Piece Of Cake

Cupcake, actually:

AUSTIN — Amid tense education funding debate, Texas House members paused today to take up a matter dear to school kids everywhere: cupcakes.

Legislators in a unanimous recorded vote cleared the way for public school students to bring the sweet treats — complete with candy sprinkles — to celebrate their birthdays.

"We have an opportunity to really make the children happy here," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, a Waco Democrat, asking fellow House members to approve the measure requested by his school-age daughter, Lauren.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, whose agency oversees the state's school lunch program, imposed new healthy food rules beginning this academic year aimed at limiting or eliminating junk food and food that competes with cafeteria fare.

In August, soon after setting the new rules, Combs issued a "cupcake clarification" stating that cakes and cupcakes could be brought to school for birthdays. The agriculture department did, however, recommend that birthday parties be scheduled after the last lunch period.

     ...

I have mixed feelings about the "food police" approach to school nutrition. The problem is real enough: many vendors of fast food and junk food see placement of their products or even their restaurants in schools as the ultimate business opportunity. When it comes to food that parents have sent to school with kids, however, I have to assume theirs is an informed decision. But I also have sympathy for teachers who have to put up with kids bouncing off the ceiling right after eating too many sweets... not to mention kids in a soporific state in the inevitable sugar down that follows.

I have written nutrition research software for two different educational institutions and one private company, as well as (indirectly) for the USDA and the US Army. I've had enough face-to-face contact with nutritionists to know their virtues and their foibles. A lack of self-confidence and/or willingness to push their message is not a characteristic I've ever observed. Nutritionists, like your parents, are quite sure they know what is best for you. I've never had any personal hesitation at pushing back. With kids, it's different: they'll eat any kind of junk ever made, and they'll eat it in preference to the veggies on their plate in the school cafeteria. Some guidance is required, though one hopes parents, rather than school personnel, will supply that guidance.

But cultural traditions are often beyond the reach of the food police. Tell a Mexican-American family to stop serving and eating fat-laden foods, and they'll quite rightly look at you as if you're crazy. After all, you are crazy: those families' forebears have eaten those foods for a dozen or more generations. Young nutritionists out to save the cardiovascular health of the whole world all encounter this and are baffled by it. I'm not. Every culture has its culinary traditions. Most of us, from whatever background, are unwilling to give up those traditions (which are, after all, more than mere habits) for the sake of better numbers in someone's PhD dissertation.

And taking away kids' birthday cakes or cupcakes? that verges on cruel.

Let them eat cake!

(The YDD wipes the oil off his mustache after downing a lunch including, <tv_commercial_voice> as part of a healthful, nutritionally balanced diet, </tv_commercial_voice> homemade hush-puppies that would have made his East Texas farmer grandmother proud.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Sgrena And Calipari

I haven't posted on the incident because there has been so little news other than that just about every aspect of the shooting incident is disputed by all parties involved.

Among the she-said-he-said-they-said-someone-said reporting, the BBC News says, "Italy disputes US hostage account"; ABC News says "Journalist's Shooting Stirs Italian Anger"; Jeanne of Body and Soul (note: that's three posts linked) has several points to make, and David Neiwert's Orcinus calls for a "full-fledged investigation... and not just an in-house job by the White House," based on evidence he outlines. Orcinus has one item I haven't seen elsewhere, attributed ambiguously to either Mark Crispin Miller or Laura Flanders (the Air America Radio link he gives doesn't contain this text as far as I can find, but he names Flanders and Miller in his lead-up):

At the time of her abduction, Giuliana was heading to an area of Baghdad where witnesses from Fallujah are staying to interview Fallujah refugees about the US assault on their city last year. Says Sermonti:

"She had some information about the use of illegal weapons by US forces in Fallujah that was very sensitive. A very hot topic. There were rumors of some use of chemicals and a number of weapons that are not legal -- like [napalm] and phosphorus."

(Emphasis present in Orcinus's text.)

If that is true, and I'm not prepared to say it is at this point, it would give some credibility to the notion that Sgrena was targeted. We may never know.

Oh, by the way, ABC News sees fit to remind us that Sgrena was a "journalist for the communist newspaper Il Manifesto, ..." I'm certain that if she had worked for the Wall Street Journal, ABC News would have written that she was a "reporter for the capitalist newspaper..." etc. It's just a little reminder that one should not be too sympathetic with Sgrena, if one knows what's good for one: surely she deserved to be shot, because she worked for the commies. Is this really 2005, and are we still playing that game?

---

UPDATE: I notice that ABC News was reproducing an AP story. Hence AP shares the blame for the red-baiting.

