Boeing is a hugely profitable company. Between them and the European consortium, Airbus, they control most of the market for commercial airplanes. Boeing also does a brisk business as a defense contractor.
But sometimes making money hand over fist isn't enough. Last week the union of Boeing machinists rejected a contract offer that would end their traditional pension plan (and replace it with a 401k) and increase health care costs. As a sweetener, Boeing offered workers a $10,000 bonus if they approved the contract.
Union members voted overwhelmingly to reject the contract offer on the grounds that the new contract would represent serious givebacks to the company. The changes in the company's pension plan are the most insidious. For decades employers assumed the risk on pensions - guaranteeing payouts to their former employees. Back in the 1980's and 1990's employers looked at the piles of cash that were being held to pay these pension obligations and found another way to extract money from the wallets of their employees. The 401(k) was born. Now, instead of the employer assuming the risk to funding the pension fund down the road, the employees are forced to assume the risk of the vagaries of the market. Meanwhile, corporate executives and their shareholders get their rocks off looking at the growing bottom line.
Boeing officials immediately announced that, as a result of the vote, they might have to look elsewhere for a location to manufacture their latest plane. Political "leaders" in Washington then decided to try to rush a vote through the state legislature offering $8.7 billion in tax breaks to the company.
This is on top of a package of tax breaks the state handed over to the company in 2003. For corporations, government largesse is like crack. They keep on coming back for more and more and more.
This is free enterprise at work here in these United States. There is a race to the bottom as companies seek to find locales that will offer up the cheapest labor and the biggest package of tax breaks so they can squeeze out even larger profits. And states and municipalities are only too eager to play the game - never once stopping to think that they may be on the wrong end of the equation some day.
In the meantime, taxpayers are asked to subsidize these bastions of modern-day capitalism while students, the elderly and the poor are asked to make do with less.
It's a nice little irony that those on the right are quick to criticize any government program that's purpose is to assist those in need, but they have no compunction about ponying up billions of dollars to satisfy the greed of corporate executives and their shareholders.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
A false debate
Janet Yellen, President Obama's choice to lead the Federal Reserve, went up to Capitol Hill yesterday to face the Senate Banking Committee for her confirmation hearing.
Predictably Republicans were critical of Ms. Yellen while Democrats were supportive. The Fed's so-called quantitative easing policy took center stage. Republican senators took their time criticizing the policy and raising the specter of inflation. Their contention was that the expansive monetary policy was not working.
On that point I agree with them. But not for the reasons they gave.
According to the Keynesian model, whenever the economy is in a period of decline, it is primarily because their is an inadequate level of investment. Keynes theorized that if there was insufficient private investment in the economy then the government needed to step in to make up the difference. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways.
First, the government could take the direct approach and up the level of aggregate spending. This is the path that President Roosevelt eventually took to try to bring the country out of the Great Depression. Some of the increase in spending is the result of welfare programs that assist folks in need. Overall investment can also be increased by reducing taxes - therefore freeing up more money for investment. Finally, total investment can be increased by reducing the interest rates the Fed charges banks to borrow money. Reducing those rates should, in theory, lead to lower interest rates on loans and credit cards.
Of these methods, the most direct way of impacting the economy is through direct government investment. That entails public works projects such as road, bridge and school construction. It can also be accomplished through programs in which the government hires unemployed folks to carry out various projects. President Roosevelt's New Deal created an alphabet soup of direct hire programs that brought the unemployment rate down. The New Deal programs put money in the pockets of those who needed it most. They spent the money on essential goods and services which insured that the money kept circulating through the economy.
While cutting taxes also puts more money in people's hands, it puts more money in the hands of those who have more money. Just think about it, if you cut taxes, the folks who benefit are the folks who have the most money to begin with. Some of that money is spent on essential goods and services but a good chunk of that money is squirreled away where it doesn't increase overall demand for goods and services and, therefore, workers. The best example of this would be the mountain of cash most corporations are sitting on as we speak. Instead of using that money to hire new workers, companies are hoarding it or doling out more bonuses to executives and managers.
