sound not as threatening as they should.

I realize that there is a need to draw a line somewhere, but it seems as though Canadians and some others have the right idea when they have written in a 'near-age exemption' into their laws. Three to five years seems reasonable. True, that could lead in a worst case scenario to an eighteen year old adult legally having sexual relations with a thirteen year old, but anything less than that seems to risk repeating what has happened here.

Governor's move was brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

A little while ago, I blogged on Governor Napolitano's decision to sign the very tough employer sanctions bill that the legislature passed after it was pushed primarily by hardcore anti-immigration GOP hardliners. I briefly alluded to the political impact of her decision, but as I've thought about it, I've realized how truly brilliant her move was, and how it warrants another post.

In Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Mr. Chekov and companion are surprised to meet Khan on a world they thought was deserted. Though Khan has not seen anyone from outside for years, he thinks at first that Chekov may have come to his world by intent. But then he realizes that they landed on the wrong planet, and he says, in an excited but subdued voice, strengthened by sudden realization of discovery and advantage, "You didn't expect to find me!"

And so it is here. I could almost hear the Governor saying with a feeling of victory under her breath as she read the sanctions bill, 'Ah, I see... you didn't expect me to sign this bill.'

After vetoing scores of the legislature's most draconian bills since taking office in 2002 (and making every single one of those vetoes stand) the Governor has largely muzzled the legislature's conservative leaders. They still try to pass a lot of bills that have veto-bait written all over them, mostly to embarrass the Governor or perhaps to get her on record (a record they can distort) for 2010 in the event that she runs for the Senate.

And I believe that was the case here. Governor Napolitano has said before that the way to deal with immigration is to get tough on people who hire undocumented workers. So the legislature decided to call her bluff and pass this piece of legislation so she'd veto it and then they could cite it when they went after her on immigration sometime in the future. Her past defense of vetoing immigration bills has been that it is a Federal responsibility (which is true, in fact.) But after last week's defeat of the Federal immigration bill they would be able to hit her with the failure of the Federal government to act.

Only, they were sure that she would veto it. After all, she invariably vetos any bill that is this draconian in its effects and she has always maintained decent relations with the business community in the state. So when they wrote the bill they didn't bother to exempt anyone who has a business license. They wrote in some ridiculous figures-- $100,000 to maintain a statewide database AND cover statewide enforcement of the law, and $70,000 to educate employers all over the state about it. County attorneys get $2.5 million-- spread among all 16 counties in the state-- which is supposed to cover the cost of hiring people to investigate and prosecute these cases. In other words they didn't think much through. Why waste time working very hard on a bill that is going to be vetoed anyway?

So they thought.

Then she signed it. And announced that she is likely to call a special session to deal with the glitches. So much for the 'part time legislature.' They will be back in August or September for what could be a very rocky session.

And she holds all the cards. In exempting infrastructure, there is little they can argue. They don't really want their constituents to freeze in the dark this winter when the electric company closes up shop. They don't want to be closing hospitals.

They will of course want to exempt private schools (at least those which are run as for profit businesses) so they don't have to comply with a law that the public schools won't have to worry about the consequences of. But right now, the private schools will be hit with the new law, and I have a feeling the Governor will demand a stiff price for exempting them (wonder how much of a split that one is causing in the GOP caucus, since some members are very committed to private schools and 'educational choice,' and are probably furious at their own leaders for getting them to vote for this package which has now come back and gored their own ox.) Getting rid of the flawed database requirement and going back to Social Security cards may be one price that she demands.

The funding is the other big issue here. $170,000 might pay for the computers the database is to be maintained from. It certainly won't cover the employees or resources necessary to educate and then enforce the law on employers statewide. For $2.5 million total, the county attorneys won't be able to investigate and prosecute more than a few really egregious cases. Only, the state budget has already been passed for this year. And at that, the slump in the housing market (to say nothing of what this bill will do-- certainly not cause a short term economic boom) is likely to bring revenue projections down. So she holds all the cards again-- she can simply insist that the legislature leave the already approved budget for this year alone, and find their own funding sources. In other words, they can choose between in effect gutting their own law (essentially keeping it on paper with no one out there enforcing it) or raising the revenue to fund it. She can point out the disaster that happened in the early 2000's when the state took money out of the rainy day fund, and the prospect of a near-term slowdown and refuse to accept that as a source of revenue. Bonds, as have been used in the past to finance things like school construction are generally backed by real assets, so she can refuse to allow the legislature to borrow by way of bonding for that reason. The Governor, who ran in 2002 on a pledge to ask for tax increases only as a last resort, has not once in five years asked for one. And she won't need to now. But she can close all the other doors and in effect force the GOP hardliners who control the legislature to either fail to enforce their own pet bill or raise taxes to pay for it.

On top of that, business leaders, while maintaining a cordial relationship with the Governor, have given Republicans-- even hard core loonies like Pearce-- their support, including their financial support. Of course the Governor has always protected them from some of the more ridiculous bills they passed, such as the law which she vetoed this week which would have required all businesses to buy storage lockers for customers to store their guns. In their Republican pipe dream, they can think about how great having a GOP legislature is while they shovel money at them without having to worry about some of the most odious requirement that they pass on to businesses. If it's too bad, Janet will take care of it. Only this time she didn't. Wonder how much they will donate to Pearce next time around? This bill drives a wedge between Republicans in the legislature and some of their most reliable supporters.

Certainly, had the Federal bill passed last week, Governor Napolitano would have had all the cover she needed to veto the bill. But since she didn't, she has dealt a blow to private schools, is forcing the business community to realize the true cost of supporting some legislators who represent the fringes, and may force Republicans to be the ones to raise taxes.

Not a bad political payout for a day's work.

Governor surprises legislature, signs tough employer-sanctions bill

This week, Governor Napolitano citing the failure of the Federal government to address the issue, signed the new employer sanctions bill (House Bill 2779), which makes Arizona the toughest state in the nation against employers who hire undocumented workers. Employers will be mandated, starting in January, to check job applicants against an existing database which contains the names of workers authorized to work legally in Arizona. If a business hires someone illegally then the new law would put a business on probation for a first offense and permanently revoke their business license for a second offense.

