20080731

Mayor’s Dogs Killed in Drug Raid

by Radley Balko

A Prince George’s County, Maryland SWAT team raided the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo last night, shooting and killing his two black labs in the process.

"My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs," Calvo said. "They thought we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don’t think they really ever considered that we weren’t."

Calvo described a chaotic scene, in which he — wearing only underwear and socks — and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and interrogated for hours. They were surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood, Calvo said.

Spokesmen for the Sheriff’s Office and Prince George’s police expressed regret yesterday that the mayor’s dogs were killed. But they defended the way the raid was carried out, saying it was proper for a case involving such a large amount of drugs.

Well no, it isn’t, unless there’s reason to believe that the mayor, his wife, and his mother-in-law are violent people capable of killing cops who might have served the warrant in a less confrontational manner. The possibility of the mayor or his wife disposing of the drugs doesn’t seem likely, either, unless the family owns an industrial-strength toilet: The raid commenced after police began tracking a package filled with 30 pounds marijuana originating in Arizona that was eventually delivered to the mayor’s wife.

Local police are angry that they weren’t notified first:

"You can’t tell me the chief of police of a municipality wouldn’t have been able to knock on the door of the mayor of that municipality, gain his confidence and enter the residence," Murphy said. "It would not have been a necessity to shoot and kill this man’s dogs."

It’s worth emphasizing that these were labs. Not the most intimidating dog in the world. Of course, offing the dog is almost standard procedure in these things, now.

On the other hand, maybe once a few public officials feel the brunt end of the militarized drug war, we’ll get some real discussion about whether it’s all really necessary.

Your Pets Will Not Be Flagged For Removal By Jesus During the Rapture

"No one knows when that day or hour will come. Even the angels in heaven and the Son don't know. Only the Father knows."
(Matthew 24:36)

"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord."
(1 Thessalonians 4:15–17)


Have you ever thought about what will happen to your pets after Jesus comes back to claim the souls of the saved during the Rapture and deliver them to heaven to enjoy ever lasting life? The bible clearly teaches that only those that have accepted Jesus as their savior will enter heaven (John 14:6, Romans 3:23), and we all know that pets do not have the cognitive ability to do this, so what will happen to your beloved pets? Surely without you there, they would be stuck inside your empty house, starving to death with no one to feed them, let them out to potty, or clean their litter box. This is probably not what you envision for your pets after you are gone. This is where I come in.

I am here to offer you pet care service for after the rapture. As an atheist, I will surely still be here on this earth post rapture and would love to look after your pets for a small fee and make sure they are still well taken care of after you and your family have been raptured. You will be able to look down on them from heaven and see them being well cared for by me and living happy, healthy lives. D o not let my atheism scare you! I am a moral and loving pet owner and would never do harm to any animal.

For a small deposit of only $50, you can be assured that your pets will be well cared for from the time that you are raptured until the end of their natural life. They will get adequate amounts of food, water, and shelter as well as plenty of exercise and socialization as I would imagine there will be a lot of pets that will be abandoned by Jesus the pet hater that will need to be cared for.

If interested, please email me for my PayPal address (you can also send me a check if you prefer) so you can assure that your pets will be taken care of after Jesus comes to take your soul to heaven. $50 is only a small price to pay to know that while you are enjoying everlasting bliss, your pets will be cared for until their end days. Thanks and have a great day!

Sean M. Fitzgerald
Vice President &
Director of Operations
RMC/Camille's Sidewalk Cafe
407-314-6231

Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

By Nathan Schneider

Battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will.

The great Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once wrote -- or, rather, sighed -- that "creationism is an American institution."

As an institution, creationism has crossed social strata as easily as it crosses decades. Despite all that science and secularism can do to explain it away, the crusade against evolution -- the foundation of modern biology -- is as intransigent, and strangely modern in its anti-modernism, as ever. The actor-author-documentarian-presidential speechwriter Ben Stein, with his movie Expelled, has become only the latest in the long line of its media-saavy critics. Today, around half of all Americans prefer creationism, in some form, to the scientific consensus.

Few know this better than Lauri Lebo, author of The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America. When the trial over intelligent design theory in Dover, Pennsylvania, caught the attention of the world, Lebo was the lead local reporter covering the case. For her, the controversy was personal as well as professional; as the trial unfolded, she struggled to come to terms with the impending death of her Pentacostal father, desperate for assurance that he would see her in the creationist-only hereafter. In The Devil in Dover, Lebo combines the dramas of family and

courtroom into an engrossing story, trading illusions of journalistic objectivity for hard-won personal truths.

An American Pastime

The Dover trial followed in the footsteps of its notorious predecessor, the famed Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. Like Dover, Dayton was a set-up, orchestrated by money and interests from far away. The ACLU backed Clarence Darrow, the great freethinking lawyer, against the towering populist politician William Jennings Bryan, who fought, literally, to his death -- he died, exhausted and disgraced, a week after the trial ended. All of it was immortalized by H.L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun, one of the foremost journalists of his generation. Since then, evolution trials have become a kind of national pastime, with a big one occurring every few decades and smaller ones even more often than that: Arkansas in 1968, the Supreme Court in 1987, and Georgia in 2004, to name a few.

By 2004, members of Dover's school board began working with the Thomas More Law Center, an organization of conservative Christian lawyers ("the sword and shield for people of faith"), to insert alternatives to evolution in the high school biology curriculum. They were joined by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based group that formed following the 1987 Supreme Court decision against teaching "creation science" in public schools. It has aggressively promoted the theory of "intelligent design," seemingly an even more scientific creationism, which was specifically designed to slip past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When word got out about the school board's plans, the ACLU came to Dover looking to stop intelligent design in its tracks.

Dover held its own as courtroom theater. While on the stand, biologist and devout Catholic Ken Miller gave a slideshow that turned Judge John E. Jones III (and Lebo) into transfixed college kids. The defendant school board members bore witness to their Christian faith in the face of humiliation, disgrace, and finally, a lost election. Plaintiff Cyndi Sneath, despite having "no big degrees," pleaded against the indoctrination of her children. Richard Thompson, the lead lawyer from Thomas More, preached a fiery "revolution in evolution" to the press outside the courtroom, while nearly dozing off in court. As in 1925, there were really two trials going on: one carried out in a court of law, and one blasted around the world by camped-out news correspondents.

In 1925, the creationists won in court -- but lost in the papers and public opinion. In 2005, they lost both.

The Devil in Dover details the demise of the school board's case unforgivingly. Nearly from the start, Lebo insists, board members lied about their intentions for introducing intelligent design. Before the lawyers taught them more secular-sounding language, they spoke openly about creationism and Christianity at meetings. "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross," one challenged. "Won't somebody stand up for him?" Though these remarks were recorded by cameras and newspapers, the board members claimed to have never said them, in order to meet the legal requirement for "secular purpose."

Early on, seeing how the case would go, the Discovery Institute withdrew its support. The board members pressed on, intent on carrying out their religious duty against the demonic religion of Darwinism. Bearing witness in this way, even in hopeless causes, became a badge of merit; worldly defeat could still mean spiritual victory. In her tender portraits, Lebo reveals how creationism fits into the fabric of faith in these men's lives -- the same faith that carries them through personal illness and the "war on terror." After 9/11, Dover parents petitioned to bring back prayer in schools, and six months later, a mural in the high school depicting evolution was destroyed by a janitor. Clearly, the heart of the matter is about more than scientific doctrines. In court, the board members couldn't even summarize the central claims of the intelligent design theory.

Judge Jones's verdict, filed just before the close of 2005, was damning both for the Dover school board and for intelligent design as a whole. "ID is not science," he ruled, and therefore has no place in science classes. Despite the board's hopes that the George W. Bush-appointed judge would be sympathetic to their values, in his verdict he recognized the whole thing as "breathtaking inanity" meant to sneak around the law.

In Lebo's narrative, the court's decision is a triumphant moment. It brings the board members' outright deception, which included painful accusations against her fellow reporters, to justice. She asks again and again how these Christians can blithely ignore the Ninth Commanement and bear such false witness. She asks her father too, and the question erodes what Christian faith she was once able to feign for him.

"I now had a story that didn't just parrot the two sides," she writes. "I could write the truth." To the dismay of the editors at her paper in a largely fundamentalist town, Lebo's dispatches shed the pretense of "equal treatment" for evolution and creationism. She joined in the defamation of intelligent design and celebrated its banishment from ninth grade science class.

Time to Change the Subject

Creationists often cast their plight as a fight against censorship -- being unfairly silenced for simply exploring the scientific possibility that God had a hand in making us. In such debates, the First Amendment see-saws back and forth between two dictates: free speech and the disestablishment of religion. They are the political and legal engines that have kept the evolution controversies going all these decades. And they promise a future of even more intransigence.