The least effective method of spurring economic growth is through monetary policy. While raising interest rates is a great way to choke off the economy by making it more expensive for businesses to borrow money to invest in new plants, equipment and workers, lowering rates have a very marginal effect on economic growth. Again, just look at the amount of cash that companies have sitting in their bank accounts right now. If banks aren't willing to lend out money, it doesn't matter how low interest rates are - no one will be borrowing. As it stands right now, the interest rate the Fed charges banks to borrow is effectively zero - yet the economy still stumbles along with unreasonably high unemployment.
We have sat through years of record low interest rates and expansive monetary policy and yet we still have unemployment well over 7% and low- to moderate economic growth. It's the policy, stupid.
Trying to restart the economy by tinkering with interest rates is, as Mr. Keynes once said, akin to trying to push a string. Republicans would have you believe that the biggest worry we have right now is the possibility of inflation. I've got news for you. The only folks worried about inflation are bankers and those who lend money. The real problem is unemployment and sluggish demand. Those problems are not going to be solved by expanding the money supply. Those problems will only be solved by polices that promote full employment.
Until we have unemployment down to manageable levels, inflation isn't something we should fear. Quite the contrary. Except for inflation caused by external shocks to the economy, inflationary pressures are a sign that aggregate demand is increasing due to increased employment.
If working folks had political power in proportion to their numbers, we wouldn't be having this silly debate over inflation versus employment. But such is that artificial world known as Washington, D.C.
Predictably Republicans were critical of Ms. Yellen while Democrats were supportive. The Fed's so-called quantitative easing policy took center stage. Republican senators took their time criticizing the policy and raising the specter of inflation. Their contention was that the expansive monetary policy was not working.
On that point I agree with them. But not for the reasons they gave.
According to the Keynesian model, whenever the economy is in a period of decline, it is primarily because their is an inadequate level of investment. Keynes theorized that if there was insufficient private investment in the economy then the government needed to step in to make up the difference. This could be accomplished in a variety of ways.
First, the government could take the direct approach and up the level of aggregate spending. This is the path that President Roosevelt eventually took to try to bring the country out of the Great Depression. Some of the increase in spending is the result of welfare programs that assist folks in need. Overall investment can also be increased by reducing taxes - therefore freeing up more money for investment. Finally, total investment can be increased by reducing the interest rates the Fed charges banks to borrow money. Reducing those rates should, in theory, lead to lower interest rates on loans and credit cards.
Of these methods, the most direct way of impacting the economy is through direct government investment. That entails public works projects such as road, bridge and school construction. It can also be accomplished through programs in which the government hires unemployed folks to carry out various projects. President Roosevelt's New Deal created an alphabet soup of direct hire programs that brought the unemployment rate down. The New Deal programs put money in the pockets of those who needed it most. They spent the money on essential goods and services which insured that the money kept circulating through the economy.
While cutting taxes also puts more money in people's hands, it puts more money in the hands of those who have more money. Just think about it, if you cut taxes, the folks who benefit are the folks who have the most money to begin with. Some of that money is spent on essential goods and services but a good chunk of that money is squirreled away where it doesn't increase overall demand for goods and services and, therefore, workers. The best example of this would be the mountain of cash most corporations are sitting on as we speak. Instead of using that money to hire new workers, companies are hoarding it or doling out more bonuses to executives and managers.
The least effective method of spurring economic growth is through monetary policy. While raising interest rates is a great way to choke off the economy by making it more expensive for businesses to borrow money to invest in new plants, equipment and workers, lowering rates have a very marginal effect on economic growth. Again, just look at the amount of cash that companies have sitting in their bank accounts right now. If banks aren't willing to lend out money, it doesn't matter how low interest rates are - no one will be borrowing. As it stands right now, the interest rate the Fed charges banks to borrow is effectively zero - yet the economy still stumbles along with unreasonably high unemployment.
We have sat through years of record low interest rates and expansive monetary policy and yet we still have unemployment well over 7% and low- to moderate economic growth. It's the policy, stupid.