Steve
   PermaLink     

A Byrd Told Me

And he wasn't little in any sense.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has an imperfect past, as a person and as a senator. Spare me your recounting of it; I assure you I know most of what you will say. (Warning: trolls on the subject will be virtually eviscerated.) At this point, that past is largely irrelevant: if all of us who have imperfect pasts were to accomplish as much toward righting the wrongs afoot in our nation as Byrd, America would have a much better chance of surviving the onslaught against its liberties perpetrated by a small group of largely self-appointed ideologues who have become Bush-appointed officials.

Over the past two weeks I have been reading Sen. Byrd's book, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency. Byrd's command of recent history and constitutional tradition, and of course his renowned eloquence, combine to make this a very satisfying read. That an octogenarian can feel and so capably express outrage at the sequence of events leading up to the Iraq war is tribute to his strength of will. I'll resist the temptation to quote from the book... any short quote would be inadequate; any longer quote or group of quotes would be diminished if taken out of context. Instead, I'll point you to a speech Byrd made at a book-signing back in August at First Parish Church, Cambridge (we UU's love our books!), transcribed on the Democracy Now web site. It is classic Byrd, full of rousing oratory, classical references, passionate defense of the Constitution he knows so well, the history of its framing, which he also knows well... and of course a preview of his veritable deconstruction in the book of the George W. Bush administration, which he feels is attempting to dismantle that Constitution, all too successfully and with far too little resistance from the opposition. If you like the speech, you'll appreciate the book. I thought I knew the history of our path to war in Iraq reasonably well, but I learned quite a bit.

A reminder: while I don't loathe Amazon, if you buy this book, I urge you to obtain it from a local independent bookseller. (I linked Elliott Bay above because I am very fond of their physical store in Seattle, and I think they are still independent.) Or you may, as I did, find the book in a public library. I'll forgive you for ordering it online from a "major," though, as long as you find some way of reading the book.

---

UPDATE: via MaxSpeak, we learn that Byrd was one of 14 Democratic senators voting in favor of allowing the Bush bankruptcy bill to come to the floor. As I said, he's an imperfect senator. (Sigh.) But he certainly wields words well. (Sigh again.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Digby The Old New Democrat

Read Digby on the reason for the failure of the New Dems, on why he once was a DLC Dem and is no longer, and on the prospects for integrating them with the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. His post is thought-provoking and well written.

(Found via Rugo.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Beating The Pants Off FCBI

The rude pundit is going to start a church to soak up some of that FCBI (Faith-Based Community Initiatives) money that Bush is spreading around. But the Rude One had better not take more money than will fit in a shirt pocket:

See, the Rude Pundit's church'll be all about helpin' the homeless, educatin' the poor. And the only requirement for membership in the Rude Pundit's church - no one can wear pants.      ...

Let the RP tell you all about it; I couldn't do it justice. But put down your coffee cup first, if you value your keyboard.

In my opinion, it's bad enough that churches receive federal money at all, for any activity, charitable or otherwise. But the notion that a church may turn around and use that federal money to hire only church members as workers for their charity is not merely offensive to me... it's a violation of the First Amendment.

(Via Pen-Elayne. While you're at her place, check out her cool pics of yesterday's New York blogger meet-up. NTodd has more pics. If he keeps traveling to NYC, he'd better watch it; he may find he actually likes  city life.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

Hometown Blogging ™Mad Kane -- DOGGEREL!

Mad Kane's "hometown blogging..." see here for her first venture into her new contribution to the blogosphere... has intrigued me since I first read of it. I'm not lacking in pets to photograph... as you know, Stella has two lovely and friendly cats who frequently appear on this site, as do other friends' cats occasionally... but I am glad to have an alternative and an addition to Friday Cat Blogging (™ Misogynist, Inc.).

My own contribution is from 1997, and praises a portion of Houston's magnificent Memorial Park (1505 acres, just inside of West Loop North) called the Houston Arboretum and Nature Center. HANC is one of my favorite and most frequent places to walk. In good weather, one can cover several miles of wooded land and prairie in a very short time, and find oneself restored from the experience. Here is a photo tour of Stella's and my most recent walk in HANC. (UPDATE: this morning, 3/7/2005, my photo host, NearlyFreeSpeech.net, is in the middle of a major server upgrade. Sometimes the photos are unavailable. Apologies.)

Well, enough "vamping until ready..." here's my song of praise of many of the major museums, concert halls and universities in Houston, but most especially of the Houston Arboretum, a place full of trees in a city full of trees... now that's hometown blogging from the heart.