The pro-evolution science establishment wants to protect the methodology and public support that have allowed it to learn so much already and poise it for endless more. Secularists want to protect the American legal tradition that keeps church and state comfortably separate. Religious fundamentalists want to bear witness to the created truth of God before the invented truths of people, winning even as they lose. Together they are a recipe for endlessness. Lebo's characters, one by one, come to realize the futility of trying to convince each other. In a recent interview with AlterNet, she confessed, "I don't know where the common

ground is."

If anywhere, the common ground seems to lie in the tradition of debate itself. That, at least, all the partisans share, and all know their place in it. With their separate roles carved out and well-established, it could go on forever, with a modicum of court-enforced sportsmanship keeping things from getting out of hand.

To move beyond this hallowed American quagmire, it will become necessary to change the subject. Evolution's biggest gains in public schools happened in the late 1950s, free from courtroom drama. When Russia scared the United States half to death by launching the Sputnik satellite into space, everyone agreed that there was no time for funny business. We couldn't risk getting behind the Reds in science education. The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study was launched and generously funded, setting forth a scientist-approved, evolution-based curriculum that schools eagerly adopted. In the spirit of nationalism, Christians began folding evolution snugly into their faith, at least until the young-earth creationist Henry Morris called them back to task in the sixties and seventies.

Despite its theatrical appeal, battling creationists will not fix science education. Teaching science will -- with high standards, qualified teachers, and access to lab equipment. If it is necessary to point out how abysmally American students fare compared to those in other countries, so be it. School board members comfortable with and interested in science themselves would see little need for theological distractions. But as a portrait of our present folly, The Devil in Dover paints a national pastime in living, local color. The note Lebo ends on, for good reason, is impassioned stalemate.

20080730

Sounds of the Street Preachers

You wander the streets and you see them around you
They all but surround you
They're happy they found you
They know they can hound you
They smile and you hear that familiar sound, you
Just know this will end only one way - they'll drown you
In scriptures and morals and readings and psalms
And they hold up their arms
Using all of their charms
And already you're moving away in alarm
But they really don't mean to bring you any harm
Because all that they want is a moment in time
In your vision they climb
Is that really a crime?
Back at home if they told you their ultimate cause
You would bar all the windows and lock all the doors
Yet alone in the street they can now make you pause
As your stress level soars
It's their minds against yours
And the second it takes them to sink in their claws
Is the second they think that they've already won
And before you can think of a place you can run
The one chance to avoid them is finished and done
They are already talking of God and his Son
And the street preaching madness has only begun

So just who are these people, and why do they care
If you don't go to prayer
And you don't want to share?
In their Bible and all that its pages declare
Is the truth of their God, and so fine and so rare
That they'd place their hand down on its cover and swear
That their lives are now promised. To what and to where?
An invisible man who is not even there

And where is the source of this deep admiration
Intense motivation
Such pure inspiration?
The son of a God gave them news of salvation
And this information
This realisation
That out of a book they could find revelation
And something that gives them a life transformation
And turns them away from the false explanation
The lies education
Has fed to their nation
This is what drives them on to fight God's Holy war
They must battle the evils they truly abhor
Yet they promise us something we all can explore
Bow your head to the floor
Take the path to God's door
And they tell you that life everlasting's in store
Yet with no word of warning, no chance to implore
When you tell them to leave you alone and 'no more'
Disregarding your protests, your words they ignore
Because all that they know is the one they adore
And the Christian words from their mouths simply pour
And it's Jesus and nothing else counts any more

They can't and they won't and they don't want to leave
They just truly believe
That you need to receive
All the good news this man, or what they now perceive
As a God, has to offer. They cannot conceive
How a person like you would be blind and naive
For they think that your life is so full of temptation
And evil sensation
The path to damnation
But follow their God and you choose liberation
The whole generation
A new congregation
For one destination
A home for your soul at the heart of creation

Their pace is relentless, it's like an attack
On your senses and if you just try to talk back
They ignore all the problems and queries you stack
At the feet of their scripture - that Bible so black
Has not one tiny flaw that they cannot explain
You might try to protest but they're sensing your pain
And they know you'll deny God again and again
But they tell you to think with your heart not your brain
And it drives you insane
And meanwhile they maintain
That the God who so loves you and who they admire
The same God whose book seems to bring awe and inspire
Has but one single purpose - his central desire
Is to burn non-believers like you in the fire
And this is God's love? Then this God is a liar

With such statements your lack of belief is exposed
And the preachers of God see their message opposed
Then a sense of mistrust and hostility grows
And the words they compose
Are from someone who knows
That to deal with such foes
Is the reason they pose
As such plausible speakers of Biblical prose
And just what they suppose
Is that nobody knows
About truth except them and their kind. They compose
Some new ways that your mind
Will be led like the blind
And one day you'll just find
That the doubts of the God you so wrongly maligned
Have been put far behind
And your faith in the saviour of all of mankind
Is the thing that will change you for life and will bind
Heart and soul to God's word, and in grace be entwined

They continue to say
That for them each new day
It just happens that way
And they simply obey
What has brought them to pray
For your soul and to sadly and darkly survey
That without God your lifestyle has led you astray
It just isn't okay
To now turn God away
In the end you will pay
But to their full dismay
You're an unwilling prey
So reluctant they listen as you have your say

And you tell them you've heard them and given it thought
That you've studied the same God and Bible they're taught
You list all of the ways that it all came to naught
And the only good thing from religion you caught
Was a spreading infection called rational thought
And what stirs up your innards and rattles your head
Is the knowledge that fear of a God and the dread
Of a life living frightened to speak out instead
Is now open to critical words and you tread
Where large numbers before you have wanted to go
They just needed to grow
And right now they can show
That their lives without Jesus have meaning, although
Almost all of the preachers don't think this is so

But the atheist numbers increase in their size
And we counter the Christian doctrine of lies
And we pull it apart and we dare criticise
Try to open the shuttered and half-sighted eyes
Of the people who fear God and truly despise
This new group of free thinkers who see the big prize
Is a world without dogma which faith can't disguise

It's a far distant future, I grant you that much
But if each of us stands up and throws down the crutch
Of the Bible then one day we might even touch
The religion around us but meanwhile we clutch
At thin straws if we honestly think we can reach
The closed eyes and blocked ears of the ones who still preach
And as atheists all we can do is take each
New found member, new sceptic, and hope we can teach
That to flourish we all need our powers of speech
We have all the same rights as the faithful and each
Of us has our own mind and the terrible leech
That is sucking the life from each God-absent day
Is some band of evangelists wanting to pray
But next time they meet you
And cheerfully greet you
And start with their God-talk just hot off the street you
May give up and walk on and turn them away
Maybe just for a laugh you could tell them you're gay
Just don't think that you'll change them, at least not today
If you try to outwit them they'll just start to pray
But when next they surround you, here's what you might say:

With my courage restored
With religion I'm bored
That old book is out-dated, your reason is flawed
And you speak of God's peace but his son brought the sword
And now all that I hear when you preach is a fraud
Yes the root of your hatred for me is your Lord
Mindless faith you applaud
While good works are ignored
And for spreading this folly you claim a reward
But when all is explored
And the facts still record
That there's nobody up there, your prayers ignored
Tell me why such a fantasy brings you toward
All these innocent people who, walking abroad
Step around you, avoid you and will not afford
You a look or a glance
So they dodge and they dance
And they side-step the Jesus crowd if there's a chance
To escape from your maddening, saddening trance.

When you speak of my sin, just when did it begin?
Long before I was born you condemned all my kin
And all babies you say hold a cancer within
So I wonder what chance has a mortal to win
With the threat of damnation the chances are slim
And for me with my atheist life they are grim
Faith's not part of my skin
I don't want to go in
To the Heaven you speak of - just more lies you spin

Your religion's so fractured, in dogma you're stuck
And you claim that no evil lies inside your book
But outside its worn pages you never dare look
And in science from thin air your fantasies pluck
Manufactured from muck
All your theories suck
Add in fear, mix with hate, when you simply mistook
What you heard from a sermon that someone made up
And repeated so often that time and good luck
Have all made it sound true. Those who question are struck
With the wrath of their neighbours and such is the plight
Of the words of the doubters and those who would fight
To the death for their country but not for the right
Just to question religion - most cower in fright
And they stay out of sight
They are oh so polite
And if cornered they'll do their best not to ignite
And it's really no wonder the Church has such might
Yet the time for its critics to surface is right
See our flag? No more white
And so now we invite
You to join with this battle of words we incite
All you Christians take home this message tonight
You may think we're in darkness but we bring the light

Botched Raid on Innocent Family Earns Cops Merit Badges

by Radley Balko

Last December, I posted about a botched SWAT raid on an innocent Minnesota family. Acting on bad information from an informant, the police threw flash grenades though the family’s windows, then exchanged gunfire with Vang Khang, who mistook the police for criminal intruders. Seven months later, no one in the police department has been held accountable for the mistakes leading up to the raid.

However, this week Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan and Mayor R.T. Rybak did give the raiding officers medals and commendations for their bravery in nearly killing Vang Khang, his wife, and their six children.