Trying to restart the economy by tinkering with interest rates is, as Mr. Keynes once said, akin to trying to push a string. Republicans would have you believe that the biggest worry we have right now is the possibility of inflation. I've got news for you. The only folks worried about inflation are bankers and those who lend money. The real problem is unemployment and sluggish demand. Those problems are not going to be solved by expanding the money supply. Those problems will only be solved by polices that promote full employment.
Until we have unemployment down to manageable levels, inflation isn't something we should fear. Quite the contrary. Except for inflation caused by external shocks to the economy, inflationary pressures are a sign that aggregate demand is increasing due to increased employment.
If working folks had political power in proportion to their numbers, we wouldn't be having this silly debate over inflation versus employment. But such is that artificial world known as Washington, D.C.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
A few more burnt ends
Yesterday former NFL wide receiver Sam Hurd was sentenced to 15 years in prison for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine. He pled guilty to the charge shortly before his trial was to begin this past April. His lawyer argued for the minimum - ten years - while the AUSA presented a sentencing memo that sought a life sentence based upon the "advisory" sentencing guidelines.
Sports Illustrated ran an excellent long-form article this week on Mr. Hurd's plight. If Mr. Hurd was telling the truth when he sat down with Michael McKnight, his situation is a cautionary tale about mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, over-charging and police informants. It is a highly recommended read.
In other news, a Tennessee prosecutor asked a judge to prevent the defense attorney from referring to her as "the government." Tammy Rettig argued that it was a derogatory term and that it might poison the jury. Her request was denied.
Of course when we refer to the prosecutor as the "government's lawyer" we are playing off people's aversion to government. But that's not the only reason we do it. It also serves as a reminder that it is the government - not the alleged victim - that is bringing the suit. The term is also used to point out that when we allow the courts to carve out new exceptions to our rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments that we are giving the government even more power over our lives.
Ms. Rettig, if you think the term is derogatory, maybe you need to take a second look at how you do what you do.
Finally we have a little something to keep our lives (and our existence) in perspective. This past July, the Cassini space probe took these amazing pictures of Saturn - and showed just how insignificant the third planet from the Sun in our solar system is in the larger scheme of the universe.
Sports Illustrated ran an excellent long-form article this week on Mr. Hurd's plight. If Mr. Hurd was telling the truth when he sat down with Michael McKnight, his situation is a cautionary tale about mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, over-charging and police informants. It is a highly recommended read.
In other news, a Tennessee prosecutor asked a judge to prevent the defense attorney from referring to her as "the government." Tammy Rettig argued that it was a derogatory term and that it might poison the jury. Her request was denied.
Of course when we refer to the prosecutor as the "government's lawyer" we are playing off people's aversion to government. But that's not the only reason we do it. It also serves as a reminder that it is the government - not the alleged victim - that is bringing the suit. The term is also used to point out that when we allow the courts to carve out new exceptions to our rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments that we are giving the government even more power over our lives.
Ms. Rettig, if you think the term is derogatory, maybe you need to take a second look at how you do what you do.
Finally we have a little something to keep our lives (and our existence) in perspective. This past July, the Cassini space probe took these amazing pictures of Saturn - and showed just how insignificant the third planet from the Sun in our solar system is in the larger scheme of the universe.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Update: Execution fails to bring back killer's victim
Jamie McCoskey is dead.
The State of Texas murdered him last night.
The Houston Chronicle carried out its duty to distract the public from the cruelty and inequity of the death penalty by reminding readers that Mr. McCoskey was a bad person.
But what did this execution accomplish?
Mr. McCoskey was convicted of a particularly heinous crime. He kidnapped a young couple, drove them around Houston, stabbed the boyfriend to death and raped the girlfriend. At trial, after the jury convicted him - but before sentencing - he picked up a chair and hurled it at two prosecutors.
He served time in prison for violent offenses. He cracked the skull of another inmate at the Harris County Jail.