Houston Arboretum

The Arboretum's full of trees, Some animals, some birds, some bees. Go, walk among 'em, if you please; The Arboretum's full of trees. Some smaller shrubs, some flowering plants, Mosquitoes and a lot of ants, And kids that fall and scrape their knees, But mostly it is full of trees. The MFA is full of pic's From brushes and the box that clicks; But here you will find none of these: The Arboretum's full of trees. At Rothko, CAM, Menil, The artwork is of great appeal, And Sculpture Garden has a breeze, But none of these is full of trees. The Cockrell's full of butterflies Of large and small and tiny size, Which children often try to seize, But Arboretum's full of trees. At Natural Science you'll find bones Of dinosaurs, and pretty stones, And old machines that need some grease, But Arboretum's full of trees. At Wortham and at Jones today Are opera, symphony, ballet: The viewer hears, the listener sees, But never underneath the trees. At Rice, UH and UST, At HBU and HCC, A lot of people get degrees, But Arboretum has more trees. So when it's lots of trees you want, The Arboretum is your haunt: A walk there sets your mind at ease; You'll see the forest for the trees!

Steve Bates

Steve
   PermaLink     

Another War On A Noun

From the AP:

Bush Sets Up Social Security 'War Room'
Mar 5, 4:27 PM (ET)
By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - A new Social Security war room inside the Treasury Department is pumping out information to sell President Bush's plan, much like any political campaign might do. It's part of a coordinated effort by the Bush administration.

The internal, taxpayer-funded campaigning is backed up by television advertisements, grass-roots organizing and lobbying from business and other groups that support the Bush plan. The president's opponents are organized too, though they do not enjoy the resources of the White House or Treasury to sell their message.

For the administration, the communications effort is being coordinated out of Treasury's public affairs office through the new Social Security Information Center. Three people have been hired, with two more hires possible soon. The first three employees are veterans of the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee.

     ...

Put aside for a moment... but only for a moment... the blatant impropriety of using taxpayers' money to fund what is essentially a partisan issue campaign. In that moment, think instead about the Bush administration's setting up a "war room."

Well, why not. Years ago, we had the "war on poverty," which did not eradicate poverty. We also have the "war on drugs," which for more than 30 years has been such a stunning success... one might even say a catastrophic success... and is still in progress. More recently we have the "war on terror" (don't ask where the "-ism" went; it's in an insecure undisclosed location), which has been blindingly effective at capturing Osama bin Laden, securing weapons of mass destruction away from the hands of evil-doers, protecting our ports and airports, and spreading democracy in the Middle East. Why shouldn't we have the

     War on Social Security (™ BushCo™)

as well?

As the great Molly Ivins often says, you can't make war on a noun. But she may be wrong in this case. Time will tell whether the War on Social Security (™ BushCo™) will result in total victory over the evil forces fighting against our right to a miserable old age.

---

An aside: this would make a great Google bomb, but there's no web site for the Social Security Information Center. Any suggestions?

Steve
   PermaLink     

Hometown Blogging

Mad Kane has proposed a new Friday activity for bloggers who don't have pets, or don't want to write about pets or post pictures of pets: hometown blogging. Mad's first entry in this category is called A Baysider's Ode to Queens, a charming and amusing tribute to her borough. I suggested that it might be set to the tune of another famous Ode; Mad promptly agreed to do so, and the results are hilarious. Read her poem and sing along... at long last, you'll find the Joy you know you're Owed!

Note: I'll post my own entry in the hometown blogging category soon. I probably won't wait until next Friday, though.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Our Stupid Governor

Gov. Goodhair... Rick Perry, to those who don't read Molly Ivins regularly... must have slipped a cog. He seems to see political advantage in not expediting a bill in the state legislature that would simultaneously ban the execution of juvenile offenders (in compliance with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling) and institute a life-without-parole option for juries, an option not heretofore available in Texas. What, exactly, does Perry expect to gain? Damned if I know. Here's what his spokeswoman said:

     ...

Kathy Walt, a spokesman for Perry, said the governor will sign Dutton's bill or any other legislation that reaches his desk changing state laws to conform with the Supreme Court ruling on juvenile offenders.

But Walt said there is no need for Perry to designate that issue as an emergency.

"The United States Supreme Court has already banned the execution of juvenile offenders. It's not going to happen in Texas," said Walt.

     ...

So... why not get on with it? It's a done deal; the Supreme Court has ruled. Why in the world would one want to delay, for even one minute, the state's coming into compliance with the ruling, and giving juries an option they may need?

As I see it, there's no profit in it, political or otherwise. Perry has never been the brightest bulb on the string, but this takes dimness to new levels. Rick, put the damned bill at the top of your agenda, get it passed, sign it and take credit for it. Otherwise, you give me... you give Democrats in general... yet another campaign issue against you, and in this red state that is a lot more purple than most people outside it realize, I am seeing a lot of reluctance to re-elect you. Even so, I'm willing to forgo the campaign issue if you will push the bill, rather than feint in the direction of lawlessness. Our state deserves better than the image you are about to project to the nation and the world.