On balance, I agree with the Governor. I've always said that the problem is not the undocumented aliens themselves, the large majority of whom after all have only done what generations of American pioneers have always done, and come looking for opportunity-- and the argument that they are 'illegal' could be reversed in a few minutes with the stroke of a pen adjusting the numbers of legal immigrants to something bearing a resemblance to the market based reality that we now see, with hundreds of thousands of Arizonans here illegally but also working. Rather the problem is with illegal employment, in that employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers often do so in order to gain a competitive advantage by exploiting laborers who cannot complain (for fear of deportation) about abusive work standards, below minimum wage pay, sexual harrassment and other types of exploitation. The new bill goes a long way towards protecting workers against that kind of stuff by putting those who engage in it at risk of losing their business.

There are some problems with the bill though. The Governor also cited the need to call a special legislative session in her signing message in which she identified five problems with the legislation. There is also one other that conservatives will certainly try to address, once they realize what they've just done to one of their own pet causes, private schools.

The first issue cited by the Governor is that there is no exemption for utilities, hospitals, nursing homes and other businesses critical to infrastructure. Clearly such an exemption will have to be written into the law since if a single mistake is made, it could, in a worst case scenario lead to large numbers of people going without electricity, gas or water for extended periods of time (though one benefit is it might make people understand a little better how life is for other Americans who still don't have basic utilities courtesy of fiscal conservatism, specifically when Ronald Reagan shut down the Rural Electrification Administration beginning in 1986 in order to save a few bucks.) Another result of this oversight, if it is not corrected is that it could cause hospitals to shut down with patients presumably being forced to walk out of there and go to other hospitals. One other area that the Governor did not specifically recommend but which needs to be dealt with-- state contractors. Though the state itself does not have a business license and so is effectively immune from making bad decisions under the law, if a state contractor, say providing prison guards or working on a state highway project were suddenly shut down by this provision the results could still be disastrous.

On the other hand, it appears that the proponents of the bill (led by anti-immigrant Godfather Russell Pearce who wrote the legislation) probably expected a veto, because it also doesn't exempt private schools, many of which do have a business license. This added requirement on private schools will help level the playing field (since the state presently makes public schools jump through all kinds of hoops that many private schools do not have to jump through.) And you can be sure that there are advocates of public schools, especially teachers unions, who will now have and will certainly use this as a weapon to bludgeon private schools with and maybe put some out of business.

Her fourth point is my second one: the concern that the law could be discriminatory. Certainly it is true that employers are less likely to take a chance on people whose names suggest they might be immigrants from parts of the world where that is controversial (especially Latin America, the Middle East and China.) And this is a legitimate concern. There are many legitimate workers, legal immigrants, or people who were in fact born right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. named Pedro or Mohammed. But most businesses are still more likely now to want to hire Peter and Moe. True, the supply of jobs is large enough that there will still be some openings when the supply of Peters and Moes is used up (in fact that is why we have so many undocumented immigrants in the first place) but asking that Pedro and Mohammed move to the back of the line means that they are still less likely to be hired, and if they are they will be hired for the jobs that Peter and Moe turned down in favor of a better one that is no longer available.

Further, the database that employers are supposed to check prospective hires against is unreliable. This week, the Arizona Republic reported that there is a 4% error rate in the database. This means that tens of thousands of legal workers, even U.S. citizens, may discover all of a sudden that they can't work in Arizona. This represents 1 out of every 25 legal workers in the state (think of it this way-- if you work at, say, a small to midsized company that employs 200 people, what would you think if eight of them were suddenly told they were fired and could not even get another job in the state, because a computer someplace didn't list them as authorized to work? Heck, you might even be one of the eight.

Clearly this database is flawed. My own suggestion would be to throw it out and go back to the traditional way of checking eligibility-- with social security cards, etc. Yes, this is subject to fraud, and yes some errors will still be made, but the documented error rate of the present system in the past is actually less than in the state database, and continuing to use the present system will be no more discriminatory than it is today. The main thrust of the bill was the employer sanctions, and getting rid of the database and continuing to require verification of documents as grounds for deciding who to hire would have nothing to do with that. In any case, it appears as though opponents of the database plan to take it to court, so even if the legislature doesn't fix this one, I'd be really surprised (and dismayed) if the database was used next January 1 as scheduled.

Another problem that the Governor cited had to do with the fact that a single bad hiring decision at one location could put a business with multiple locations out of business. Personally, I am not all that upset about this-- if only because as regular readers of this blog know, I don't think much of the way Wal-Mart, in particular conducts its business, and having been guilty of hiring illegal aliens in the past, this law may have its intended effect and limit the ability of Wal-Mart to knowingly exploit its workers in a major way. The prospect of having to shutter every store in the state should be sufficient to make Wal-Mart comply with the law (protecting its own, as well as its competitor's employees). However, I'd think that the prospect of even having to close them one at a time would be good enough to make Wal-Mart comply with the law. And I would agree, that to force for example, a statewide chain (or a national chain with many outlets in Arizona) to close all its locations because the manager at one of them screwed up is a bit Draconian. I have to admit though, that the thought of Wal-Mart not only being forced to close every store in Arizona, and then never being able to open another one, almost made 'Draconian' sound good (though clearly if that happened tens of thousands of people would be thrown out of work in a day, so I still don't favor it covering all locations.)

A third problem that the Governor cited (the fourth one I am addressing) is simply the lack of funding. Again, it appears that the authors of the bill expected a veto, so they put only token amounts into it to cover enforcement and education for the whole state. So during the special session the Governor will ask them to pony up the funds. And here is an interesting twist: She now has the high ground on the issue, and may insist that the funds be provided without taking them from elsewhere in the state budget (which has already been allocated.) She might even force the legislature to raise taxes for the first time in years-- and without even specifically calling for a tax increase, just in effect telling them they need to find a way to fund it.

The fifth change she recommended had to do with an incorrect citation of Federal law, and I doubt if changing it will be controversial.

As I said, looking at the private school issue and the funding issue, I am sure that Pearce and the GOP legislature expected the Governor to veto this bill (as she vetoed a record 43 bills last year, and could be expected to veto pretty much anything that Russell Pearce wrote,) presumably so they could use it against her in the future. Instead it seems as though she played chicken with them and won, so it will be interesting to see during the special session that she calls how they plan to address these and the other issues that she raised.