But strapping Jamie McCoskey down on a gurney and injecting massive amounts of pentobarbital obtained from a compounding pharmacy in The Woodlands didn't undo any of the crimes he committed.
On Execution Watch last night, host Ray Hill interviewed Mr. McCoskey about his case. Needless to say, Mr. McCoskey's version of the events that led to his conviction were at odds with the facts as presented to the jury. I daresay, however, that the verdict would have been the same, in my opinion, had he presented him account of the evening at trial.
He was also asked about his legal representation. Of particular note were his comments regarding his appellate attorney. He told Mr. Hill that his appellate attorney came and spoke with him a couple of times but that both meetings were short and the attorney didn't want to discuss what Mr. McCoskey wanted him to discuss.
What I believe Mr. McCoskey failed to grasp was the difference between a trial attorney and an appellate attorney - or, more specifically, the difference between trying a case and appealing a case. While the trial attorney needs to sit down with his or her client and discuss the events leading up to the arrest, the appellate attorney relies solely on the record of the trial. The trial attorney is interested in telling a story to the jury, in bending the facts in such a way as to fit inside the narrative. The appellate attorney, on the other hand, parses the record for hints of reversible error.
One approach means talking to everyone tangentially involved in a case in order to get the clearest possible picture of the alleged crime and the client. The other approach consists of looking for case law that distinguishes this case from others that came before it. The defendant is an integral part of trial preparation while his role in the appellate arena is negligible.
In the end Mr. McCoskey was convicted of murder while committing a felony.
He was sentenced to death.
The world is no safer today than it was yesterday. The young man he killed is still dead today. His victim's parents still mourn the loss of their son.
Nothing was changed when the State of Texas pumped a lethal dose of pentobarbital into his arm.
Texas has murdered over 500 inmates since the death penalty was reinstated. There are still murders committed all across this state. There are still people who die at the hands of others for no good reason.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Capital punishment is insanity in action.
The State of Texas murdered him last night.
The Houston Chronicle carried out its duty to distract the public from the cruelty and inequity of the death penalty by reminding readers that Mr. McCoskey was a bad person.
But what did this execution accomplish?
Mr. McCoskey was convicted of a particularly heinous crime. He kidnapped a young couple, drove them around Houston, stabbed the boyfriend to death and raped the girlfriend. At trial, after the jury convicted him - but before sentencing - he picked up a chair and hurled it at two prosecutors.
He served time in prison for violent offenses. He cracked the skull of another inmate at the Harris County Jail.
But strapping Jamie McCoskey down on a gurney and injecting massive amounts of pentobarbital obtained from a compounding pharmacy in The Woodlands didn't undo any of the crimes he committed.
On Execution Watch last night, host Ray Hill interviewed Mr. McCoskey about his case. Needless to say, Mr. McCoskey's version of the events that led to his conviction were at odds with the facts as presented to the jury. I daresay, however, that the verdict would have been the same, in my opinion, had he presented him account of the evening at trial.
He was also asked about his legal representation. Of particular note were his comments regarding his appellate attorney. He told Mr. Hill that his appellate attorney came and spoke with him a couple of times but that both meetings were short and the attorney didn't want to discuss what Mr. McCoskey wanted him to discuss.
What I believe Mr. McCoskey failed to grasp was the difference between a trial attorney and an appellate attorney - or, more specifically, the difference between trying a case and appealing a case. While the trial attorney needs to sit down with his or her client and discuss the events leading up to the arrest, the appellate attorney relies solely on the record of the trial. The trial attorney is interested in telling a story to the jury, in bending the facts in such a way as to fit inside the narrative. The appellate attorney, on the other hand, parses the record for hints of reversible error.
One approach means talking to everyone tangentially involved in a case in order to get the clearest possible picture of the alleged crime and the client. The other approach consists of looking for case law that distinguishes this case from others that came before it. The defendant is an integral part of trial preparation while his role in the appellate arena is negligible.
In the end Mr. McCoskey was convicted of murder while committing a felony.
He was sentenced to death.