Do I think sentencing juveniles to life without parole is a good idea? No. As frequent commenter Bryan has often pointed out, the crime rate depends largely on the size of the male population between 15 and 45. I know it's impossible to generalize from the statistics to an individual case, but it is hard to resist the practical implication: imprison a juvenile male murderer until he is 45, and you have probably protected society against the worst he will do. That said, I think life without parole should be an arrow in a jury's quiver, an option other than the death penalty for those most heinous crimes which a jury feels must be punished to the maximum. Personally, I think life with parole, after, say, 25 years, should do the job of protecting society and punishing the crime. But if a jury feels otherwise, let them have the life-without-parole option. It's better than whacking the kid.

I don't know what it is with Rick Perry. I don't know if he thinks some miracle is going to reverse the Supreme Court decision and allow him once again to whack juveniles. That may happen someday, but I doubt it will happen soon. Rick: get over it. (I've been waiting a long time to say that!) Promote a suitable LWOP bill and sign it, or kiss your governorship goodbye. Besides, it's the politically expedient right thing to do.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Practice Singing Your Tritones! -- DOGGEREL!

I couldn't resist; it finally burst out of me. To the tune of Maria, with apologies to the late great Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim for parodying the stage version of their lyrics, and to Mad Kane, on whose parody territory I'm surely treading...

Scalia

Scalia... The most sickening sound we have ever heard: Scalia, Scalia Scalia Scalia... All the arrogant pricks in the world in a single word... Scalia, Scalia Scalia Scalia... Scalia! We've heard from a judge named Scalia, His rulings, cause for shame; It's Tony that's to blame, You'll see, Scalia! We're screwed by a judge named Scalia, And suddenly he'll pound The Bill of Rights to ground, Will he! Scalia! All those Decalogs will be staying; So be sure it's to his God you're praying. Scalia, You'll never stop hearing Scalia! The most sickening sound we have ever heard. Scalia.

Steve Bates

Steve
   PermaLink     

Friday Blog Hawking

I'm fresh out of new cat pictures. Rather than posting old ones... which I may do soon enough... I thought I'd give you something a bit different today...

This male red-tailed hawk is permanently disabled, possibly due to an encounter with a motor vehicle. He lives with a similarly disabled female in a very large cage at Armand Bayou Nature Center (in the NASA/Clear Lake area), and is cared for by Wildlife Rehab & Education, Inc., a Houston-based organization whose volunteers are trained and federally licensed to rehabilitate birds and mammals found injured. Whenever possible, the creatures are released into the wild in an appropriate setting after they are restored to health. In a limited number of cases in which that is not possible, e.g., when it is clear that a bird will never fly well enough to survive in the wild, it is kept in a large cage, and is taken to schools, etc. by WR&E personnel who provide information to kids and adults about the proper treatment and disposition of injured wild animals. And yes, sadly, some animals, those that are absolutely hopeless cases, are euthanized. As I understand it, the law requires it.

Yesterday evening, our local Sierra Club was fortunate to have as a guest Ms. Sharon Schmalz, executive director of WR&E. Ms. Schmalz opened with an amusing tale of having once been introduced before a lecture as "having been in rehab for 22 years," then presented several birds that were either permanently disabled or were orphaned (and thus on track to be released someday).

Ms. Schmalz dispelled one common myth: it's really OK to pick up a baby bird and place it back in its nest, if you can find the nest, or in a hanging basket off the ground if you can't. Birds, she says, have a terrible sense of smell, and have no idea their chick has been handled by a human.

Schmalz also addressed the common problem of animals (e.g., raccoons or squirrels) in the attic. Humane trapping is not the answer by itself, she says. For one thing, other animals will almost certainly occupy the same attic soon, as urban development has reduced their available natural habitat. For another, such animals are often very territorial, and those that are trapped and then released in arbitrary places... even environmentally suitable places... often die in territorial battles. It is better, says Schmalz, to secure the openings through which the animals enter your attic... after first determining, of course, that there is no animal inside at the time.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Don't Argue With Scalia

And if you argue before Scalia, prepare for a snarkstorm headed in your direction. The First Amendment Center has a good summary and analysis of the arguments in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU, the Ten Commandments cases. Near the end of the summary is this bit of advice from Fat Tony:

     ...

Scalia was persistent in proclaiming the religious meaning of the Ten Commandments. “It is a symbol that government derives its authority from God, and that’s appropriate,” said Scalia. He estimated that 90% of Americans agree with the message — even if, as he joked, “85 percent couldn’t tell you what the Ten Commandments are.”