Declaration of Independence plaque miscredits the author

Students will return to schools this fall here in Arizona and find something new. Last year, Republicans in the legislature pushed through a flag bill-- a bill requiring that classrooms in both grade schools and colleges and universities all display an American flag, together with a copy of the Declaration of Independence and a copy of the Bill of Rights. Only they didn't provide the necessary funding for it, so the schools had to dig into their already thin supply budgets to pay for the new decor.

Now, I grew up with a flag on the wall in the classroom, and don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with the idiots who believe that the way to make people better citizens is to simply force the flag in their face as often as possible, mandating it and then not being willing to pony up the money for it.

However, I do believe that whatever is displayed in the classroom should be factually accurate.

Let's consider what the students may learn from this, if they get bored and start looking at the flag and reading the documents. They may learn that the flag has thirteen stripes and fifty stars. They may learn that the police have to get a warrant, or that they are protected against being compelled to incriminate themselves. They may learn that the colonists thought that being compelled to quarter British soldiers was a justification for rebellion. And they may learn that the Declaration of Independence was written by John Hancock.

WHAT?!?

At least that is the reaction that I had today when I went back to work at the community college where I work and found the Declaration on the wall. Down at the bottom, after the last word of the Declaration, it clearly said:

-- John Hancock

Now John Hancock was indeed a patriot, and he was at Independence Hall when the Declaration was drafted. His name is often associated with the Declaration because he signed it first, and being proud of his calligraphy, he signed his name large. But after that, the other fifty-five men who took part also signed their names. He is no more the author of the Declaration of Independence than any of them. They should put all 56 names, if they put one. But if they insist that there is only room for one, then it still should not be Hancock, it would properly be Thomas Jefferson, by whose hand the document was in fact written.

For a school to put something up on its wall which is wrong may be a mistake, or they may not notice it until they've bought the plaques (and you can be sure if the legislature wouldn't appropriate funds to pay for this the first time, they certainly would not appropriate funds to fix the problem.) I still would suggest that it should come down, because learning wrong facts is actually harmful to students. But for the company that makes the plaque, presumably one of their specialties, to make such a basic and stupid mistake is inexcusable. The best explanation I can come up with is that since schools are having to pay for this themselves, they are finding the cheapest supplier. And cheap is usually cheap for a reason.

But that's our fine educational system, courtesy of our skinflint legislature for you.

So next time you hear another dismal statistic about how Arizona school kids are doing, keep in mind that the legislature is helping them get there, in this case directly helping them get there.

Rudy already making political hay out of Glasgow attack

Though Glasgow Airport's main terminal is still closed as police search for clues among the smouldering remains of a Jeep, it apparently isn't too soon for GOP Presidential contenders to start making hay out of it, in a misguided attack at that.

Touching on a theme which is popular with GOP primary voters, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani attacked immigrants and said the attack shows we need a strong immigration policy.

You mean, like for example an immigration policy that actually would let us know who is in the country? That is one thing that would have come out of the immigration bill that was defeated this week, since one provision would have required that immigrants who entered the country wanting work permits would have to register and notify authorities of where they were from and where they were going. Undocumented residents currently in the U.S. -- people we know so little about that even the number is only estimated to be between 12 and 20 million-- would have to pay a fine and could then obtain a permit to work legally-- and hence we'd have a record of them.

Or is Rudy trying to appeal to the more extreme elements in his party, you know the folks who like to talk about building a wall around the country, mass deportations and throwing people in prison for trying to get a job?

I agree that the fact that there are still terrorists means that we need to do a better job, among other things, of policing the border, but that should be part of a comprehensive, not just 'tougher' immigration policy.

Terror war continues with attack in Scotland.

Three days ago, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been in office for a decade, relinquished control of the office to fellow Labor party leader Gordon Brown.

And right on cue, two car bombs were apparently primed to go off in London (though both were found and defused) and today a Jeep Cherokee was set on fire and deliberatly rammed into the main terminal at Glasgow Airport (though so far none of the terrorist plots has resulted in any injuries, and two men were arrested in connection with the incident today.) Prime Minister Brown has raised the terror level in Britain in response.

This makes several things clear:

1. The war against terror is still being fought. While it is unforunate that Blair and Bush screwed up and invaded Iraq and thereby diverted our attention, resources and time from the matter of fighting terrorists, they are still out there and we still have to be vigilant.

2. The timing of these attacks-- obviously timed to send a message both to Blair (that he had failed to prevent them) and to Brown (that Britain remains a target) suggests that terrorists have learned to use the political calendar to their advantage (as we also saw in the Spanish train bombings) and as such we can probably expect some sort of effort made in the United States next year during the Presidential election season, or if they can't swing that, then perhaps shortly after the inauguration. Of course it took eight years between the first and second World Trade Center bombings, and so the first year of the next President's term would be pretty much on the schedule they've used in the past.

3. The fact that the first two attacks were thwarted and the third attack in Britain failed to produce any injuries or major damage is partly because citizens themselves have become much more vigilant, and notice what is going on before them.

4. 'If we are fighting them over there, they won't be able to launch attacks elsewhere.' Might have been true had we continued to make Afghanistan the number 1 priority, but obviously making Iraq a priority hasn't crimped them much.

As I've said numerous times, the U.S. conquest of Iraq was a huge mistake in the context of the global war on terror, but regardless of how anyone feels about Iraq, the real terrorists are still around, and we should not forget them or give them a break.

Fact Check: facts in 'Sicko' are accurate

Last time Michael Moore released a movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, critics on the right accused him of lying about the mismanagement of the War on Terror and how we got into Iraq. So, he offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could document an error in the whole movie. To date, despite righties crawling all over it like ants on a dead bird, only a single inaccuracy was ever found-- an inadvertent one at that, in which a newspaper headline was transposed with the wrong date in a way which was of minor significance to the movie itself.

So it should come as no surprise that a fact check of 'Sicko,' while at times criticizing Moore for not putting some things in context (see my last post) verifies that his facts are pretty accurate.