The world is no safer today than it was yesterday. The young man he killed is still dead today. His victim's parents still mourn the loss of their son.
Nothing was changed when the State of Texas pumped a lethal dose of pentobarbital into his arm.
Texas has murdered over 500 inmates since the death penalty was reinstated. There are still murders committed all across this state. There are still people who die at the hands of others for no good reason.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Capital punishment is insanity in action.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
A (tiny) step in the right direction
Former state district judge Ken Anderson, the man who prosecuted Michael Morton for a murder he didn't commit, entered into a plea bargain on Friday that will see him serve 10 days in the Williamson County Jail, perform 500 hours of community service and be disbarred. In exchange for his guilty plea on a criminal contempt charge, Mr. Anderson will avoid trial on charges of tampering with evidence that could have seen him sentenced to prison time.
The contempt charge dates back to a 1987 exchange at the bench in which Mr. Anderson told the court and Mr. Morton's attorneys that he had no Brady material. What he didn't reveal was a statement by Mr. Morton's three-year-old son that put someone else in the house at the time of the murder.
Mr. Morton was present in the courtroom when Mr. Anderson entered into the plea agreement.
While there is some satisfaction that Mr. Anderson has paid something for the years he stole from Mr. Morton, there is no way the debt can ever be repaid. Mr. Morton lost seeing his son grow up. He lost all those moments we have with our children. He endured unspeakable horror in the state prison system.
But it wasn't just Ken Anderson who stole that time from Mr. Morton. It was our criminal (in)justice system. It was a jurisprudence that begins with the proposition that if the facts are bad enough a way will be found to uphold the conviction. Our Fourth Amendment resembles a piece of Swiss cheese because the US Supreme Court has spent decades carving out exceptions in order to uphold convictions of folks who did bad things regardless of how the police conducted their investigation.
Such a jurisprudence results in protections and guarantees that are so riddled with holes as to be entirely unrecognizable. We are left with an illogical framework of rights that makes no sense.
If our courts wanted to make it right judges would start off analyzing police behavior in isolation. If the police violated the Fourth Amendment it shouldn't matter what the defendant said or did (or how much of whatever he had on him). The Fourth Amendment doesn't distinguish between alleged offenses. Its language is absolute. Either a defendant's rights were violated or they weren't. There are no two ways about it.
This Alice in Wonderland-esque method of jurisprudence is what landed Mr. Morton in prison for 25 years. Ken Anderson was merely the delivery device for a system broken beyond repair. There are those who would say the end result of the case is a vindication of our criminal (in)justice system. I'm not one of them. Any system that allows an innocent man to lose 25 years of his life is broken. It is broken in the district and county courtrooms. It is broken in the Court of Appeals. It is broken in the Court of Criminal Appeals. And it is broken in Washington at the US Supreme Court.
We lost our way when it became more important to uphold convictions of people who did bad things than it was to uphold the Constitution. Michael Morton paid an awful price. So has every other man or woman who sat in a prison cell for even one day for a crime they didn't commit.
The contempt charge dates back to a 1987 exchange at the bench in which Mr. Anderson told the court and Mr. Morton's attorneys that he had no Brady material. What he didn't reveal was a statement by Mr. Morton's three-year-old son that put someone else in the house at the time of the murder.
Mr. Morton was present in the courtroom when Mr. Anderson entered into the plea agreement.
While there is some satisfaction that Mr. Anderson has paid something for the years he stole from Mr. Morton, there is no way the debt can ever be repaid. Mr. Morton lost seeing his son grow up. He lost all those moments we have with our children. He endured unspeakable horror in the state prison system.
But it wasn't just Ken Anderson who stole that time from Mr. Morton. It was our criminal (in)justice system. It was a jurisprudence that begins with the proposition that if the facts are bad enough a way will be found to uphold the conviction. Our Fourth Amendment resembles a piece of Swiss cheese because the US Supreme Court has spent decades carving out exceptions in order to uphold convictions of folks who did bad things regardless of how the police conducted their investigation.