For those who disagree, Scalia said, “turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you.”

     ...

Yeah, Tony. It's too bad I'm too lazy to provide all the graphics, but the following will have to suffice:

---

Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you:
[Insert pentagram or other Wiccan or Pagan symbol here.]

---

Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you:
[Insert UU flaming chalice emblem here.]

---

Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you:
[Insert picture of Janet Jackson's breast here.]

---

Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you:
[Insert picture of Jeff Gannon's, um, firearm here.]

---

Trust me, Tony... there's somebody out there who holds each of these things sacred. Are you offended yet, Tony? Good! Here's one more for you...

---

Turn your eyes away if it is such a big deal for you:
[Insert picture of YDD raising both middle fingers here.]

---

Steve
   PermaLink     

States Of Being

OK, why not (actually, Why Now); I'll play the currently fashionable game...

bold the states you've been to, underline the states you've lived in and italicize the state you're in now...

Alabama / Alaska / Arizona / Arkansas / California / Colorado / Connecticut / Delaware / Florida / Georgia / Hawaii / Idaho / Illinois / Indiana / Iowa / Kansas / Kentucky / Louisiana / Maine / Maryland / Massachusetts / Michigan / Minnesota / Mississippi / Missouri / Montana / Nebraska / Nevada / New Hampshire / New Jersey / New Mexico / New York / North Carolina / North Dakota / Ohio / Oklahoma / Oregon / Pennsylvania / Rhode Island / South Carolina / South Dakota / Tennessee / Texas / Utah / Vermont / Virginia / Washington / West Virginia / Wisconsin / Wyoming / Washington D.C /

Go HERE to have a form generate the HTML for you.

Twenty-one states and the District... not bad for a non-military, non-military-kid, non-corporate-lackey type. Inconsistently enough, I'm counting states I've merely driven through, but not those I've merely flown over. That little exercise brought back a flood of memories... my life used to be a lot more interesting than it is these days!

Feel free to paste your own life list into a comment, but be aware that underline tags don't work in HaloScan. If there aren't too many of them, you could change them to bold-italic, or maybe just to asterisks.

Steve
   PermaLink     

FEC To Regulate Blogs?

From jillian, who points us to Kos and Atrios, we have this CNET interview with Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith, indicating that a federal court ruling may force the commissioners to regulate the interaction of blogs and online news sites with political campaigns:

The coming crackdown on blogging
March 3, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

     ...

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

     ...

Please read the whole offensive thing... not that Bradley Smith is himself necessarily offensive, indeed, he seems to be very aware of the problems in the intended approach, but rather that the notion of squelching blogs' interactions with campaigns is an insult to the First Amendment.

What's next? If you block-walk for a candidate, do you have to report your loss in income from the time you took off work as a campaign contribution? If you are a teacher, you speak for a living... how about your political conversations with your spouse; are those contributions under the law? Absurd? well, yes, but just where will they draw the line, and on what basis?

The thing that is most astonishing to me is that Kollar-Kotelly doesn't see blogs and other online political publications as qualifying under the broadcast-and-periodical exemption of the law. If a blog doesn't qualify as a broadcast, then what is it? It's not a conversation. It's not a meeting. It's not, usually, paid political advertising. A blog's posts may be aperiodic, but it shares many characteristics with a free periodical publication in print. Why is there a difference for campaign finance purposes?

No good will come of this, however it plays out. The best case scenario, as I see it, is for Congress to pass an explicit amendment to the campaign finance law, assuring that online publications, blogs, broadcast emails, etc. are accorded the same rights as print publications and broadcast media.

If Liebling was right that freedom of the press belongs to the [person] who owns one, we may be about to see a veritable "taking" of our presses at which any self-respecting conservative should bristle. Any ruling that places exclusive right of political advocacy in the hands of the major news outlets is, at a minimum, an offense against the First Amendment, and possibly against other fundamental principles of American law. In the history of First Amendment law, political advocacy has been rightly perceived by courts as the most protected kind of speech, coequal to religious expression in the degree to which it merits protection. How, then, can any federal law be interpreted to proscribe online political advocacy, especially advocacy by an individual organizing support for a candidate?

I have tried hard to see whether this benefits one major political party or the other, and I just don't see it. Perhaps Republicans assume Democrats gain a higher percentage of their financial support from the internet than Republicans, but both parties have sophisticated and effective online capabilities, and both sides have plenty of blogs pushing their respective candidates. A colleague of mine said years ago that the Republican Party is the only entity that seeks greater market share by destroying the market itself; perhaps this is just another example of that principle.

In any case, they'll take my political blog away when they pry my cold, dead fingers off the keyboard. Given the thugs in power today, I don't doubt that someone may do exactly that someday.