The right can and will criticize Moore as biased (which most of us on the left will readily admit, just I would say this blog is biased because it reflects my own views), as motivated by profit (funny that the right has suddenly decided that being rich is a sin, at least when it is Michael Moore who has become rich), and as quoting facts out of context (though when he quotes facts like the Institute of Medicine's figure that 18,000 people per year die in America as a direct cause of not getting adequate health care because they are uninsured, it's hard to imagine what 'context' exactly would make that an acceptable number.) But if they criticize him by calling him a 'liar,' then you can be sure that they don't know what they are talking about.

Why does it take a Michael Moore to do what the News isn't doing anymore?

As soon as I have an opportunity, I plan to go see Sicko, Michael Moore's new documentary. I figure with all the conservatives who claim they won't be going, I should be able get a pretty good seat.

Sicko is Moore's fourth major documentary. The first three, which made Moore a very rich man, were Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11.

Are Moore's documentaries biased? Of course they are. They certainly do only tell one side of the story. On the other hand, documentaries historically do tell a story that isn't being told; and the people on the other side, usually the rich and the powerful, generally have been telling their story for a very long time, maybe not to us but certainly they've been telling it to Congressmen and Senators, and maybe even to Presidents. Besides, documentary makers have an easy out when it comes to telling the other side of the story. All they need do is invite the people on the other side to come and be interviewed. They may accept, but if they do they will certainly be confronted with some of the very embarrassing situations that are likely to be profiled on the documentary and asked some questions that there is no good answer for (the truth would be about the worst one they could give.) They could decline (in which case you will hear a line about how 'so and so was invited but declined a request for an interview,' or they did not respond-- and still have that noted.) Of course Moore used a third option in some of his earlier documentaries, literally hounding and peppering with questions people who weren't willing to be interviewed otherwise.

Why is Moore making documentaries?

That's easy. Because the people who should make them, the major news networks, have quit doing their job. Documentaries are supposed to bring us the stories that aren't being told, they should be the media getting behind the scenes and giving us the picture that someone else would rather that we not see. Years ago, there were some great documentaries made by CBS, ABC and NBC. The best examples are Harvest of Shame, the 1960 gold standard by which all documentaries are measured, in which Edward R. Murrow profiled the plight of migrant farmworkers, and Hearts and Minds, the 1974 documentary directed by Peter Davis about the Vietnam war that largely provided a new framework for how we talk about war, especially guerilla conflicts.

Were those documentaries controversial? Absolutely. Were they biased? Perhaps, though (like Moore) they provided raw facts and first hand footage, not edited to make it easier to swallow or sugar coated so Aunt Sophie wouldn't lose her appetite.

But today, the major news networks hardly ever make anything that could be called a 'documentary' anymore. So Moore (and last year, Al Gore who inconveniently for the right stepped in when Moore was taking a year off putting together 'Sicko') are merely filling a niche that has been vacated by the news media who should be guardians of the news, and who should be telling the untold stories.

So the real question isn't about Michael Moore, it is why have the major networks quit making documentaries? Is it because they are afraid of controversy? Maybe, although they certainly don't seem to have a problem with controversy when it comes to pushing the envelope with how much sexual innuendo they can put on TV, or if it is of the Jerry Springer/Montel Williams variety. Is it that they don't have the staff to do it anymore? Perhaps, but then why do they have so many reporters devoted to telling us every detail of what is going on with Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Tom Cruise? Is it because they aren't cost effective? Maybe, and it is true that it costs a lot more to send a reporter and film crew to some small town in the jungle someplace than it costs to film another vapid sitcom in studio 17-B. But Moore has made a ton of cash from people plonking down their money to see his documentaries, which suggests that the networks could get some decent ratings and turn a profit from them if they wanted to.

I think though that the real reason why the news networks have gotten out of the documentary business and left it to Moore is because they are no longer independent corporations. CBS is owned by Time-Warner, ABC is owned by Disney, NBC is owned by General Electric and FOX is part of the corporate empire of Rupert Murdoch. The truth is, while for the most part the corporate leadership doesn't interfere with the news divisions in any of these companies, when it comes to influencing public policy they do. A good well put together documentary can do a great deal to influence public debate and policy on an issue (as Harvest of Shame did, and as Hearts and Minds, which was finished too late to influence Vietnam, has influenced the way we think about civilian populations and modern warfare. And the truth be told, the corporate titans really don't want to rock the boat and influence public policy other than by their own very deliberate lobbying and campaign donations.

Now they are probably thinking, if they could just figure out a way to buy Michael Moore....

Fifty years ago, still the same... or is it?

One side of a school yard has a shady tree. It is a segregated school yard, and only white kids have been allowed on the side with the shady tree. Black kids have their patch on the other side of the yard.

So a few black kids formally ask the school administration for permission to go to the other side of the yard and sit under the tree. It is granted.

So the next day black students arrived at school to see that the tree had been decorated for their arrival. With three hangman's nooses.

The school superintendent overrules the principal on punishment for the white students who put the nooses there and suspends the students for three days, calling the nooses "a prank."

After the slap on the wrist punishment is handed out, racial tensions quickly escalate, including fights and arson (no arrests yet in the arson which partially destroyed the school.) Then a black student is beaten when he shows up at an all-white party. No one was charged.

Three days later a white student confronted three black students in the parking lot of a convenience store and pointed a shotgun at them. The black students defended themselves by wrestling the shotgun away from the offender. Charges were filed-- against the three black youths for aggravated battery and theft for taking the gun away. The white man who pointed the gun at them was not arrested and was never charged with a crime.

Then a group of black youth beat a white kid senseless as he was leaving the gym on December 4. Remember that no charges were filed for the beating at the party. But this time charges are filed-- for attempted second degree murder, which is likely to land the kids who did the beating in prison for up to 100 years apiece. In other words, effectively a life sentence for doing exactly the same thing as resulted in no charges at all just a few days earlier when the victim was black and the perps were white. Of course the six black students who are accused of the beating should be charged with a serious felony-- without a doubt this is aggravated battery, but charges should be filed both proportionately (which attempted murder leading to life in prison is disproportionate) and against anyone who commits the same crime.

Louisiana in 1957? No, Louisiana in 2007.

What amazes me most about this is how most of the townspeople (well, the white ones anyway) don't think they have a race problem.

The district attorney declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this story. But other white leaders insist there are no racial tensions in the community, which is 85 percent white and 12 percent black.

