Not being chic enough in my wordings, I have avoided sports talk even in this most newsworthy time of UNC's new wonder-coach, Roy Williams. I will stick to the notion that such writing is best left to others. Thus, I offer this fine piece from Tar Heel Daily as my sole reflection on our new coach. It's a lovely read.

Through the Senate, on tho the House:
NC Senate Approves 2-Year Death Penalty Moratorium

The President used to "fight" big Hollywood.
But now, it looks as if Bush has put old grudges behind him. In fact, it seems he has invited the action/adventure blockbuster directors to plan his speech presentations. How else do you describe his upcoming address to the nation aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln?
"The president will reach the Lincoln in a small Navy plane that will make a cable-assisted landing on the deck."
Hmm...makes me giddy to think my president has these things so well directed.
But maybe I mispeak. Maybe it is Big Broadway with whom he contracted to plan the event.

Happily, Media Whores Online has a link to the masterful debate earlier this week hosted by the Daily Show: Bush-President vs. Bush-Governor. As one might guess, the debate centers on the use of force to impliment democracy, and nation building. Clich here and scroll to find the link. Enjoy,

NC Senate Committee Approves 2-Year Death Penalty Moratorium
Let's hope the rest of the senate comes through. It looks like they have only until the end of the week to approve. please please please let NC join those reasonable states that have, at the least, discovered that a look at the system is long overdue.

Here's a Greensboro News and Record story on BLOGGING.
Must say, i like its broad pronouncement:
"Blogging is the heart of the Constitution at work. Technology is its life blood.
When the founding fathers framed the Constitution, they gave freedom of the press to the people, believing that it was every American's right to have a forum for his views. Over time, though, that forum came to belong only to those who owned the presses -- basically, corporations. But the Internet has returned that freedom to citizens: Anyone with a computer and modem is, potentially, a publisher."

George Will watch, continued:
Josh Marshall points out, today that, once again, George Will is willing to act the part of the rational thinker above the tides of partisanship; when in fact he is playing dirty.
"On the This Week roundtable this morning, the subject of the Santorum comments came up....Will piped up and said that what Santorum was saying was "by what standard" (going from recollection here, not a transcript) can you distinguish, can the state distinguish between homosexual acts and adultery or incest or other forms of illicit sex. Yet, as we noted earlier, this is precisely not what Santorum said. Not at all. If you read the actual interview..."
I like Marshall's last quip:
"Will was calm and dispassionate in stating something that is demonstrably false. He seems either not to have read the actual conversation or he's overly eager to help Santorum out of his jam."

What the hell?
"Environmental Protection Agency criminal agents are being diverted from their normal investigative work to provide security and drivers for agency chief Christie Whitman � and getting long lists of do's and don'ts to keep her happy.
EPA agents assigned to investigate environmental crimes have at times been ordered to perform more personal tasks, such as returning a rental car for Whitman's husband after a trip or sitting at a table until the administrator arrived for a restaurant reservation, according to interviews with several EPA senior managers.
The lists of do's and don'ts instruct agents who chauffeur the EPA administrator to ensure they rent only a Lincoln Town Car, tune the radio to smooth jazz or classical music and set the volume low, and keep an eye out for a Starbucks coffee shop or Barnes & Noble book store."

If for no other reason, my outrage stems from the EPA's head listening to Kenny G. Go read the article.

here's a good Philadelphia Inquirer article on the political reaction to Santorum's comments. See Josh Marshall, Is That Legal, and even Andy Sullivan on the ugly nature of the comments directed to gays.
The phili article notes some of the things i've been wondering about; to wit, how are the repubs going to play this out. already, bush has called the senator an "inclusive" man. As Josh Marshall pointed out today, there are alot of words one could choose. Inclusive isn't one of them.

The Boss on the Chicks:

(i'll work on finding a link)

"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves, To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create free speech in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home. I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support."
-Springsteen

WHY DOES MSNBC LIE?
In this article, MSNBC news ends an article (about the success the Dixie Chicks are having in ticket sales) with this:
"The Dixie Chicks� album �Home� has tumbled down the charts in the weeks following singer Natalie Maines� declaration in London that she was ashamed to come from the same state (Texas) as Bush."