Said Chief Dolan while handing out the hardware:

"The easy decision would have been to retreat under covering fire. The team did not take the easy way out," Dolan told the crowd. "This is a perfect example of a situation that could have gone horribly wrong, but did not because of the professionalism with which it was handled."

This is really beyond outrage. The city of Minneapolis is commending and rewarding its police officers for firing their weapons at innocent people. A family of eight was terrorized, assaulted, and nearly killed, and it’s the "perfect example" of a situation that could have gone wrong?

It’s not the first time this kind of thing has happened, either. In November 2006, a Baltimore County, Maryland police officer was given an award for shooting Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mother of two gunned down in her nightgown when she grabbed a gun after mistaking the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. The officer then shot Noel a second time from point blank range. That award came shortly after the Noel family filed a civil suit against Baltimore County.

MORE: Listen to the 911 call from Khang’s wife here. Note how long it takes for the police to finally identify themselves.

Steven Greenhouse: Why We're Working More and Earning Less

By Juan Gonzalez

Wages are stagnating, but productivity keeps going up. Author Steven Greenhouse explains why things are out of whack in the workplace.

Juan Gonzalez: The federal minimum wage increased last week from $5.85 to $6.55. The increase gave nearly two million American workers a raise. The seventy-cent increase is the second of three enacted under a 2007 law that saw the first minimum wage hike in more than a decade.

But, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage remains lower in real terms than it was forty years ago, despite record corporate profits.

A new book by the New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse examines how much of the American workforce is working more but earning less. Wages have stagnated, health and pension benefits have grown stingier, and job security has shriveled. The book is titled The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker.

Steven Greenhouse joins Democracy Now! You've traveled all around America, obviously, as a labor reporter for the New York Times, and you take us into all kinds -- not just to factories, but the Silicon Valley jobs, the service jobs, to give us a sense of what is happening to the everyday worker.

Steven Greenhouse: We all love Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed, and I felt, I'm going to try building on that. And I really try looking across the board what's happening to the nation's workers. I look at, you know, farm workers. I look at Microsoft workers. I look at, you know, factory workers, whose jobs are disappearing to Mexico. And I look at, you know, software engineers at Hewlett-Packard, at some other places, you know, that have lost their jobs to India. I look at janitors in Houston who -- I focus on one janitor in Houston, who, after ten years, is making just $5.25 an hour. I write about a Dominican worker in Brooklyn who works eleven hours a day for just $35 a day. You know, the whole panoply of what's happening, to show that there's this big squeeze on the nation's workers, where, as you were just saying, wages have been flat, health and pension benefits are getting worse, at the same time corporate profits have gone up very, very nicely. Employee productivity has gone up 15, 20 percent, yet wages have been flat, plus companies are pressuring workers, you know, to work harder and harder.

Gonzalez: The health insurance situation, I think you had a starting story about one worker, a security guard, who had caught many shoplifters at his store. He hurts himself in the process of capturing one of them or arresting one of them and then ends up being fired, because now he requires medical treatment that his employers don't want to give him. The impact of the health insurance crisis on America's workers?

Greenhouse: I write about this worker, Mike Michell, who works as security guard for a Wal-Mart in Texas, and he was a great security guard. He caught 180 shoplifters over a two-year period. One day, he runs out into the parking lot to chase after someone who's using stolen checks. The woman's accomplice floors the accelerator, hits Mike, you know, messes up his back, breaks his kneecap. You know, Mike asks for a few weeks off, because he needs surgery on his knee. He applies for workers' comp, and boom, he's fired. And this shows how companies sometimes retaliate against people who file for workers' comp.

And that's part of a broader health crisis in the nation, where, since the year 2000, even though we've had pretty good economic times until the last few months, nine million more Americans are out of work than was the case in 2000. So now, almost 50 million Americans, nearly one-sixth of the workforce, is uninsured. And you think how crazy that is, in ways. You know, we're the world's wealthiest nation, yet one-in-six workers are out of work.

And another, you know, health statistic that surprised me when I was researching the book was, United States spends about $6,500 per person for health coverage, which is more than twice what France and Germany spent, about two-and-a-half times what Japan spent, yet, you know, they have universal health coverage. They have longer life spans than Americans. Yet, you know, we spend twice as much, and one-in-six people are uninsured. So something is badly broken in the health system.

Gonzalez: Now, given the record corporate profits that we've seen and the relative prosperity of so many American companies over recent decades, why do we have this continuing spiral downward, in terms of the living standard of the average worker?

Greenhouse: You know, if there's any one theme in my book, Juan, it's that things are out of whack, out of balance in the workplace, that corporate profits have hit record levels, employee productivity has really zoomed upward 15, 20 percent over the past six, seven years, yet, you know, wages have gone nowhere. You know, corporate profits, as a percentage of overall national income, have hit record levels, and wages, as a percentage of income, national income, have fallen to the lowest level since basically the Depression.

So, what's wrong here? That's a good question. I think part of it is that employees unions have much less bargaining power, much less power vis-a-vis corporations than was the case thirty, forty, fifty years ago. Part of that is weaker unions. Part of that is globalization has really increased corporate power over workers, because corporations can tell employees, "Look, if you don't accept a wage freeze, we'll just move your job to China or India. If you're too vocal in demanding wage increases, raises, well, maybe you'll be caught up in the next round of downsizing." So I think globalization has really enabled corporations to increase pressure.

… I think Wall Street, since the 1980s and the rise of the institutional investor, the rise of mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, Wall Street is exerting much more pressure on corporations to maximize their share prices, as you know, which means maximize profits, which often translates into lowering costs and especially lowering payroll costs. So a lot of managers will say, you know, the area where they have most flexibility to reduce cost and increase profits is on payroll. So that's why we're seeing all these waves of downsizing.

Gonzalez: You know, one of the things that I've often wondered about, especially over the last twenty years, is -- as we've both covered the labor movement for many years -- is that the impact of the lack of alternatives on the world scale, that it seems that during the period when there were a considerable number of socialist countries in the world, for all their problems that these countries had, they at least provided an alternative vision of the kind of society -- how workers would be treated. And as a result, the capitalist countries almost had to provide more benefits to their workers to prevent them from trying to institute a socialist society, so that, in essence, once the socialist camp collapsed, really the Western capitalists felt that pretty much, hey, we don't have to worry about our workers taking any other roads, so we can do whatever we want with them. It seems to me that, in some degree, one benefit to us in the United States and Europe by the existence of the Soviet Union and China, all these others, was that the governments had to be more careful about how they treated their workers. Any thoughts on that?

Greenhouse: I kind of saw there are three camps. There's like the American, you know, almost extreme free market model. There was the western European kind of social democracy model. And then there was the socialist-communist model of China, Russia. So that model has kind of fallen -- the lesson has kind of fallen by the wayside, but I still think, you know, there's a very strong western European model, which still remains quite different from the American model. And you speak to a lot of, you know, union people here, liberals here, progressives here, they say, "Well, we should have a lot more what western Europe has."

You know, in researching the book, I was kind of surprised, even shocked, that the United States is the only industrial nation without universal health coverage. We're the only industrial nation without -- actually, one of the very few nations in the world, one of four nations of the world, without paid maternity leave. We're the only industrialized nation without a law saying everyone gets x number of vacation days. In the European Union, the twenty-seven nations, every worker is guaranteed four weeks' vacation. And also, we're the only industrialized nation where workers are not by law guaranteed a set number of paid sick days. So, you know, I think we still have a lot to learn from the so-called social democracies of Europe, in terms of their model versus our model.

Gonzalez: And hopefully they will last long enough for us to learn from them. Let me ask you about our labor movement. Obviously, a few years back, there was a big battle and division within the American labor movement between the AFL-CIO and the establishment of a new Change to Win coalition, led by the SEIU and others, but that coalition really hasn't appeared to have had much of an impact on the overall direction that the labor movement is going in. What's your sense of how this is shaking out, this split in the American -- in organized labor?

Greenhouse: The unions that quit the AFL-CIO - the Service Employees, the UNITE HERE apparel hotel workers, the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers -- they wanted to leave the AFL-CIO to give them an opportunity to grow faster and mobilize more. I think you're right. We haven't yet seen real big changes in how much these unions have been organizing. The Service Employees were organizing, you know, more workers than any other union before the split; they continue to organize more than any other union. UNITE HERE was doing a lot of organizing before the split; it still is. But some of the unions in Change to Win that weren't doing much organizing before, like the Teamsters, like United Food and Commercial Workers, unfortunately they're still not doing much organizing. We keep hearing that Change to Win is working very hard with these unions to turn things around.

You know, in the book, I write about one kind of Change to Win or Service Employees organizing drive that does hold out a lot of hope for the labor movement. I write about the Service Employees' effort to unionize 5,300 janitors in Houston, and the workers there really had it bad. I mention, you know, this worker who worked ten years as a janitor at a luxury office building, where, after ten years, she was still making $5.25 an hour, and she was an immigrant from El Salvador, refugee from El Salvador. And so, she got involved in this unionization drive. And, you know, the workers, these 5,300 janitors, virtually all of them were immigrants, virtually none of them spoke English. Many of them were undocumenteds. They were all part-time. They were all subcontract -- I mean, a very, very, very hard population to organize and, to boot, in a state that's one of the most -- Texas, one of the most anti-union in the nation.