"Jena is a place that's moving in the right direction," said Mayor Murphy McMillan. "Race is not a major local issue. It's not a factor in the local people's lives. "

Still others, however, acknowledge troubling racial undercurrents in a town where only 16 years ago white voters cast most of their ballots for David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran unsuccessfully for Louisiana governor.

I will say that a later quote in the article appears to only tell part of what Pentecostal Minister Eddie Thompson wrote in his essay so I will link the entirety of his original essay here: The Battle Against Racism in Jena, Louisiana he adds a note of explanation at the beginning in which he writes in part:

I have decided to keep the article here and add this explanation: I believe that racism, bigotry, and hatred exist in our community just as it does in villages, towns, and cities all across the United States, North and South. I reject the notion that our local law enforcement, governmental, and educational institutions perpetuate these fruits of wickedness. In fact, I believe those institutions in Jena have lead the way in correcting the imbalances caused by racism concerning equal rights for all. Opportunities exist for all people of all races in our community under the law. Personally, I have not found the local courts to be biased in judgment nor the school system to prevent advancement from anyone based on race. However, you cannot change the heart of anyone through legislation; education alone will not undo bigotry or hatred instilled from birth. Unless we deal with the spirit of our people, we will never learn the grace and mercy of God towards those less fortunate in life...

And then copy the quote taken from the linked Chicago Daily Herald article (one question arises, if the author of the Chicago Daily Herald article was publishing online, why not link directly to the online article quoted?)

I’ve lived here most of my life, and the one thing I can state with absolutely no fear of contradiction is that LaSalle Parish is awash in racism: True racism.

Thompson, obviously a conservative minister (who I would probably agree with on very little, but I commend how he handled this situation) then goes on to describe how he attended a healing meeting for the town in another article The Battle Against Racism in Jena Hijacked) and writes in part,

What an amazing sight it was! There was the United Pentecostal preacher standing with the Baptist pastor, seeking the hand of God for our children. There was the black minister lifting his voice with the white minister to sing praises to our King. The principal of Jena High School was thrilled to see us there on his campus, politically correct or not, calling on the Name of Jesus for mercy and for grace. The Superintendent of Schools caught the spirit and preached like a Bible-thumping evangelist from a rickety pulpit. The “congregation” of our city gathered together in one accord to fight the spiritual wickedness that has bound us for so long. Perhaps the most touching moment of all was when the students, black and white, suddenly joined together on the football field and sang the alma mater hand in hand, special emphasis given to the line that states, "God keep safe thy fame." All convention was set aside for the higher purpose of finding answers. We called on our Savior to set the captives, all of us, free. In all my years I never saw it such in Jena, Louisiana.

I hope that the citizens of this town solve their problem together. However, a little media spotlight, showing whether they are successful or not, won't hurt.

Because there is still racism in America, and what the citizens of Jena now (finally) appear to be doing (though we will see how this turns out).

Supreme Court decides High School Principal outranks the First Amendment.

Quite a few years ago I was involved in helping to organize a union one of my former work places. At one point we decided that we wanted to have a peaceful picket and demonstration. So we petitioned management to allow us to demonstrate in a courtyard outside of their offices. They refused, so we picketed and demonstrated on a sidewalk, which in fact was along a road that major road that ran right through the middle of our workplace. In the end the management backed down and backed off of the specific decision they had made which prompted the demonstration, in no small part because of the citywide press coverage that the demonstration got (they'd have been much better off if they had approved the original site.)

The reason the sidewalk was chosen was very plain: it was public access. It was the one place on-site where management had no legal sway, and by law we had the right to demonstrate as long as we did so in a manner that did not block access for anyone else wanting to use the sidewalk or interfere with traffic.

And that is what makes today's Supreme Court decision very troubling. By a 6-3 majority, the court ruled to restrict free speech by students on a public sidewalk.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student Monday in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case -- a split decision that limits students' free speech rights.

Joseph Frederick was 18 when he unveiled the 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his Juneau, Alaska, high school in 2002.

Principal Deborah Morse confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, taking his case all the way to the nation's highest court.

The justices ruled 6-3 that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner...

"It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

The substance of the banner is irrelevant. Either this student (and by implication all students, or all people) have a right to express their views in public, or they don't. In the end it is that simple.

Suppose that the banner had read, 'prayer 4 Jesus.' Would the conservative justices who voted against Frederick then vote to allow him to display his banner (or for that matter, it is fair to ask whether the three liberal justices who supported him would vote against him?) And if the answer is 'yes,' then wouldn't it plainly mean that the decision was based on the personal viewpoints of the justices and not the matter of free speech at all?

There is no question that the school has every right to control what is said on school grounds-- they have jurisdiction there, but with this decision can they then ban what students can say off campus? Could they enforce dress codes even when students are not at school? Could they punish students if they write a letter to the paper that portrays the school in an unflattering light? The implications are chilling.

And it won't stop with students. If Mr. Frederick can't display the banner across from his school, could you? Maybe prinicipal Morse might not have any jurisdiction over you, but the mayor would. Or the Governor. Or the President. This ruling represents a real restriction on the rights of all of us.

And don't let anyone fool you into thinking that it does not.

Cheney announcement is a probe, part of a plan to bury their tracks.

Vice President Cheney claimed yesterday that his office is not part of the Bush administration and therefore doesn't have to send to the National Archives any documents that he has.

Aside from the laughable proposition that the Vice President is not part of the administration, this has a serious-- and a dark side.

Presidential administrations by law must keep documentation on file, both for the benefit of future administrations and for the review of historians.

These documents are kept in the National Archives and housed in Presidential Libraries.

Of course some are classified, and remain so until some time in the future when either a specific declassification date is passed or they are deemed as no longer required to be classified by the administration then in charge.

Even where documents may prove to be embarrassing or possibly the grounds for criminal liability, procedures have been devised that will still make them the basis for future historical knowlege. For example, Lyndon Johnson had a time capsule sealed which will be opened in 2039-- a date by which anyone who might have been associated with his crimes in Vietnam will almost certainly be long since gone from this world.

But what we've seen from the Bush administration is a whole new direction. First, were the lost emails. Thousands, maybe even millions of government emails, required by law to be stored (and recently requested by Congress as part of the investigation of the U.S. attorney firings) have been deleted.