Now that sounds like cold fact, doesn't it? But upon looking at the Billboard charts, one finds no such "tumbling" at all.
In fact, the Dixie Chick's album Home has climbed to #1 on the charts. So why, pray tell, does the media tell us the album is falling?
Some bloggers have a theory...
and i agree, to be inflammatory, this is a media that WANTS the Chicks to fall for their singer's shame in Bush. Remember all the hoop-la that arose after Ms. Maine's comment that she wasn;t proud that Bush was a Texan? Remember the Clear channel stations that pulled the Chicks off the air? (Clear channel being run by friends of Mr. Bush). And remember the justification: "listeners' demand." Hmm....so why do they continue to buy the album and attend the concert in droves? Does one wonder whether the hoop-la and Chick hating might have been a media invention?

This sums things up. to quote the conclusion:
"Mr. Bush's willingness to take big gambles, to push for what he wants no matter the consequences, are likely to leave an imprint on America far beyond his tenure in office. We hope that he's successful in the fight against terrorism, and that he brings about a more stable Mideast and a democratic Iraq. But on the domestic front, almost every success cripples the nation's ability to move toward a happy, prosperous future. This is one war we hope he loses."

Virginia Cross Burning Case
Erwin Chemerinsky has a fine article in Findlaw, today, on the recent ruling in the cross burning case.  Here's his summary:
"On April 7, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross-burning with intent to intimidate is not protected by the First Amendment. However, such intent cannot be inferred from the act of cross-burning itself; it must be separately proven.
The decision, though controversial, was clearly the right one. The Court's decision struck exactly the right balance in this difficult area. The First Amendment should not protect the right of people to intimidate or threaten others. But the government cannot eliminate any symbol, however offensive. Speech may be made illegal if it threatens, but not because it offends."

Chemerinsky finds three principles in the case:
1) Government cannot outlaw symbols of hate, no matter how repugnant, or poignant they may be. For instance, "governments seek to ban burning of flags or crosses precisely because these symbols are so widely understood and so effective at conveying particular messages. The Court has held in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning, on its own, cannot be prohibited. The same should be true of cross-burning on its own."
2) Cross burning, with the intent to intimidate, is not protected by the first amendment. "Freedom of speech does not mean anyone has the right to make others feel their safety is threatened."
3) Lastly, the court deals with the issue of proving this intent to intimidate. Virginia wanted to make cross burning prima facie evidence of intent--(which is to say: evidence that is sufficient, by itself, to prove the intent to intimidate). The court, in plurality, ruled that cross burning, by itself, isn't enough to show such intent. Rather, the state will have to prove intent to intimidate.  And in this respect, one might look at the two example cases that were litigated. One dealt with a private gathering of KKK members in an isolated field. The other, with a cross burning in a black family's lawn. Obviously, the intent to intimidate will be easily proven in the latter case, while the former may come under protected speech.

I have to agree with Chemerinsky, and the court's majority/plurality decision on this case. I think they found a way to make a common sense ruling that protects both free speech and freedom from intimidation.

Convicted killer appeals death sentence based on jurors' alleged use of Bible
I think the best line from this story is as follows:
"Lord contends that using religious works during deliberations is improper because they are not Colorado law."
The LORD, here, is a defense attorney, if you were wondering.
Supposedly, the jurors (who were leaning to life in prison) were convinced to go for death after deliberating on the eye for the eye passage. Defense attorney says its no good because jurors have to deliberate on the law of colorado, not of God.
The idea sparks for a second or two, but quickly dies. jurors are humans, and will always rule based (i'd say evenly) on what their sympathy with the facts and their understanding of the law (given throught the jury instruction). If we were to take out their ability to rule on personal beliefs, there would be no reason to screen jurors...or really even to attempt to reach the jurors on a personal level.
More importantly, this is a question of final discretion- who should have it. If the jury is to have the final discretion (and i'm in the camp saying yes), then we can't argue too much about their bibles in hand.

My dream op-ed...Paul Krugman reviews Tom Robbins' "Skinny Legs and All!"
OK, not quite...but he does compare Compassionate Conservativism Pretense to the dance of the seven veils.

I've promised a few folks I'd point out some judicial inconsistency from Justice Scalia...the self-proclaimed bulwark of judicial principle. As fate would have it, Jack Balkin has done some of the work for me. The following is from his Sunday post:
At an address at the University of Mississippi, Justice Antonin Scalia spoke out against the dangers of treating the Constitution as a "living document."
Scalia, 67, a conservative justice known for legal decisions based on strict interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, said people who want change in society should use the democratic process, not the courts, to bring it about.