Steve
   PermaLink     

The Supremes Again

The Supreme Court isn't finished with us yet:

High Court to Hear Ten Amendments Case

WASHINGTON (Dissociated Press) - Today the Supreme Court will consider whether Ten Amendments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle an individual's right to free speech with other individuals' right to bloody ignorance, a cultural battle that has scarcely held anyone's attention for more than ten seconds in the past two decades.

The Ten Amendments, often referred to as a "Bill of Goods," were commonly displayed on public school bulletin boards in the Fifties and Sixties with little objection from anyone. Conflict over the displays has grown in recent years, as self-proclaimed religious conservatives realized that the first of the Amendments requires Congress to disrespect an establishment of religion, or something like that; they weren't exactly sure, but it certainly sounded evil to them.

     ...

Well, OK, that's not really what the Supreme Court is up to today. Here's part of the original article:

High Court to Hear Ten Commandments Cases
     ...
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

Justices were hearing arguments Wednesday in two cases involving displays in Texas and Kentucky. It is the first time since 1980 the high court is tackling the emotional issue, in a courtroom boasting a wall carving of Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country. At issue is whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion," or simply represent a secular tribute to America's legal heritage.

The question has sparked dozens of heated legal battles, including one in Alabama by Roy Moore. He lost his job as chief justice a year ago after defying a federal order to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.

     ...

Watch this case closely. Your religious freedom cannot be taken for granite.

Steve
   PermaLink     

Bad Boys, Bad Boys...

The Houston Chronicle has been whining at me in letters and the occasional phone call, lamenting the fact that I dropped my subscription, after more than 35 years as a subscriber. If their endorsement of George W. Bush were not enough to drive me to do so, articles like this one, which topped the Chronicle web site this morning... Horror over a 'vicious generation' behind push to condemn teens... should make it obvious even to the Chron's marketing department why I stopped delivery.

Reporter (columnist?) Mike Tolson opens with statements about "the turbulent 1990s" and proclaims that decade saw an "explosion of juvenile crime." Then he quotes statistics that do not bear on his claim at all:

An explosion of juvenile crime, including a huge increase in juvenile homicides, brought the gloves off. Most juvenile offenders currently on Texas' death row - 25 of 28 - committed their crimes in that decade. Half of the total occurred from 1994-99.

In this case, Texas mirrored a national trend. Across the country, 76 juveniles were given death sentences during the last half of the 1990s. That's almost as many as the previous 12 years.

Let's suppose his numbers are accurate. Does that point to an "explosion"? Who knows. He could have compared numbers for juvenile crime in past decades, or even numbers for violent crime, but instead he chooses to count juveniles on death row. Could those counts not just as easily indicate a change in, say, the sentencing habits of juries in Harris County? Both the use of the word "explosion" and the choice of the most spectacular numbers available, rather than numbers that might bear on the issue at hand, lead one to think this just might be an editorial, not a background article.

The first expert Tolson quotes is Victor Streib, law professor at Ohio Northern University, whose credentials in the area of juvenile justice appear solid enough. Streib's statement also does not support Tolson's thesis:

"You had local news pounding on the issue, so presumably the jury came in sort of primed to accept the message that the juvenile crime rate is a problem," said Victor Streib, a law professor at Ohio Northern University and an expert on the juvenile death penalty. "The arguments in court were no different than they ever were, but the public awareness of juvenile violence was."

"what-cha gon' ... what-cha gon' ... what-cha gon-na do ..."

Then Tolson quotes a truly objective source, Robert Blecker of New York Law School. Here is the intro to Professor Blecker's web page at NYLS:

With a gleam in his eye, Robert Blecker, a nationally known retributivist advocate of the death penalty, claims that he has managed to alienate both sides of the debate on the politically divisive and morally complex issue of capital punishment.

But his position as designated outcast is nothing new, nor is his strongly held conviction that the most vicious and callous offenders deserve to die and that society is morally obliged to execute those "worst of the worst" criminals.

     ...

At Harvard Law School, where he won the Oberman Prize for the best graduating thesis, Professor Blecker was one of only two students to publicly defend the death penalty. He went on to prosecute corrupt lawyers, cops, and judges and saw up close how the rich and powerful were given breaks denied to poor and powerless offenders. Later a Harvard Fellow and also a playwright, Professor Blecker's production "Vote NO!", an anti-federalist case against adopting the Constitution, premiered in 1987 at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., and traveled to 16 states, convincing even staunchly patriotic audiences to vote against the Constitution.

     ...

A "gleam in his eye." No doubt. Would you buy a used thesis from this man?