I think the investigation probably has only uncovered earlier than the White House expected one of the pieces of one of the greatest coverups of our time, which we will see much more of in the near future, especially if it looks like a President who may not be interested in protecting Bush administration secrets wins the White House.

Another piece fell into place yesterday with Cheney's blatant claim. Believe me, it's not just that he wants to keep the attendees at his energy summit secret. It goes much deeper than that, especially with the role that the Vice President's office has played in developing the policies of this administration. If he can blanket claim the right to deny documents to the National Archives then he has sigificantly reduced the number of documents the administration will have to make public right there, and provided a 'safe' spot within the administration where they can send the most damning of documents and get them out of harm's way.

This administration is aware that the sand is starting to run out of the hourglass, and when it does they could be caught holding documentation on torture, secret surveillance of American citizens, kidnapping and 'black rendition,' detention of prisoners for secret trials, and other illegal operations. Like a drug dealer who has been tipped off that their house has been staked out and the police are on their way, they have a limited time to dispose of the sticky evidence and a lot of it to get rid of.

I fear that Cheney's announcement may be a probe, intended to see how far they can push the needle in terms of covering up what they have done. But expect over the next couple of years more and more stories like this as the Bush administration does everything they can to bury their skeletons (and may we hope that is only a figurative description.)

Pulte turns high pressure improvised water cannon on legally picketing workers

Hat tip to Tedski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.

Last April, the AFL-CIO announced their intention to organize thousands of construction workers in Arizona and Nevada who worked for Pulte Homes. As the union said according to an article at the time in the Las Vegas Review Journal, it called Pulte the "Wal-Mart of home developers." Pulte employs numerous subcontractors, but according to the union does not hold them to high standards of worker treatment.

On May 29, Pulte responded by announcing they were cutting 1,900 jobs nationwide, including a reduction of their Phoenix based workforce from three divisions to two. While it is true that the housing market has cooled and Pulte recently canceled plans to build a development in Benson, it is clear from this move that they consider their heavy use of subcontractors to be more important than even their own workforce. Of course, people in Anthem already know a little about how Pulte operates: According to an article in the Arizona Republic on May 28 (unfortunately online links via AZCentral are only good for seven days but the print edition is still available)

Del Webb, a Pulte Homes company, built the Anthem community in 1999. Residents said Del Webb didn't disclose that the cost of providing the community with water would come back to haunt them eight years later.

Oh, and one other thing-- most of the workforce is Hispanic, many from Mexico (I don't know what their legal immigration status is and that is irrelevant to the abuses you will see in a moment.)

Maybe you agree with the objectives of the union. Maybe you don't. But workers have a legal right to picket, which is exactly what right they were exercising outside a construction site in Florence, Arizona yesterday.

The workers who were in the picket line were fired from companies Pulte subcontracts with for speaking up about working conditions--specifically for being forced to work during their lunch breaks and for not being given enough water to hydrate during the day (note that the high temperature in Phoenix yesterday was 113 degrees).

Pulte executives responded, after threatening to have leaders of the picket line arrested (I guess they then figured out that the cops know what the law is and wouldn't arrest them for demonstrating legally), by the use of a water cannon-- actually an improvised one, setting the company spray truck to deliver high pressure water. Some of it was sprayed directly on protesters. Whether they would have done this at a crowd of predominantly anglo workers is not an unreasonable question to ask.

The AFL-CIO will show a videotape of the incident at a news conference tomorrow but it is already available on U-Tube linked here.

There is a reason why the police are reluctant to use water cannons as an example of 'non-lethal force.' It is because they can and have at times in the past caused serious injury, both if they happen to hit a vulnerable area of the body (like the eyes or the ears) and if they cause people to fall at an accelerated rate of speed.

This is only going to escalate tensions. But maybe that is what they want. Are the Pulte execs so stuck in the sixties (on the wrong side) that they will try tear gas next?

Global studies bill killed by dummies.

In today's highly competitive and globalized world of business, it is important for Americans to understand and be able to work with people from other cultures, speak other languages or conduct business in other countries. Only don't tell that to a handful of idiots on the Arizona legislature.

Businesses need people skilled in world languages and economics. The government has gaping holes in diplomacy and intelligence. Universities are begging for more students with sophisticated learning.

It all gives credence to a bill in the Arizona Legislature to create international schools to help make students globally competitive.

But, in the end, the bill died. As its supporters learned, "international" is a dirty word among some at the Capitol.

Key leaders there suggested the bill was un-American and part of a slippery slope to a U.N. takeover and the end of U.S. sovereignty.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, would have put three K-12 schools in the northern, central and southern parts of the state, where kids would begin a second language in kindergarten, and set up new international programs at seven high schools. Big business and universities pledged to partner with the schools. First-year costs would have been $2.3 million, or less than 0.02 percent of the proposed state budget...

• Some Arizona legislators were so opposed to the bill that supporters changed the name from international schools to American competitiveness project schools to appease them.

That didn't sway Sen. Ron Gould, a Lake Havasu City Republican.

"What I'm assuming is that they changed the name, trying to get us to be less objectionable, as if, you know, a rose by any other name is not as sweet," said Gould, a member of the Senate's K-12 Education Committee. "There's a lot of us here who are not internationalists. These schools actually have kind of a United Nations flavor to them, and we're actually into educating Americans into Americanism, not internationalism."

I guess that would be the same Ron Gould who proudly flies a Confederate battle flag in front of his Lake Havasu city home.

• Sen. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican and chairwoman of the K-12 Education Committee, never let the proposal out of committee. Johnson instead brought in a professor from Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minn., to educate lawmakers on the dangers of a popular international studies program, the International Baccalaureate....

"The International Baccalaureate is un-American," Allen Quist, who served in the Minnesota Legislature in the 1980s and ran for Minnesota governor as a Republican in 1994, said in a phone interview. He said that International Baccalaureate's links to the United Nations are disturbing and that its sense of right and wrong is ambiguous.

That would be the same Karen Johnson, four times divorced, who likes to lecture others about 'family values.'

To get around Johnson, supporters took the proposal to the Senate's Higher Education Committee. The proposal eventually reached the House Appropriations Committee, which helps decide what bills get funded and how much. There, it ran into Rep. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican. Pearce recalled this week that his research on international schools in general found them to be dangerous, and he suggested their agenda was tied to the U.N., not America.