And the Service Employees were able to unionize them using some very smart tactics that I describe in detail. And as a result of the contract, the workers' wages rise, you know, 60 percent over three years, they go from twenty hours a week to thirty hours a week, so, in effect, their wages double in three years, plus they get health insurance. And I think that's a wonderful model of how unions can still do important work in helping low-wage workers. You know, could they have done that before this split? Yes. I don't know if the split really was needed to do that.

Gonzalez: We're talking with Steve Greenhouse, the labor reporter for the New York Times, and he's written the new book The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker. In talking about the SEIU, which is obviously the -- I guess the preeminent union right now in the United States, certainly the fastest-growing and most politically influential, they've had their troubles, too, in recent years, because as they've grown, there's also been criticism that they've become increasingly -- sort of making arrangements or deals with companies or with political leaderships in order to get what they call a card check or neutrality agreements to bring in thousands and thousands of workers at one time, but that some are criticizing them for being too much of a top-down organization, rather than practicing sort of the rank-and-file democracy that unions have long espoused, at least in theory. Your sense of how this -- these internal conflicts among the reformers in the labor movement are shaking out now?

Greenhouse: There are -- the Service Employees, I agree, Juan, are the fastest-growing union in the nation. I often think of the phrase about Reggie Jackson of the Yankees: they're the rod that stirs the drink in the labor movement. They're really, you know, kicking ass in many ways. They're doing a lot.

And -- but there's a big debate within the union, that, you know, Andy Stern, you know, the leader, who is in many ways the most visionary leader in the labor movement -- you know, people say, "Oh, he's too top-down. He doesn't listen enough to what's happening at the grassroots." And Stern -- and he's having a big fight with the head of the union's biggest healthcare union in California, headed by Sal Rosselli. But Stern says, you know, "I'm pushing ahead. You know, we're doing what's needed to grow, and we have a good vision. And, you know, come along with us." And as in any big institution, there are frictions. And as you say, Juan, you know, they have made some pragmatic choices that they'll give perhaps some concessions on wages with a company to persuade that company to make it easier to allow card check when SEIU is trying to organize some of their non-union operations in other states. So there's a big debate about how much -- how many concessions should one make in order to get organizing rights to make it easier to organize non-union workers who have it worse than those, you know, who already are unionized.

Gonzalez: One of the things that struck me in your book was when you talk about the companies that actually treat their workers well, which you mention Costco and some other companies, and it might come as a surprise to those of us who continue to labor under less-than-ideal conditions in our workplaces. Can you talk about those companies and how they came to the philosophy that they pursue in their business?

Greenhouse: Sure. In the book, I write about a lot of things, wrong things, a company is doing. You know, and I have chapter after chapter about companies that make people work off the clock, or managers that erase hours from people's time cards, or companies that horribly exploit undocumented workers.

But I thought it would be important to show that there are some, even a lot of, companies that do the right thing, that treat their workers very well. And at Costco -- and I have a long section about Costco -- the founder, Jim Senegal, son of a Pennsylvanian who was a coal miner and a steel worker and a good union man, you know, Senegal had this vision that "I'm going to treat my workers well. I'm going to have very low prices. I don't want anyone thinking that I have low prices because our workers work under sweatshop conditions, though." He decided, in setting up Costco, that Costco would have the best wages and benefits of any retailer, general retailer, in the nation. And --

Gonzalez: And does it?


Greenhouse: Generally, it does, yes. Someone working at Costco for, say, five years, their wages and benefit package together will be two, two-and-a-half times what the wage and benefit package is together at Wal-Mart. You know, the health plan is extremely good.

There's this funny story about Costco, where each year they do a survey of their workers, saying, "What's the best thing about working at Costco? What's the worst thing about working at Costco?" And one poll found that employees said the worst thing about working at Costco is they weren't allowed to wear shorts to work year round. So, imagine if that were the biggest complaint at every company in the United States.

And, you know, Costco is a direct rival of Wal-Mart. You know, they're competing for the same shoppers who want discounts. Yet Costco's vision is, if you pay your workers well, if you treat them well, they'll be loyal to you, they'll be very productive, and they'll smile to customers. And, you know, you want your customers to like you when they shop at your place.

Gonzalez: And you say the CEO has been under a lot of pressure from Wall Street to change those conditions?

Greenhouse: Well, there are folks on Wall Street who say, you know, "Senegal, your prices are too low. You should raise your prices. Your wages are too high. You could increase your profits by decreasing, you know, by holding down, by freezing your wages, by reducing your generous health benefits." And he sticks to his guns, and he says, "That's my vision, and that's what we're going to do."

Gonzalez: And some of the other companies that you mention there?

Greenhouse: I write about Ernst & Young, you know, in Midtown Manhattan. I interviewed the former chairman of Ernst & Young, who said, "You know, when I was growing up, all the smartest girls in high school, all the smartest young women in -- all the smartest people in college were women." And then he said, when he went to work at Ernst & Young, you know, half the people hired were women, and they were the best workers, yet he was dismayed, he was shocked, that only five percent of Ernst & Young's partners were women. So he said he was going to change that. So Ernst & Young has really -- you know, he realized that the reason so many women were leaving in droves was that the job was too demanding. It made it nearly impossible to balance job and family. So he really developed -- Ernst & Young has really developed this wonderful flex-time model that other companies should seek to emulate, I think. You know, workers, female workers, male workers, if they want, they could decide to just work three days a week or just four days a week, and as long as you work more than twenty hours a week, you still get full benefits. People can work, you know, seventy hours a week in the months before tax time, and then they could take the summer off.

I write about Patagonia, another wonderful company that believes in serious flex time. Patagonia in Ventura, California, right along the Pacific, kind of encourages its workers to go surfing at lunchtime. And they -- you know, I interviewed some workers. They go surfing for two hours at lunchtime. And, you know, you think many companies would think, "That's outrageous. How are you going to get your work done?" But Patagonia trusts its employees to use their flex time. You know, maybe they'll finish working a project at home at night.

Gonzalez: Well, in terms of what needs to be done to change the trend now, in terms of the treatment of American workers, if you had to single out one or two key turnarounds that the country needs, what would they be?

Greenhouse: Very quickly, I think -- we've lost one-fifth of our manufacturing jobs since the year 2000, 3.5 million jobs, generally, you know, good middle-class jobs with very good benefits. The nation, by and large, has paid way too little attention about strengthening its manufacturing sector. And I think it's important to do that. One way to do it is put greater focus on green jobs, which can be manufacturing jobs making solar panels, making hybrid cars.

A second thing, I think the nation, by and large, hasn't paid enough respect to workers as workers. You know, all the attention is about, you know, the Bill Gateses, the Warren Buffetts, the A-Rods, the Paris Hiltons, and not enough about workers. I think workers, in many ways, have become invisible as workers. They're seen as Bud drinkers or Oprah watchers, but they're not really seen as workers who, you know, bust their derrieres day in and day out, you know, making the trains run on time, you know, cleaning hotel rooms. And I think if the news media or if politicians really started paying more attention, more respect to workers, that might discourage corporations' CEOs from squeezing their workers so much.

A third very quick thing is, you know, I think universal health coverage is very important, because whether you're working, you're constantly forking over more money each year for health premiums, or if you're laid off, you know, you're in the same position, that you, your spouse, your kids might lose health insurance. So I think universal health insurance is key to making life less insecure for workers.

Gonzalez: And we've got about thirty seconds. How many labor reporters are there in American newspapers these days? Are you the last one? Are you the last one?

Greenhouse: Well, you do a wonderful job for the Daily News, and you beat me on too many stories. I'm embarrassed to talk about that. The Wall Street Journal has a good young labor reporter. You know, Steve Franklin at the Chicago Tribune is a terrific labor reporter. He's done a lot of great stuff about immigrant workers. But it's a very small group. The LA Times no longer has a labor reporter, and the Washington Post really no longer has one, and it's sad. I want more competition in this business.

Lovely Wedding Ends with Bride and Groom Getting Tasered

"The police must have felt overwhelmed and would naturally need to taser the groom or risk having to use deadly force instead."

The Michigan wedding of Durango newlyweds Andy and Ania Somora came to an abrupt end last weekend after the bride and groom were tasered by local police and spent their wedding night in jail.
According to a news release from the Chikaming Township (Mich.) Police Department, Officer Jeff Enders responded Saturday to the Burnison Art Gallery in Lakeside, Mich., after gallery owner Judi Burnison asked for assistance with unruly guests at the Somoras' wedding reception.
Burnison, who rented the gallery to the Somoras for the reception, told Enders the party had gotten out of hand, and there were broken glasses and spilled drinks.
Burnison declined to comment Wednesday, but she said her lawyer would respond to questions.
However, no call was received as of Wednesday evening.
Enders told the assembled guests to leave, but many became upset, police said. Enders called for backup, and 14 law-enforcement agencies responded to help clear the crowd. Police said that many of the 100 guests left peacefully, but several continued to be disorderly and to swear at the officers.