Tolson next seeks wisdom from Dianne Clements of Justice for All, an organization about which I have little to say, except to suggest that they would be more accurately named, "Whack 'em All." The esteemed political blogger Charles Kuffner quoted Clements in 2003:

"If I believed we executed an innocent inmate, I couldn't support the death penalty. It doesn't make any sense," Clements said.

Right, Dianne. In the same post, Kuffner quotes another JFA representative, from a Houston Press article:

JFA representative Rusty Hubbarth, testifying to Texas legislators last year on a proposal for a moratorium on executions, was asked by one lawmaker, "Rusty, you're not in favor of executing innocent people, are you?"

"Not this week," Hubbarth joked.

The humor was probably lost on two men in attendance that day. Randall Adams and Kerry Cook had collectively spent more than a decade in prison for crimes they didn't commit -- they'd both come within hours of execution.

In a feeble attempt at balance, Tolson offers a two-sentence quote from Texas Defender Service director Jim Marcus:

"Up until today, I think there were six nations in the world that executed people for crimes they committed as children — including China, Saudi Arabia, Republic of Congo and Iran," said Jim Marcus, director of the Texas Defender Service, which handles the appeals of a number of Texas death row inmates. "So it's about time that the United States conformed to the criminal justice standards of the Western Hemisphere."

For the families of victims, however, the argument for standards pales beside their pain and outrage.

"They were certified as adults, they should be executed like adults," said Adolph Peña, whose daughter Elizabeth and her friend Jennifer Ertman were murdered in 1993 by a gang of teenagers that included three juveniles. "Let those guys up in D.C. worry about whether they knew what they were doing. I know my 16-year-old knew what they were doing."

Now there's a balanced pairing of quotes. Which sentiment do you suppose Tolson wants you to believe?

"Even your auntie naw give ya no break..."

Then Tolson gives us this jewel from Blecker:

The reasons behind the rise in juvenile homicides in the early '90s — the reaction to which may be indirectly responsible for Tuesday's court ruling — will be debated by social scientists for years.

Blecker said several factors played a role. The first was a widely observed phenomenon: the flight of the minority middle class from communities that had previously been segregated. When the merchants and dentists and postal workers left, the only people with money were those involved in crime.

Blecker appears to be lamenting that if only those communities had remained segregated... then he talks about "an epidemic of abuse of crack and marijuana soaked in PCP." I do not mean to minimize the problems of drug abuse and the violence and law enforcement problems attendant to it, but Blecker's assertion that "[t]he drug culture seized control of a sizable segment of youth" (apparently Tolson's paraphrase; it's not clear from context) is simply not sustainable. How sizable do you think that segment is? Your answer probably depends on how often you watch "Cops." There is irony in the thought that one TV show has probably done more damage to the American public's understanding of civil liberties than all the written material on the subject put together. Perhaps even more significant is the impact of "Cops" on the public's perception of the violent crime rate. It's bad enough without exaggerating it for the sake of ratings.

I don't mean to malign Tolson too much. His article probably reflects the sentiments of a majority of Texans. But in his selective use of numbers, and his choice of sources, he seems determined to project a public discontent with the requirements of that pesky Bill of Rights on which the Supreme Court based its argument in yesterday's ruling in Roper v. Simmons.

"Bad boys, bad boys, what-cha gonna do, when the sheriff mon he come for you..."

---

(NOTE: "Cops" theme lyrics are quoted from my faulty memory. I just read the lyrics as provided on several lyrics sites, and no two are alike. The ones actually sung on "Cops" seem to be an amalgam of, or a selection from, a number of the written versions. I suspect the group performed it differently every time, so I may as well leave my own faulty transcription. I confess I like the song as much as I loathe the show.)

Steve
   PermaLink     

It's About Time

High Court Ends Death Penalty for Youths
Mar 1, 1:31 PM (ET)
By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A closely divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it's unconstitutional to execute juvenile killers, ending a practice in 19 states that has been roundly condemned by many of America's closest allies.

The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.

The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

"The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

     ...

I await the reaction of the legislators in regrettably many states who would lower the age at which children are eligible for the death penalty to 14, 13, even 11.

Scalia's dissent contained this real jewel:

"The court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: 'In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty,'" he wrote.

"The court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards," Scalia wrote.

Oh, yes. Scalia is really one to talk about proclaiming oneself the sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards.

Justice O'Connor dissented separately, and counterfactually:

"The court's analysis is premised on differences in the aggregate between juveniles and adults, which frequently do not hold true when comparing individuals," she said. "Chronological age is not an unfailing measure of psychological development, and common experience suggests that many 17- year-olds are more mature than the average young 'adult.'"