"What makes you think that a living Constitution is going to evolve in the direction of greater freedoms?" Scalia asked. "It could evolve in the direction of less freedom, and it has."



When the man is right, he's right. When judges make up constitutional doctrines that keep democratically elected legislatures from reforming society and securing liberty and equality, they are failing to do their job properly.
A few examples might include Scalia's own votes to strike down affirmative action programs in Croson and Adarand, and his votes to strike down damage remedies when state governments violate federal civil rights laws in cases like Kimel and Garrett.
On the other hand, Scalia pointed out, when judges refuse to enforce constitutional guarantees against unconstitutional legislation, they also fail to do their job, and this is so even if the meaning of the constitutional guarantee is more expansive than the original understanding:


In 1989, he cast the deciding fifth vote in Texas v. Johnson, the decision that struck down laws against burning the American flag. At the time, conservatives were incensed. Thursday afternoon, Scalia told the UM crowd in that case and others, he was handcuffed by the Constitution.

"I would have been delighted to throw Mr. (Gregory Lee) Johnson in jail," Scalia said of the man tied to the flag case. "Unfortunately, as I understand the First Amendment, I couldn't do it."
Now there's no evidence of which I am currently aware that flag burning was protected under the original understanding of the Free Speech clause in 1791, so Scalia is not making an argument from the original understanding. Rather, he is making an argument, as he forthrightly says, from what he understands the First Amendment to mean."

Quite a good post.

Hussein's Shag carpet...read here for all the steamy detail's of the lately uncovered love shack that once belonged to Iraq's former president.
But with the absence of WMD findings...was Saddam just making love, not war?

   

When my brother sends me pictures of his good times, i wonder how i go on without that styrofoam...

High comedy:
Fox News captures
Rivera on the trojan horse, and much, much more...

For the second week in a row, Jonathan Chait churns out the good stuff in the New Republic. This article may be a subscriber only. Still, it is a short complaint on the GOP tactics of using our war to push through unmerited tax cuts. For example:
"Asked a week ago about McCain's plan to postpone tax cuts until after the war, Fleischer replied that tax cuts would ensure that, "when the war is over, our military has jobs to come home to." Since this seems to be the administration's new line Fleischer has repeated it twice more since it is worth considering in all its glorious absurdity. First, soldiers aren't going to "come home" after the war the way they did after Vietnam. We now have an all-volunteer, professional army, and the administration is not proposing to shrink its size anytime soon. When the war is over, the soldiers will still have jobs as soldiers. Yes, reservists have been called up, but they have a legal right to resume whatever job they left."
Other cheap suggestions that tax cuts = supporting troops are outlined.
In my mind, there's spin, and there's deception. Both parties, no doubt, toe walk the line....but this a stomping down the deception side of the field.

Nice to see the republicans agree that the democrats are perfectly free to criticize the president during wartime. so a few of them (all of them) flog any democrat that speaks out against Bush...in light of the quotes below, we can see that they're just joking:

"US troops will be deployed in Bosnia no matter what the Congress does," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania. "Congress should support the troops without endorsing the president's policy."
...
"I deplore the action of the president, but it is his decision and I will abide by that decision and support it, but, know well that it is a tragedy about to unfold," said Rep. George Gekas, R-Pennsylvania. "
...
Sen. HANK BROWN, (R-CO): We should not send young men and women to their death without being fully resolved that what they might die for is worth the price. I don't believe that the mission that's been outlined is worth that price.
...
Rep. WALLY HERGER (R-CA): Why should you ask blood be spilled for a cause that is not in the interest of the American peopl
...
PAT BUCHANAN: Well, I don't support the policy so much as I support the troops.
...
BOB EDWARDS, Host: On the eve of the signing of the Dayton peace accord a reluctant Congress gave President Clinton only partial support for American involvement in the NATO mission to implement the agreement. Late last night the Senate
approved the deployment of American troops to Bosnia; the House expressed opposition, voting only to support the troops.
....
CANDY CROWLEY: Senator Gramm says he does not believe that the old adage 'politics should stop at the water's edge and that when it comes to foreign policy the president should be given the- the benefit of the doubt' work anymore in this post-cold war era. Senator Gramm intends to vote to cut off the funds for U.S. troops as well as for an amendment which will support the troops but not the mission, although the Democratic leader in the Senate says that is a distinction to him without much difference.
....
Just because President Clinton has made a decision and the troops are already landing, Mr. Lott said, "I'm not going to endorse a wrong decision after the fact."
...
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who angered many Republicans by backing the peace enforcement mission, made it clear that last night's vote was a show of support for American troops, not for Clinton.