However, eyewitness Kacpar Skowron, a professional Chicago photographer and friend of Ania Somora, said police overreacted and ruined a perfectly good wedding.
"My perspective is that the main officer (Enders) handling it was cool at first, but then he started threatening that everybody would be arrested. But trying to kick the party out at 11:20 (p.m.) on a wedding night when we had a contract to be there? He was a big jerk," Skowron said.
Skowron said the crowd got particularly unruly after police handcuffed Andy Somora's father and put him in the back of a police cruiser. He said the elder Somora, whom he described as "a distinguished older gentleman," was trying to talk to Enders to defuse the situation.
"I didn't believe it, but I witnessed it. It was brutal, and that's when Andy got really mad," he said.
Skowron said Andy Somora had to be restrained by police and was tasered at least twice. His wife also received a shock because she was touching her husband during one of the incidents. Skowron said husband and wife were both arrested, but Chikaming police would not confirm that claim, and no mention of the use of a taser is included in the news release.

Maybe there was no taser. But I wouldn't be surprised. Wedding receptions are notoriously dangerous and there were only 14 different law enforcement agencies present. The police must have felt overwhelmed and would naturally need to taser the groom or risk having to use deadly force instead. That, after all, is the rationale for taser use.

Here's a picture of the police having to defend themselves against the bride:

20080729

The Killing of Rachel Hoffman and the Tragedy That Is Pot Prohibition

By Paul Armentano

Police caught Hoffman with pot but promised to drop charges if she agreed to go undercover in a drug bust. She was killed soon afterward.

Rachel Hoffman is dead. Rachel Hoffman, like many young adults, occasionally smoked marijuana.

But Rachel Hoffman is not dead as a result of smoking marijuana; she is dead as a result of marijuana prohibition.

Under prohibition, Rachel faced up to five years in a Florida prison for possessing a small amount of marijuana. (Under state law, violators face up to a $5,000 fine and five years in prison for possession of more than 20 grams of pot.)

Under prohibition, the police in Rachel's community viewed the 23-year-old recent college graduate as nothing more than a criminal and threatened her with jail time unless she cooperated with them as an untrained, unsupervised confidential informant. Her assignment: Meet with two men she'd never met and purchase a large quantity of cocaine, ecstasy and a handgun. Rachel rendezvoused with the two men; they shot and killed her.

Under prohibition, the law enforcement officers responsible for brazenly and arrogantly placing Rachel in harm's way have failed to publicly express any remorse -- because, after all, under prohibition Rachel Hoffman was no longer a human being deserving of such sympathies.

Speaking on camera to ABC News' "20/20" last week, Tallahassee Police Chief Dennis Jones attempted to justify his department's callous and irresponsible behavior, stating, "My job as a police chief is to find these criminals in our community and to take them off the streets (and) to make the proper arrest."

But in Rachel Hoffman's case, she was not taken "off the streets," and police made no such arrest -- probably because, deep down, even they know that people like Rachel pose no imminent threat to the public. Instead, the officers on the scene secretly cut a deal with Rachel: They told her that they would not file charges if she agreed to go undercover.

Rachel became the bait; the Tallahassee police force went trolling for sharks.

In the weeks preceding Rachel's murder, police told her to remain tight-lipped about their backroom agreement -- and with good reason. The cops' on-the-spot deal with Rachel flagrantly violated Tallahassee Police Department protocol, which mandated that such an arrangement must first gain formal approval from the state prosecutor's office. Knowing that the office would likely not sign off on their deal -- Rachel was already enrolled in a drug court program from a prior pot possession charge, and cooperating with the TPD as a drug informant would be in violation of her probation -- the police simply decided to move forward with their informal arrangement and not tell anybody.

"(In) hindsight, would it have been a good idea to let the state attorney know? Yes," Jones feebly told "20/20." Damn right it would have been; Rachel Hoffman would still be alive.

But don't expect Jones or any of the other officers who violated the department's code of conduct -- violations that resulted in the death of another human being -- to face repercussions for their actions. Obeying the rules is merely "a good idea" for those assigned with enforcing them. On the other hand, for people like Rachel, violating those rules can be a death sentence.

Of course, to those of us who work in marijuana law reform, we witness firsthand every day the adverse consequences wrought by marijuana prohibition -- a policy that has led to the arrest of nearly 10 million young people since 1990. To us, the sad tale of Rachel Hoffman marks neither the beginning nor the end of our ongoing efforts to bring needed "reefer sanity" to America's criminal justice system. It is simply another chapter in the ongoing and tragic saga that is marijuana prohibition.

20080726

Christian-Themed License Plate Program Goes Too Far

By Rob Boston

New lawsuit argues that South Carolina's 'I Believe' license plate favors Christianity over other faiths.

The Rev. Dr. Thomas A. Summers of Columbia, S.C., spent his career working as a pastoral chaplain, where he promoted concepts such as interfaith harmony and respect among religions.

Now retired, the United Methodist minister was duly alarmed when he learned that government officials in his state planned to create a special license plate for Christians. A strong supporter of church-state separation, Summers quickly agreed to join a lawsuit sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State to stop the plate from being issued.

"As a resident of South Carolina for over 70 years and as a Christian minister for nearly 50 years in this state, I am incensed by the action of our state legislature in its approving the 'I Believe' license plates," Summers said. "I have spent so much of my ministerial career in interfaith efforts in hopes of healing any religious division. Sadly, these plates represent the governmental sanction of Christianity over the many other wonderful religious faith groups in our state.

"This arrogant action taken by the legislature is absolutely divisive, oppressive and is an affront to what true interfaith cooperation is all about," he continued.

The legal action takes aim at a specialty license plate approved by the South Carolina legislature last month. The so-called "I Believe" license plate features a large yellow cross superimposed over a depiction of a stained-glass church window. The words "I BELIEVE" appear at the bottom of the plate.

Americans United had warned Palmetto State legislators not to approve the specialty tag, pointing out that such preferential treatment for Christianity runs afoul of the First Amendment. Lawmakers were not swayed. Approval of the plate was among a spate of religion-themed bills passed by the legislature this summer.

Like many states, South Carolina offers a variety of special license plates that promote civic and community organizations. These plates typically cost between $30 to $100 above the regular $24 plate fee, with the sponsoring organization receiving a cut of the funds.

Organizations seeking special plates are required to prove, before production begins, that there is sufficient interest in the tag by putting down a $4,000 deposit or providing 400 pre-paid orders. Numerous organizations have gone through this process, including the South Carolina Chiropractic Association, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Free Masons and the Secular Humanists of the Low Country.

The state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) says these special plates may contain the name of the sponsoring organization and its logo but may not contain other words, phrases or slogans.

In other cases, some organizations have approached the legislature to approve a special license plate. These plates are free from some DMV regulations and can feature an icon, a slogan or both. The requesting organization typically designs these plates and must submit a marketing plan before the tags enter production. The groups must still provide a $4,000 deposit or 400 pre-paid orders.

The "I Believe" plate is different. No group requested it. And, although the legislature has approved plates bearing the national motto "In God We Trust" as well as the phrase, "God Bless America," the "I Believe" plate marks the first time that the legislature has ever passed legislation approving a license plate that promotes a particular faith.

State officials chose the design for the plate and presumably will be responsible for marketing it. Eager to see the plate produced as soon as possible, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has said he is willing to pay the $4,000 deposit, although he plans to be reimbursed by the state later. And Gov. Mark Sanford has ordered that the DMV charge no more than the cost of production for the plate, which has been estimated to be four to six dollars. Thus, the "I Believe" plate will be significantly cheaper than almost every other specialty license plate.

"The state has clearly given preferential treatment to Christianity with this license plate," said Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "I can't think of a more flagrant violation of the First Amendment's promise of equal treatment for all faiths."

Joining Summers as plaintiffs in the case are three other South Carolina clergy - the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Knight, pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Charleston and an adjunct professor of clinical counseling at Webster University; Rabbi Sanford T. Marcus, rabbi emeritus at the Tree of Life Congregation in Columbia; and the Rev. Dr. Neal Jones, pastor of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Columbia. A national religious organization, the Hindu American Foundation, has also signed on.

The Summers v. Adams legal action was filed June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. It charges that the Christian plate gives preferential governmental treatment to one faith and asks the court to prevent South Carolina officials from producing the special tag.

How did South Carolina get to this pass? Lt. Gov. Bauer and state lawmakers apparently picked up the idea from Florida, where some legislators and lobbyists pushed for an "I Believe" license plate. Although the measure stalled in Florida, it ripped through the South Carolina House of Representatives and Senate, passing the Senate by unanimous consent and the House by a vote of 109-0.