Such a jurisprudence results in protections and guarantees that are so riddled with holes as to be entirely unrecognizable. We are left with an illogical framework of rights that makes no sense.
If our courts wanted to make it right judges would start off analyzing police behavior in isolation. If the police violated the Fourth Amendment it shouldn't matter what the defendant said or did (or how much of whatever he had on him). The Fourth Amendment doesn't distinguish between alleged offenses. Its language is absolute. Either a defendant's rights were violated or they weren't. There are no two ways about it.
This Alice in Wonderland-esque method of jurisprudence is what landed Mr. Morton in prison for 25 years. Ken Anderson was merely the delivery device for a system broken beyond repair. There are those who would say the end result of the case is a vindication of our criminal (in)justice system. I'm not one of them. Any system that allows an innocent man to lose 25 years of his life is broken. It is broken in the district and county courtrooms. It is broken in the Court of Appeals. It is broken in the Court of Criminal Appeals. And it is broken in Washington at the US Supreme Court.
We lost our way when it became more important to uphold convictions of people who did bad things than it was to uphold the Constitution. Michael Morton paid an awful price. So has every other man or woman who sat in a prison cell for even one day for a crime they didn't commit.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Execution Watch: 11/12/2013
On Tuesday night the State of Texas will kill again...
JAMIE MCCOSKEY, a Houston bartender convicted in the 1991 kidnapping and stabbing death of a 20-year-old man. McCoskey was one of 16 defendants sentenced to death in separate cases after the now-disgraced psychologist George Denkowski used his own, non-standard methods to conclude that none was developmentally disabled. His determination and the defendants' chances of having their death sentences declared unconstitutional. Mr. Denkowski's punishment included being barred from performing such evaluations in the future.
For more information on Mr. McCoskey, click here.
For more information on Mr. McCoskey, click here.
RADIO SHOW PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast live:
Tuesday, November 12, 2013, 6-7 PM Central Time
KPFT FM Houston 90.1 and Online...
Friday, November 8, 2013
Love and chemicals and hate and unnecessary federal prosecutions
A suburban couple.
An affair.
A love child.
An angry wife.
Poison. Poison. Poison.
Soap opera? Lifetime movie? Nope - fact pattern for a case before the US Supreme Court.
Carol Anne Bond found out her husband was sleeping with a neighbor and had fathered a child with his mistress. Ms. Bond was, understandably, upset. Folks tend to deal with their anger issues in different ways. Ms. Bond threatened her hubby's little hussy.
She ended up pleading guilty to a charge of harassment.
But, believing, as the Mythbusters do, that anything worth doing is worth overdoing, Ms. Bond turned up the volume and set out to poison the object of her husband's affections. The US Postal Service eventually learned of her actions and recorded her in the act.
Federal prosecutors then charged Ms. Bond with violating the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention - a treaty to which the US is a signatory. Ms. Bond was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.
Ms. Bond appealed her conviction, arguing that the application of the treaty violated the notion of state's rights. The question is whether the provisions of an international treaty signed by the US government are binding on individuals in the states.
What Ms. Bond did was a clear violation of state law. She could have been prosecuted by prosecutors in Pennsylvania and sentenced to a maximum of two years.
The defendant and the victim both lived in Pennsylvania. The attempted poisonings were committed in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has laws that make it a crime to try to poison someone. There was no vital federal interest at stake. While treaties are the law of the land, the treaty in question concerns nations at war with each other - there was no contemplation that the treaty would be used to prosecute a wife scorned.
There was no reason for a federal prosecution in this case. There is never any reason for a federal prosecution when there is a state statute that covers the activity in question. The only crime mentioned in the Constitution is treason - a crime against the state itself. Maybe this is too radical a notion - and I'm certain that it's far too late in the game to pursue - but we really need to rethink our approach to federal criminal jurisprudence. Our goal should really be to reduce the number of federal crimes - not increase them.
Until then we will continue to have to deal with the absurdity of folks being prosecuted in federal court over actions that properly belong in the state courts.
An affair.
A love child.
An angry wife.