I'm sorry, Sandy... may I call you Sandy? ... but that is crap. There are fundamental physiological developments that take place in the teen years... effectively in every teen... that render younger people less able to exercise good moral judgment. That's why the law distinguishes juveniles from adults. The difference is neither arbitrary nor theoretical.

Regular readers know I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Someday I'll bore you with my list of reasons once again, but for now I'll just express my gratitude that Justice Kennedy saw the matter clearly enough to enable the Court to stop the execution of juveniles in the U.S. It's not everything, but it's a start. At least we are no longer in a category of nations, along with Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia, that whack their children.

(I found the AP story thanks to Rugo's Ramblings, on which Rugo promises some analysis of the opinions later today.)

---

UPDATE: via Musing Michael, the opinion may be found here. And I was mistaken: Rugo says she will read the opinion, not that she will analyze it for us, later today. But one can hope!

---

UPDATE: Rugo has put up her first post on the opinion. And for those like me who do not have the legal or historical background to read the opinion and concurrences and dissents clearly, here's an excellent summary at SCOTUSblog of what really happened.

Steve
   PermaLink     

'Til Death Do Us...

No, not even that. Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have filed several motions, including filing for their daughter's divorce from Michael Schiavo... a divorce they wish to take place even after Terri dies.

The request is unprecedented, and the judge apparently will decline to hear the divorce motion and several others. The Schindlers, undaunted, are resorting to publicity:

Appearing at a rally in Jacksonville, the Schindlers called on Gov. Jeb Bush to look into the circumstances that led to their daughter's 1990 collapse from a chemical imbalance. They asked Attorney General Charlie Crist to investigate whether her civil rights have been violated.

I do not begrudge the Schindlers their day in court, but they've had many days in court. I do not begrudge them their feelings about their daughter, but their daughter is gone. And however I may feel about their apparent decision to turn their daughter's death into a three-ring circus, I do not believe that doing so helps either their daughter or their case. And Jeb Bush? he should stay out of it. He's done enough damage already.

Steve
   PermaLink     

No Essayist Left Behind

The Houston Chronicle's Rick Casey writes about Naomi Shihab Nye, a well-respected poet, essayist and novelist who lives in Texas. Ms. Nye permitted one of her essays to be used in a recent version of the TAKS™ (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills), Texas's own high-stakes testing nightmare for students and schools. Here's Casey's report of Nye's reaction:

     ...

On her way home from George West, Naomi was struck by how the students had remembered details of the piece but, when she asked, could remember none of the questions. When I sent her copies of the questions, she said "It reminded me of the trouble I always had with standardized tests."

The trouble?

"Almost every question has more than one 'right' answer," she said.

That's the difference between testers and writers. Poets and other literary writers see literature as a collaborative engagement between the writer and the reader. They expect different readers to have different reactions to their work, to draw different messages based on their experiences and concerns.

So she had a problem with a question that asked what the essay was "mainly about." Answers included "moving to a new place" and "the significance of names."

"Say a kid had just moved to a new place and had a lot of revelations about himself, that would be the right answer for him," she said. "Another kid who felt special about names would focus on that."

She had similar arguments with the answers to several other questions, arguments she had had since, at age 22, one of her poems was selected for a textbook.

"Out of five questions the kids were supposed to answer, I couldn't answer three," she said.

Literature is about exploring, not about measuring.

     ...

Not to the promoters of NCLB, it's not. There's one right answer for everything, and students had damned well better know it, and teachers had damned surely better teach it to them, whatever else they do or do not teach them. It's as if some sort of religious infallibility is conferred on the makers of these tests.

For what it's worth, I had the same problems with standardized tests. In history, literature and even some aspects of science, I could often see the validity of more than one of the answers provided, or I could see that each of them was wrong in some way. Fortunately, I had a damnably accurate instinct for choosing the answer the test maker intended. My scores were always high. And I always hated that fact. I knew kids far smarter, or at least far more knowledgeable or creative, than I was, and their test scores were unfairly lower. I have often wondered what the consequences were for those who were bright but did not take tests well. The consequences for me, not surprisingly, were offers from just about all the colleges I seriously considered attending.

Ms. Nye's inability to answer questions on her own poem is one of the best examples I've seen of why high-stakes testing must end. Think about it: we risk ignoring, discarding, or improperly "tracking" some of our brightest and best, just because we place undeserved faith in standardized tests in which no human mind evaluates a student's answers. This is grossly unjust. How many Naomi Shihab Nyes are we passing over? What is the loss to American culture?

Steve
   PermaLink     

 
Selected Links To Recent Posts

 
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page. Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article. Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least: HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.

Thou Shalt Not Mix Religion And Government

Steve
   PermaLink     

Kansas AG Goes Fishing

Steve
   PermaLink     

Tasers On "Kill"

Steve
   PermaLink