The license plate push is part of a larger effort in South Carolina to erode the separation of church and state. State Sen. Larry Grooms, a Republican from Bonneau, has been the driving force behind this gambit.

Grooms went on something of a religious crusade in South Carolina this year, pressing for the "I Believe" plate and also sponsoring bills fostering prayer at public meetings and encouraging government agencies and public schools to display the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer alongside other "historic" documents. All three measures became law.

Grooms, a Southern Baptist and gas station owner, was first elected in 1997 and is known for pushing Religious Right causes. He sponsored successful legislation to create supposedly objective elective classes about the Bible in South Carolina public schools and has backed school vouchers as well. In 2007, he sponsored a bill that would have required any woman seeking an abortion to first look at an ultrasound image of her fetus.

In 2006, Grooms and other South Carolina lawmakers sent a letter to the president of Clemson University, protesting the school's decision to assign the book Truth & Beauty by Ann Patchett to incoming freshmen. The memoir deals with Patchett's close, but non-sexual, relationship with another female writer. Grooms carped that the book was too racy for freshmen.

Grooms' religiously themed legislation attracted little controversy in South Carolina, where religious conservatives dominate, but national organizations like Americans United were watching developments carefully and continued to speak out.

The "I Believe" plate appeared especially vulnerable to a legal challenge, and the bill did give Gov. Sanford some pause. Sanford refused to sign the measure, allowing it to become law without his signature.

In a letter to the legislature, Sanford said he had some concerns about the way the plate was authorized. He called the process "unnecessarily complicated" and criticized the General Assembly for creating this plate.

Sanford also worked a little sermonette into his reply.

"While I do, in fact, 'believe' - it is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one's faith ought to be in how one lives one's life," observed the governor. "[The biblical book of] Galatians talks of the fruit of the spirit as peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and more - and, accordingly, if God is working in one's life, these things will say what no license plate will ever say."

Despite his qualms, Sanford is allowing the plate to go into production, leading to the AU legal action.

"The state has made believers of non-Christian faiths feel that they are second-class citizens," Lynn said. "Under our Constitution, that's impermissible."

AU attorneys Ayesha N. Khan, Heather L. Weaver and Nancy Leong address this matter in their legal brief. They assert that the law authorizing the plate "constitutes governmental speech because the plate was designed, proposed and approved by, and will be produced and distributed by, state officials. The passage of the legislation creating the 'I Believe' license plate, the advertising and marketing of the plate and the imminent production of the plate have the purpose and effect of promoting, advancing and endorsing the Christian religion."

The legal challenge is not South Carolina's first tangle over license plates. In 2001, South Carolina lawmakers approved a "Choose Life" license plate to promote opposition to legal abortion. Like the "I Believe" plate, the idea for the "Choose Life" tag came from legislators.

Planned Parenthood sued, and in 2004, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down issuance of the plate, holding that the state's refusal to make available an equivalent pro-choice license plate was viewpoint discrimination. (Planned Parenthood v. Rose)

South Carolina officials reacted to the Americans United lawsuit with anger - and defiance.

"For those who say this violates the Constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith," Bauer said in a statement. "I expect the state attorney general to vigorously defend this, and it is time that people stand up for their beliefs. Enough is enough."

But plaintiff Jones said Bauer has it wrong.

"As a citizen, I resent the fact that our legislature is acting in a way that favors one group of citizens," Jones, who serves as president of AU's Columbia Chapter, told the Greenville News. "As representatives, they are supposed to represent all the people. They aren't doing that; they are showing favoritism. If you're not a Christian, the implied message is you're a second-class citizen."

Jones' concerns were echoed by the Hindu American Foundation.

Suhag Shukla, the Foundation's legal counsel, called the state's action "divisive and just the kind of majoritarianism and political kowtowing that our Founding Fathers foresaw and sought to prevent."

"Hindus and adherents of other minority faiths," concluded Shukla, "are clearly rendered to second-class citizenship by this legislation."

Plaintiff Knight pointed out another problem with the plate: It debases the Christian message.

"As an evangelical Christian, I don't think civil religion enhances the Christian religion. It compromises it," Knight told the Associated Press. "That's the fundamental irony. It's very shallow from a Christian standpoint."

The day the suit was filed, AU's office was inundated with hostile e-mails from outraged Religious Right sympathizers, furious over the legal action. Lynn said the Religious Right's vituperation won't slow down AU for a minute.

Sponsoring the plate sent "a clear signal that Christianity is the preferred religion of South Carolina," Lynn told The New York Times. "And obviously we don't believe the Constitution allows this."

<...obviously it's not POSSIBLE to believe the Constitution allows this!>

20080725

Elderly woman prohibiting from photographing empty swimming pool "to prevent paedophilia"

An 82-year-old woman in Southampton, UK was told she couldn't take photos of an empty wading pool because she might be a paedophile. Because, you know, anything that children touch regularly becomes part of their souls, and if a paedophile looks at those objects, it's just like sexually assaulting a child.

Makes me glad, as a father, to live here in the UK, where the clear-eyed, sensible view of paedophilia is doing so much to ensure the safety of my daughter from assaults by strangers (an occurrence that is so rare as to be practically nonexistent) while doing practically nothing to protect her from the people who are statistically most likely to assault her -- her family, her friends' parents, her teachers, and other people known to her, who account for the overwhelming majority of assaults on children.

> An amateur photographer was told she could not take snaps of an empty paddling pool because she might be a paedophile.

Betty Robinson was ordered to put away her camera by a council worker when she began snapping the outdoor pool.

'It's absolutely ridiculous – it's bureaucracy gone mad,' said the 82-year-old widow from Southampton.

She was with friend Brenda Bennett as she took pictures of the city's common – where the pool is situated.

Air Force Brass Get "Comfort Capsules" on Taxpayer's Dime

Posted by Liliana Segura

A new report finds the Air Force is spending counterterrorism funds on luxury in-flight seating for military and civilian leaders.

I know it's been a long war, with a lot of egregious waste and all, but perhaps you recall the one about KBR's embroidered towels, that sordid episode in which a KBR contractor was told by a higher up that, when ordering towels for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, he should be sure to get them with the company logo stitched on them, so that the troops would be sure to know which corporation provided them with terrycloth goodness in a war zone. Never mind that the bit of embroidery tripled or quadrupled the cost of the towels. "This is a cost-plus contract," the supervisor said. "Taxpayers pay for that."

Like KBR's empty trucks, the towels became a symbol of contractor fraud and the profit-driven abuse of the American people that, aside from the war itself, has become one of the major scandals of the Iraq invasion -- a "profound waste of taxpayers' money," in the words of Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Of course, those are war profiteers. They're in the business of being shameless and crass. But what happens when the waste is not about profit padding by mercenaries but, rather, about padding the derrieres of military commanders?

Well, this.

Last week, the Washington Post reported that top Air Force brass "sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on 'comfort capsules' to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents."

"Production of the first capsule -- consisting of two sealed rooms that can fit into the fuselage of a large military aircraft -- has already begun."

So, what exactly is a "comfort capsule"? A glance at the design (helpfully posted alongside the article) reveals them to be pretty much what they sound like; sort of ultra-cozy VIP cubicles; what the average office workspace might look like, only airborne, with leather seats and flat screen TVs.

Also, "an Air Force document specified that the capsule's seats are to swivel such that 'the longitudinal axis of the seat is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, regardless of where the capsules are facing." For there will be no air-borne nausea aboard military flights -- this is war, dammit! Air Force leaders must be able to "talk, work and rest comfortably in the air," according to Brigadier General Robert H. McMahon, one of the military men responsible for carrying out the comfort capsule project. From their inception, McMahon made it clear that the "comfort capsules" should be considered "world class" accommodations.

Explaining his instructions to subordinates, McMahon said he used the term "world class" "in just about everything I discuss. … That represents an attitude." He said he wanted to "create an environment that whoever was riding in that would be proud of," the government would be proud of and "the people of the United States" would be proud of.

Because if the American people can't be proud of the Iraq occupation, by god they will admire the seats of empire.

Creating the capsules have not been without complication. Post-production, "one request was that the color of the leather for the seats and seat belts in the mobile pallets be changed from brown to Air Force blue and that seat pockets be added; another was that the color of the table's wood be darkened." The price tag for such changes? "At least $68,240."

Although there have been some cutbacks, the original estimated cost of the project hovered around $20 million. Which, for additional perspective, the Post helpfully points out, this "is nearly equivalent to what the Pentagon spends in about 20 minutes."

In truth, the unsavory impression the "comfort capsules" might create among U.S. taxpayers, or rank and file soldiers, for that matter, is not entirely lost on the Air Force. According to the Post, "in a draft document dated Nov. 15, 2006, that spelled out the requirements for the SLICC [ED Note: Senior Leader Intransit Comfort Capsules], the word "Comfort" was repeatedly crossed out with a horizontal line and replaced by a less cushy-sounding alternative, "Conference."
Oh, yeah. That's much better.

...Or not.