"It would be wrong," he said, "to make our young men and women bear the brunt of a decision not made by them."

"We don't support the president's decision," he said. "We do support the troops."

Well, who said republicans were consistnet in their principles?
quotes curtesy of Eschaton.

So, Madonna has no problem pushing the sexuality envelope, but she can't stomach political dissent? Alas, she's no Natalie Maines...
More and more, I'm getting sick of the backlash against artists (or anyone) who choose to speak about current events. Sheez.
Here's the story.

judges should be heard

[T]he public's access to gavel-to-gavel Supreme Court proceedings should not be limited to one big case every few years at the justices' discretion. I pretty much agree with this Times opinion- oral arguments in the supreme court should be available for the public's ear either immediately, or, as yesterday, shortly after the arguments are presented. I have heard 2 major arguments against this (and i reply in turn): 1) public scrutiny of the arguments will hamper justice; or in other words- the public is not fit to hear these arguments. While the justices are ruling on fine points of law (remember, this is the highest level of appeal), the general public will favor the argument that seems compelling on its facts or politics. Thus, the court will become a political outlet based on sound-bites as opposed to sound law. This argument is true, in a sense. As this is appelate advocacy- the cases turn on minute points of law, as opposed to compelling stories (or stories, at all- as the place for fact finding is in the trial court). Still, are we really worried that the public's perception of the oral arguments will cause the justices to rule differently; thus making the supreme court a more politically body. i don't share that fear. 2) the justices will grandstand. ok...i buy this argument when i think of Scalia. But i do not think grandstanding will have a damaging impact on the case itself. i say this with the assumption that the oral argument is not, by and large, where a case is decided. if the briefs are the meat that the justices chew on in deciding these cases, i don't see a problem with some rhetoric during the arguments.

affirmative action

Here's a link to a Wall Streer Journal opinion- "Conservatives Need Not Apply". Fairly typical essay from the journal; to wit, why are we poor conservatives given such hard knocks. (remember the op-ed recently about the "lucky-ducky" poverty stricken folks that don't have to pay such high taxes?) Quickly, the article's argument is this: 1) law professors do more than anything in setting the idealogical setting of a school. 2) law professors, by and large, are democrats (8 to 1 at Michigan). And beyond that, "The overall ratio also understates the skewed debate on issues of public concern: our study finds that professors teaching economics-based subjects like antitrust and corporations are more conservative than their public-law counterparts. This leaves such subjects as constitutional law and international law -- the subjects that set the agenda for debate on the hot-button issues of our time -- with scarcely a conservative voice." 3) thus, if Michigan's really into diversity, they will bring on more conservative professors. Well. The problematic premises of this argument are too numerous to list fully here. (by the way, i assume it is a sort-of argument that Michigan's is disingenuous trumpeting 'diversity'.) Here is my initial response: Does the writer really think that law students are so susceptible to their professors' views that the diversity of student opinion will fade into that of the teachers? As one of those feeble minded students, I can assure the writers this is not the case. The driving feature in most classes--indeed, mostly so in those dreadly liberal public law classes--is debate. In that regard, professors prod students to express different points (legal, policy-minded, etc) in order to get a look at how these laws develope. In two years of law classes, I have noticed no lack of political variety in these class debates. Another (personal) point: It has been my experience that the public law classes (eg, Constitutional Law) involve a great deal more debate than do the economic/corporation classes (where the article finds more conservative professors). Noting that debate fosters a wider spectrum of opinion, the public-law (and thus liberal-led classes) are more diverse than are the economic (conservative) classes; where, indeed, the professor more or less spoon feed their views to students. Now, today's case, as I have understood it, has emphasized the school's interest in diversity more so than the remedial interest that sometimes arises in affirmative action discussions. Needless to say, if the remedial interest is raised (as it would be were I arguing) this article is reduced to stupidity. Well...I take that back. When the writer finds institutionalized party-ism (anti-conservative), or state laws barring conservatives from certain institutions; or if the writer can show me some photos of bathroom stalls with 'liberal' over one door and 'conservative' over the other... then I encourage the Wall Street Journal to debate this issue seriously.