"Our schools ought to be focusing on education that we, as Americans, espouse," Pearce said. "We ought to concentrate on United States history and United States heroes."

Ah, yes. Russell Pearce. The same Russell Pearce who has led the anti-immigrant charge in Arizona and who not so long ago praised (and refused to apologize for praising), "operation wetback," a 1950's program in which millions of men, women and children were rounded up, sometimes violently, and forcibly deported en masse.

So Arizona's schoolchildren will lose out on an opportunity and the state itself will either miss out on the next generation of global trade or have the money made from it sent someplace else (in China, kids are taught English at an early age, for example).

This bill, you will note had a Republican sponsor. But with Republicans like Gould, Johnson and Pearce in the legislature it is no wonder that we still have the reputation nationally as being 'ignoramusville.' I guess they are shooting for internationally too.

Iraqi refugees

Another sad fact to come out of the Iraq war: millions of Iraqi refugees.

According to a report released this week by the U.N.'s refugee agency, there were 1.4 million Iraqi refugees at the end of 2006, most of them in Syria and Jordan. Another 1.8 million Iraqis were displaced inside their own country, according to the report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Iraqis who fled west are mainly Sunni arabs, proving that the Shi'ite death squads (often indistinguishable from government forces, many of which have been infiltrated by the Badr brigade, the Mahdi army and other Shi'ite militia) have been remarkably effective in trying to remake the country into a Shi'ite nation.

The other noteworthy thing is the number itself. Iraq had a pre-war population of about 26 million. The total of 3.2 million refugees represents over 12 % of the population. Add to this the up to 600,000 Iraqis estimated to have died in the war and this represents a significant demographic shift in Iraq, all due to the war that George W. Bush started.

More than just a number however, the refugees represent an ongoing problem that is likely to get worse over time. Camps full of refugees, if allowed to fester often form the birthplace and later the backbone of future guerilla armies (just ask the Israelis about that). The human tragedy is huge, it will put a strain on the economy and society of countries that host refugee camps and other countries, especially the U.S., will be pressured to accept sizeable numbers of Iraqi refugees (just as our significant Korean, Vietnamese, Hmong and Bosnian communities are part of the legacy of America's past foreign wars over the past half century.)

Michael Bloomberg quits GOP

Current New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg announced today that he is resigning from the Republican party. Of course, more than one out of eight Republicans have also left the GOP since 2004 so it's hardly remarkable anymore that he is doing so.

However, in his case, it heightens speculation that he will run for President next year. Like Ross Perot (who got 19% of the vote in 1992) Bloomberg has hundreds of millions of dollars he could spend on a campaign, which alone makes him a viable candidate. Unlike Perot, he has already held elective office (the same office as Giuliani's highest in the past) and he isn't so nutty-- I have my disagreements with Michael Bloomberg but I can't see him accusing his opponents of sabotaging his daughter's wedding or quitting the race the moment he gets some bad news and then rejoining it later.

As a candidate, Bloomberg starts out with one big advantage.

And that advantage is one that the parties did to themselves. By failing to stop states from piling on with front loaded primaries. I blogged on the dangers of this headlong rush to the head of the line (Super-Duper Tuesday frought with peril) a couple of months ago, but failed then to consider what the effects might be of a third party candidacy. But supposing that the two major parties have nominations all locked up by February:

1. Bloomberg could then take his time and announce a run about mid summer. Because of his enormous personal financial resources he won't have to do much fundraising (and as I'm sure he would point out, wouldn't have to make any backroom deals to raise funds). He would be able to start with a complete warchest just as his two major party opponents were depleting theirs attacking each other between February and when the conventions start in late August and then having to try and raise more money for the general. And by July people will know all about the two nominees (and probably not like them) so Bloomberg would be a fresh face on the scene.

2. People are already weary of partisan politics. One effect of the nominees being known by February is that they will be driving up each other's negatives, and Bloomberg can pick his time and announce just when some partisan battle really drives up people's disgust with both parties.

3. Bloomberg, who has only had to run twice for Mayor (and then in elections largely focused on 9/11) has not had to define many of his positions on issues. Once it is known who the major party nominees are, he could carefully triangulate a platform that plays to issues where people are dissatisfied with both nominees. In particular, if Giuliani is the GOP nominee then look for Bloomberg to take a surprisingly conservative tack on cultural issues but if it is somebody else Bloomberg could define himself as the 'new' Giuliani and run to the center (as he did when he ran for Mayor.)

Now granted, no third party candidate has won for President since the modern two party system began. In fact, only once-- in 1912 when former President Teddy Roosevelt finished ahead of Republican William Howard Taft (but losing to Woodrow Wilson) has a third party candidate even managed to finish second. Also, without an existing party organization Bloomberg would face some stiff organizational challenges regardless of how much money he has, but he also-- largely thanks to the disastrous primary schedule that both major parties have allowed to happen-- could have all the advantages he would need to be successful.

Giuliani state chair busted for dealing drugs.

South Carolina isn't exactly the kind of state where Rudy Giuliani is pinning his hopes of winning the GOP Presidential nomination on. Though the state has been reliably Republican in national elections, the Republicans in South Carolina are likely to be skeptical of him for reasons of his positions, past or present, on abortion, gay rights and gun control.

Add another one though. Today, the chair of his statewide Presidential campaign, State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, was indicted on Federal cocaine charges. The investigation finds that he began distributing cocaine in late 2005, and has since distributed an undisclosed amount, though less than five hundred grams (which that is still more than a pound of coke-- worth thousands of dollars on the street.)

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, a former real estate developer who became a rising political star after his election last year, was indicted Tuesday on federal cocaine charges.

Thomas Ravenel is also the state chairman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Of course, Ravenel will be asked to resign, especially since Giuliani is already vulnerable to charges that he stood by Bernard Kerik for too long even after having been briefed years ago on Kerik's ties to organized crime. But if Rudy had any thought that he might be able to steal a win in South Carolina's primary (which is likely to set the tone for the rest of the South) it sounds like today it was snorted away.

Could the opportunity for peace come out of a war?

Once again, it seems like there are no winners but some real losers in the Palestinian civil war that has ripped the not-yet-born state into two pieces.

Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected President of the Palestinian authority, and Hamas, which by the same voters was elected to lead the government, have in the end not been able to work together. Not just with Israel, but not even with each other. Hamas has seized complete control of the Gaza strip while Fatah has done the same in the West Bank. Because the two pieces of Palestine are separated by Israel, it seems unlikely that there will be any other resolution to this than a 'two state solution,' but not the 'two state solution' that most had evisioned.

I had written a post following Hamas' surprising victory last year, Interpreting the Hamas victory and where from here, in which I had written that there might be cause for optimism because unlike the corruption plagued and weak structure of Fatah, Hamas could, if they could be induced to sign an agreement, back it up.

Ah, but that is the sticking point. I was far too optimistic, because while there is no question that Hamas has the authority that they could enforce an agreement, they have no inclination to make one. They still have one and pretty much only one goal-- to destroy Israel. And no price-- even the partitioning of the Palestinian state itself, is too high for them to pay in order to get rid of Israel. Like the medieval crusaders, Hamas risks simply becoming a cause without a plan, other than simply to push the cause forward-- and like the crusaders it is playing a very dangerous game, likely to end up in a bloodbath of Biblical portions, including both Israeli and Palestinian blood.

Fatah is probably a bit stronger and less corrupt than it was under Arafat (mainly because of the hard realities of the situation, as well as the fact that it would be hard to match Arafat for corruption, a man who stole billions in western donations while his people starved) but I can't say that I share the optimism that western leaders have that Mahmoud Abbas will be any more effective than Arafat at preventing individuals and organizations from carrying out attacks on Israel. To be honest, Hamas was able to make their one year cease fire with Israel that they observed up until last summer hold because they have a reputation for ruthlessness that Fatah lacks. Nevertheless recent events have clarified the situation and made it clear that Abbas and Fatah will be Israel's negotiating partner.

Israel is in the most interesting position. Of course if Israel does nothing it benefits (and has been benefitting) in the short term while the two Palestinian factions do their best to destroy each other. However, in the long term Israel faces some hard choices. Presumably now that Abbas has formed a government that does not include Hamas (in other words, a government which other than himself was never elected by the people) Israel is free to negotiate (since they had refused to negotiate with a government including Hamas because of Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel).

To begin with the Palestinian authority and Israel, which recognized each other after the Oslo accords, are willing to reiterate that agreement, but what next? Israel has built settlements in the past and is willing to dismantle them as they did in Gaza-- but what happened in Gaza, which has provided a base for rocket and mortar attacks and resulted in Israel re-invading certain areas in brief forays (as well as a protracted incursion last summer) suggests that simply dismantling the settlements as good-will gestures is as likely as not to simply turn them into launching pads for rockets aimed at Israeli population centers. Israel may indeed dismantle settlements, but the price is likely to be steep-- likely including acceptance of the Israeli border wall (which I oppose incidentally-- for the same reasons I oppose a border wall on the Mexican border-- but realistically, the Israelis are unlikely to tear it down given its record of stopping suicide bombers) and possibly some concessions in other areas-- more on that later. However, it is clearly to Israel's advantage to have a secure border along the West Bank area, just as Israel presently has secure borders along two borders which were once battle zones: Israel's borders with Jordan and Egypt. So Israel does have a motivation to reach an agreement that will allow a Fatah led state to come together and develop economically and politically. However, even if an accord is reached, there is still the thorny issue of what to do about east Jerusalem. Both sides claim it as their capitol, and the one thing that Jews, Muslims and Christians agree on is that the temple mount (now adorned with the mosque of Omar, the third holiest site in Islam) is holy ground. The holiest site in Judaism is the western wall of the temple of Herod, the same temple where Jesus preached and which was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. I suspect that in the absence of other considerations, Israel would retain control over the holy sites only because of the fact of the matter, that Israel controls them now and won't give them up, and this would be part of the price Abbas would have to agree to in exchange for the dismantling of settlements elsewhere. However, the Israelis could offer to put portions under joint control, IF they had a real reason why they needed to gain goodwill, especially from West Bank Palestinians. And there is a reason they will.

The reason is quite plain. Israel will certainly be fighting a two front war in the very near future. In the past, Israel's reputation for military effectiveness saved it from actually having to fight any real wars since the end of the Lebanon invasion in 1982. But last summer, Hezbollah fought Israel to a draw. In the politics of the Middle East, that equals a victory for Hezbollah and a defeat for Israel. Hezbollah, which fired thousands of rockets all over northern and north-central Israel in last year's war has re-armed themselves and will sooner or later (with 'sooner' being more likely) go to war again with Israel. Not surprisingly, as we've seen recently, al-Qaeda also quickly has gotten into the scene, with Lebanese army units fighting to dislodge them from bases in southern Lebanon-- a place where until a few months ago al-Qaeda had no interest in.

However, with Hamas now firmly in control of the Gaza strip, we can anticipate that such a war will be a two front war. Hamas remains committed absolutely to the destruction of Israel so it is a certainty that at some point, they will use the complete control of the area which they now have to organize and conduct a concerted attack on Israel. It is hard to imagine that whether Hezbollah or Hamas attacks first, the other won't quickly join in. Or perhaps Israel, knowing this will happen, will attack both Hamas and Hezbollah directly-- hoping to gain enough militarily from a first strike to offset the political price they would pay for it.

And that is where Fatah and Abbas' opportunity comes in. They could of course mount an attack as well on Israel, but unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, Fatah's roots as a guerilla organization are long since past, and they would be quickly crushed by the Israeli army if they were so foolish. However, they could extract a high price from Israel in exchange for remaining neutral (since the last thing that Israel would want while fighting a two-front war would be for it to become a three-front war-- with the everpresent concern that Syria could also open a fourth front). In particular, that might be the card that Fatah would need to get rid of all the settlements, and possibly gain a joint control agreement over east Jerusalem. At the same time, a Palestinian authority which remained neutral (including reigning in its military arm, the al-Aqsa martyr's brigade) while Israel was fighting another major war would go a long way towards convincing Israel that the time was right for full Palestinian statehood.

It has been said of the Palestinians in the past that 'they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.' Of course that was when Yassir Arafat was leading them from disappointment to disappointment to disappointment. The next few months will tell whether Abbas will be able to seize the opportunity and create a peaceful and stable state in the West Bank or go the way of Arafat before him.