"This whole program is an embarrassment," one military officer told the Post on condition of anonymity. Last week, the Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. "An egregious failure of leadership has come to our attention that involves breathtaking extravagance when every dollar needs to be wisely spent in a time of war," wrote Executive Director Danielle Brian. POGO's press release, also released last week, pointed out that, while top brass are getting their choice of wood, leather, and carpet, "meanwhile, the conventional seat pallets used to transport soldiers are in a deplorable state" -- as evidenced here, here, and here. Coming at the heels of another high-profile Air Forcescandal -- and during a war that has come to be symbolized by unarmored humvees, soviet-era flak jackets, and fast food in the Green Zone -- the executive comfort capsules are yet another reminder of just how royally the American taxpayer continues to be screwed by the bloated excesses of our military adventures.

Check out POGO's press release for a more detailed description of the amenities offered by the Air Force comfort capsules, including "a full-length mirror," "aesthetically pleasing wall-to-wall carpeting," "aesthetically pleasing wall treatments/coverings," and, of course, adjustable "ambient lighting."

No word yet on cappuccino makers. (War is hell.)

20080723

Guilty Until Proven Innocent - The Dangers of Mothers

As we know, Nanny has managed to convince all and sundry that every child in Britain is under diabolical threat from predators, incompetents and psychos. The atmosphere of fear that this engenders enables Nanny to supply all manner of "safety" checks and "public" services. These generate her massive amounts of extra revenue, justify her existence and keep the unwashed population (that's you and me folks!) under control.

Here is a fine example of how Nanny has taken control of even the most normal of everyday activities, namely that of a mother taking her son to school.

Jayne Jones had been taking her 14 year old epileptic son Alex each day to school by taxi, she also took with her specialist equipment in case he had a fit.

All well and good until Nanny stuck her bony old nose into the matter. Mrs Jones has now been told that this activity must stop until her details had been run through a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check.

Mrs Jones, from Aberfan in south Wales, said:

"It's crazy that I have to be CRB checked before I can ride in a taxi with my own son.

I have to be checked to go in a taxi with him, but if I was able to drive him myself they wouldn't care and even offered to pay me expenses.

The taxi company is great and they carry Alex's medication but they won't use it and they wouldn't know how to put him in the recovery position if needs be
."

Alex takes a combination of 32 anti-convulsant tablets a day, and is currently travelling to his special needs school in Merthyr Tydfil with no one trained to cope if he has an attack.

He has been fitted with the Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) therapy system under the skin, which works like a pacemaker to help control electrical signals which can malfunction and cause him to seize.

His parents are the only ones trained to use and understand the therapy. Yet the council still wants the CRB check.

A spokesman from Merthyr Tydfil Council said:

"The CRB checking is a requirement of our transport provisions in relation to adults travelling on home-to-school transport in the capacity of an escort.

This is a standard requirement and has been for several years.

Any adult acting as an escort will, in the public gaze, be viewed as acting with the full acquiescence of the council and hence with its implied authority.

For the protection of the council and all vulnerable persons in its care it's essential all those endowed with an authority, implicit or explicit, should meet the security requirements within the transport contract provisions
."

I read the above several times, and must confess I haven't a clue what he is talking about and how that really justifies a CRB check on the kid's mother.

The real reason behind the waffle, I suspect, is that the CRB check will generate revenue for Nanny.

<Too much Britishness here for me to really get it but I imagine Nanny is a euphemism of the British government. You get the general idea though.>

Terror police detain disabled boy

By Sally Chidzoy

A police force has apologised after a disabled child and his parents claimed they were detained at a Channel crossing point under the Terrorism Act.

Julie Maynard, of Ware, Hertfordshire, was taking a day trip to Calais through the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, Kent.

The detective constable accused Ms Maynard and her husband Leslie Coombs of trafficking her son Joshua, 12.

Kent Police apologised and described the incident as inappropriate, unprofessional and lacking in tact.

The family was stopped by plain clothes officer from the Channel Tunnel Policing Unit on 20 February.

Ms Maynard, a legal advocate, said the officer, who failed to identify who she was, asked for the family's passports then asked "who's the boy?"

"My son is mixed race and the officer then told us, 'I believe you are child trafficking'."

When Ms Maynard asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same question if her son was white, she said the officer replied: "Are you accusing me of being a racist?"

She claimed the family were then told they were being detained under the Terrorism Act and said they were surrounded by "at least 10 police officers" who ordered them to get out of their car.

'Frightening experience'

Ms Maynard was separated from her husband and son, who is autistic and has cerebral palsy, and taken to a detention room for questioning.

Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her: "It's obvious he [Joshua] has nothing to do with you".

She said officers had told the family they had powers to hold them for up to nine hours under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, but they were released after more than two hours.

Mr Coombs said it was an "unpleasant and frightening experience".

Ms Maynard said: "More and more people are being stopped under the Terrorism Act - there's absolutely nothing in the act to stop individual officers abusing their powers.

"They have a difficult job to do in a difficult climate but their approach needs to be reasonable and not presumptive that every person is somehow guilty of a possible terrorism or criminal offence."

Police apology

Kent Police said neither the couple nor the boy were placed under arrest or detained under the Terrorism Act.

The force said in a statement: "Our officer spoke to a white couple with a child of mixed race.

"There were three names on the passport and the officer made inquiries to check the child was leaving the country legally.

"The parents made a complaint for which we have apologised."

The force added that the officer in question no longer works at the Channel crossing and was in another post but the move was not connected to the incident.

Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote: "Your complaint and my subsequent enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked the professionalism I expect.

"I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was a very isolated incident."

<Just how many "isolated incidents" must we be subjected to? Two, three, a hundred, a million?>

Photographing thugs 'is assault'

By Neil Sears

A householder who took photographs of hooded teenagers as evidence of their anti-social behaviour says he was told he was breaking the law after they called the police.

David Green, 64, and his neighbours had been plagued by the youths from a nearby comprehensive school for months, and was advised by their headmaster to identify them so action could be taken.

Picture of yobs taken by David Green

One of Mr Green's pictures shows two hooded teenagers, one making an obscene gesture towards the camera

But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the gang, who were aged around 17, he said one threatened to kill him while another called the police on his mobile.

And he claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.

Concern: David Green

Concern: David Green

Last night Mr Green, a television cameraman, said he was appalled that the legal system's first priority seemed not to be stopping frightening anti-social behaviour by aggressive youths, but protecting them from being photographed by the concerned public.

Mr Green, a father-of-two, lives with his programme-maker wife Judy in a penthouse flat close to Waterloo station.

He said: 'We've had problems with this group shouting abuse and throwing stones for months, and were asked to identify them.

'When I went to take photographs of eight of them throwing cans of Coke around, six of them ran away, one threatened to kill me, and another one started phoning the police.

'A couple of hours later, a Police Community Support Officer told me I had been accused of assault, though no such thing occurred, and told me I was not allowed to take photographs of teenagers on the street.

'I think it's wrong that when teenagers are running riot and the police are called, it's about me, and I'm treated like a criminal.

'In South London we all know how many stabbings there have been, and I think the police should be busy catching the real bad people.'

Mr Green said he handed his pictures to a deputy headmaster at the nearby Nautical School, and was promised the matter would be investigated.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the force had no record of the incident.

Last week, the Daily Mail reported that a father was told by a play equipment supervisor he was not allowed to take pictures of his own children on a slide.

News You Might Have Missed: Court Confirms President's Dictatorial Powers

By Andy Worthington

A 5 to 4 ruling in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri legitimizes the president's right to indefinitely imprison "enemy combatants."

Wake up, America! On July 15, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled by 5 votes to 4 in the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli that the President can arrest U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the United States and imprison them indefinitely, without charge or trial, based solely on his assertion that they are "enemy combatants." Have a little think about it, and you'll see that the Fourth Circuit judges have just endorsed dictatorial powers.

In the words of Judge William B. Traxler, whose swing vote confirmed the court's otherwise divided ruling, "the Constitution generally affords all persons detained by the government the right to be charged and tried in a criminal proceeding for suspected wrongdoing, and it prohibits the government from subjecting individuals arrested inside the United States to military detention unless they fall within certain narrow exceptions … The detention of enemy combatants during military hostilities, however, is such an exception. If properly designated an enemy combatant pursuant to legal authority of the President, such persons may be detained without charge or criminal proceedings for the duration of the relevant hostilities."

As was pointed out by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, who was steadfastly opposed to the majority verdict (and whose opinion was endorsed by Judges M. Blane Michael, Robert B. King and Roger L. Gregory), "the duration of the relevant hostilities" is a disturbingly open-ended prospect. After citing the 2007 State of the Union Address, in which the President claimed that '[t]he war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others,'" Judge Motz noted, "Unlike detention for the duration of a traditional armed conflict between nations, detention for the length of a 'war on terror' has no bounds."

The Court of Appeals made its extraordinary ruling in relation to a habeas corpus claim in the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, whose story I reported at length. To recap briefly, al-Marri, a Qatari national who had studied in Peoria, Illinois in 1991, returned to the United States in September 2001, with his U.S. residency in order, to pursue post-graduate studies, bringing his family -- his wife and five children -- with him. Three months later he was arrested and charged with fraud and making false statements to the FBI, but in June 2003, a month before he was due to stand trial for these charges in a federal court, the prosecution dropped the charges and informed the court that he was to be held as an "enemy combatant" instead.

He was then moved to a naval brig in Charleston, South Carolina, where he has now been held for five years and one month in complete isolation in a blacked-out cell in an otherwise unoccupied cell block. For the first 14 months of this imprisonment, when he received no visitors from outside the U.S. military or the security agencies, he was subjected to sleep deprivation and extreme temperature manipulation, frequently deprived of food and water, and interrogated repeatedly.

In August 2003, representatives of the International Red Cross were finally allowed to visit al-Marri, and two months later he was permitted to meet with a lawyer, when he finally had the opportunity to explain that his interrogators had "threatened to send [him] to Egypt or to Saudi Arabia where, they told him, he would be tortured and sodomized and where his wife would be raped in front of him."

Based on advice given to Donald Rumsfeld by Defense Department lawyers regarding the use of isolation at Guantánamo, when the lawyers warned that it was "not known to have been generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days," al-Marri has now been held in solitary confinement for 66 times longer than the amount of time recommended by the Pentagon's own lawyers (this figure includes the six months that he spent in isolation in Peoria County Jail and the Metropolitan Correction Center in New York, before being transferred to Charleston).

It is, therefore, unsurprising that his lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, has explained that he is suffering from "severe damage to his mental and emotional well-being, including hypersensitivity to external stimuli, manic behavior, difficulty concentrating and thinking, obsessional thinking, difficulties with impulse control, difficulty sleeping, difficulty keeping track of time, and agitation."

So what is Ali al-Marri supposed to have done to justify being held in solitary confinement for almost as long as the duration of the Second World War? The presidential order declaring him an "enemy combatant" stated simply that he was closely associated with al-Qaeda and presented "a continuing, present, and grave danger to the national security of the United States." Elaborating, in subsequent statements, the government has claimed that he was part of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, who had been instructed to carry out further terrorist attacks in the United States, targeting reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange and military academies.

What's particularly worrying about these charges is that, by the government's own admission, the primary sources for its supposed evidence against al-Marri are confessions made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks, during the three months following his capture in March 2003, when, as even the CIA has admitted, he was subjected to waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, which the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition at least had the honesty to call "tortura del aqua."

As I discussed at length last summer, KSM stated during his tribunal at Guantánamo in March 2007 that he had given false information about other people while being tortured, and, although he was not allowed to elaborate, I traced several possible victims of these false confessions, including Majid Khan, one of 13 supposedly "high-value" detainees transferred with KSM to Guantánamo from secret CIA prisons in September 2006, Saifullah Paracha, a Pakistani businessman and philanthropist held in Guantánamo, and his son Uzair, who was convicted in the United States on dubious charges in November 2005, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

As I also stated last November, "It's possible, therefore, that al-Marri is another victim of KSM's tangled web of tortured confessions, but whether or not this is true, the correct venue for such discussions is in a court of law, and not in leaks and proclamations from an administration that appears to be intent on holding him without charge or trial for the rest of his life."

When I wrote these words, it seemed possible that the Fourth Circuit judges would act to prevent al-Marri from having the dubious distinction of being the last "enemy combatant" on the U.S. mainland, and would put pressure on the government to transfer him to a federal prison to face a trial in a U.S. court, as happened with Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen and one of two other "enemy combatants" imprisoned without charge or trial -- the other being Yaser Hamdi, a U.S.-born Saudi, who was held in Guantánamo until it was ascertained that he held U.S. citizenship. In Hamdi's case, however, a brief stay at the Charleston brig was followed by a deal that allowed him to return to Saudi Arabia.

In June 2007, a panel of three Fourth Circuit judges dealt a blow to the administration's claims by ruling that "the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and then detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants.'" Last week's decision followed a successful appeal by the government, but when the Fourth Circuit court met en banc to reconsider al-Marri's case in October, it seemed possible that they would uphold the panel's June verdict. When Judge Michael asked the government's representative, Gregory J. Barre, "How long can you keep this man in custody?" and Garre replied that it could "go on for a long time," depending on the duration of the "war" with al-Qaeda, Judge Michael stated, "It looks like a lifetime."

I now realize, of course, that it was always highly improbable that the Fourth Circuit court -- widely regarded as the most right-wing court in the country -- would end Ali al-Marri's legal limbo, although it was somewhat ironic that, in a separate ruling, the swing-voting Judge Traxler ruled in al-Marri's favor when it came to a decision to grant him some as yet unspecified ability to challenge the basis of his definition as an "enemy combatant."

This, at least, earned him the gratitude of Judge Motz, who stated that "the evidentiary proceedings envisaged by Judge Traxler will at least place the burden on the Government to make an initial showing that 'the normal due process protections available to all within this country' are impractical or unduly burdensome in al-Marri's case and that the hearsay declaration that constitutes the Government's only evidence against al-Marri is 'the most reliable available evidence' supporting the Government's allegations."

In other respects, however, the court only added to its reputation as a defender of the indefensible. Not content with endorsing the President's dictatorial right to imprison "enemy combatants" without charge or trial on the U.S. mainland, the judges responsible for the majority verdict ruled that the President did not even have to allege, as he did with Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, that an "enemy combatant" had either been in Afghanistan or had ever raised arms against U.S. forces.

The injustice of this was pointed out in the opinion of Judge Motz, who stated that, "unlike Hamdi and Padilla, al-Marri is not alleged to have been part of a Taliban unit, not alleged to have stood alongside the Taliban or the armed forces of any other enemy nation, not alleged to have been on the battlefield during the war in Afghanistan, not alleged to have even been in Afghanistan during the armed conflict, and not alleged to have engaged in combat with United States forces anywhere in the world."

Judge Motz added, however, "With regret, we recognize that this view does not command a majority of the court. Our colleagues hold that the President can order the military to seize from his home and indefinitely detain anyone -- including an American citizen -- even though he has never affiliated with an enemy nation, fought alongside any nation's armed forces, or borne arms against the United States anywhere in the world. We cannot agree that in a broad and general statute, Congress silently authorized a detention power that so vastly exceeds all traditional bounds. No existing law permits this extraordinary exercise of executive power."

Disturbingly, as Judge Motz mentioned above, the court also indicated its presumption that its ruling applies not just to legal residents like Ali al-Marri, but to US citizens as well. Judge Traxler noted, "it is likely that the constitutional rights our court determines exist, or do not exist, for al-Marri will apply equally to our own citizens under like circumstances," and Judge Motz explained that the lack of distinction between citizens and residents had become apparent at oral argument, when the government "finally acknowledged that an alien legally resident in the United States, like al-Marri, has the same Fifth Amendment due process rights as an American citizen. For this reason, the Government had to concede that if al-Marri can be detained as an enemy combatant, then the Government can also detain any American citizen on the same showing and through the same process."

We have, to be honest, been here before. In September 2005, a three-member panel upheld, in Padilla's case, the President's power to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. This verdict was never tested, as the government took Padilla out of the brig and into the court system (where he was convicted in January) before the Supreme Court could rule on his case, but as Glenn Greenwald noted in an article in Salon, the upshot is that the 2005 Padilla verdict still stands. To that extent, all that has changed now is that the Fourth Circuit court has reinforced its former ruling en banc.

Al-Marri's lawyers will doubtless appeal, and, if justice still counts for anything, his case will go all the way to the Supreme Court. However, it remains incomprehensible to me that the whole sorry saga has lasted for so long already. As Jonathan Hafetz and his colleagues explained last November when they presented their arguments to the Fourth Circuit judges (and as Judge Motz noted last week), the President "lacks the legal authority to designate and detain al-Marri as an 'enemy combatant' for two principal reasons": firstly, because the Constitution "prohibits the military imprisonment of civilians arrested in the United States and outside an active battlefield," and secondly, because, although a district court previously held that the President was authorized to detain al-Marri under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the September 2001 law authorizing the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in any way with the 9/11 attacks), Congress explicitly prohibited "the indefinite detention without charge of suspected alien terrorists in the United States" in the Patriot Act, which followed five weeks later.

That seems pretty clear to me. In the "War on Terror," however, as I have learned during my research over the last two and a half years, all forms of logical thought -- sometimes in the courts, most of the time in military custody, and as a permanent fixture in the war rooms where torture was endorsed -- have been engulfed in a fog of fear and barbarism.

I leave the final words to Judge Motz, and her clear-eyed awareness of the injustice of the al-Marri verdict. "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President call them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country," Judge Motz wrote. "For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power -- were a court to recognize it -- that could lead all our laws 'to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces.' We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic."

Unless Ali al-Marri is allowed a meaningful review of his status as an "enemy combatant," Judge Motz's fears have already come true.