Poison. Poison. Poison.
Soap opera? Lifetime movie? Nope - fact pattern for a case before the US Supreme Court.
Carol Anne Bond found out her husband was sleeping with a neighbor and had fathered a child with his mistress. Ms. Bond was, understandably, upset. Folks tend to deal with their anger issues in different ways. Ms. Bond threatened her hubby's little hussy.
She ended up pleading guilty to a charge of harassment.
But, believing, as the Mythbusters do, that anything worth doing is worth overdoing, Ms. Bond turned up the volume and set out to poison the object of her husband's affections. The US Postal Service eventually learned of her actions and recorded her in the act.
Federal prosecutors then charged Ms. Bond with violating the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention - a treaty to which the US is a signatory. Ms. Bond was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.
Ms. Bond appealed her conviction, arguing that the application of the treaty violated the notion of state's rights. The question is whether the provisions of an international treaty signed by the US government are binding on individuals in the states.
What Ms. Bond did was a clear violation of state law. She could have been prosecuted by prosecutors in Pennsylvania and sentenced to a maximum of two years.
The defendant and the victim both lived in Pennsylvania. The attempted poisonings were committed in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has laws that make it a crime to try to poison someone. There was no vital federal interest at stake. While treaties are the law of the land, the treaty in question concerns nations at war with each other - there was no contemplation that the treaty would be used to prosecute a wife scorned.
There was no reason for a federal prosecution in this case. There is never any reason for a federal prosecution when there is a state statute that covers the activity in question. The only crime mentioned in the Constitution is treason - a crime against the state itself. Maybe this is too radical a notion - and I'm certain that it's far too late in the game to pursue - but we really need to rethink our approach to federal criminal jurisprudence. Our goal should really be to reduce the number of federal crimes - not increase them.
Until then we will continue to have to deal with the absurdity of folks being prosecuted in federal court over actions that properly belong in the state courts.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Book review: The Kings of Sports - Football's impact on America
Gregg Easterbrook is the man behind the weekly Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN.com. He is an accomplished author. His brother, Frank Easterbrook, is a federal appellate judge. He can get a little bit full of himself at times and sometimes his politics rub me the wrong way.
But, while I don't agree with everything he writes in his TMQ column, and while I don't agree with everything he's written, I do find him to be an enjoyable read. Especially his latest book - The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America.
There is plenty wrong in football today. The NFL has done its best to hide the fact that repeated blows to the head can be hazardous later in life. The NFL has done its best to keep the public from learning about the lingering aftereffects of concussions. The NFL has done its best to shield us from the ugly reality that the league chews up and spits out young players day after day after day.
But colleges, and the NCAA, are equally complicit in the illusion we are presented daily about football. Too many colleges act as minor league affiliates of the NFL. Few coaches and administrators are concerned with graduation rates of athletes. The reality is that very few college football players will ever play on Sundays. And, of the ones who do, the average professional career is but four years.
Colleges and the NCAA have built a business model in which millions upon millions of dollars are exchanged between media companies, sponsors and schools while the players give their labor away for (almost) free. Now I'm not about to make the argument that players should be paid to play. Such a system would lead to more and more consolidation of the top teams and would leave a permanent underclass that has no chance of ever catching up. The players are rewarded with a scholarship that will permit them to earn a degree that they can use later in life. Mr. Easterbrook suggests that football scholarships should be for six years which would allow players an extra year after their playing career is over to earn their degrees.
He also suggests that players be paid a small stipend - much along the line as what students who participate in work-study programs or who work for the school get. The only way to be fair is to make it a fairly low number that every football players earns.
Allowing the free market to determine the price at which a player sells his ability to play football would never work because the vast majority of universities have athletic departments that lose money. In other words, at most campuses, regular students subsidize the football team (and other sports teams).
And it's not only college football. We all subsidize professional football. It's our tax money that's used to build playpens for the super-wealthy so that the owners of these teams can make even more money. Teams blackmail municipalities for more and more goodies - local politicians give in because they are scared of losing votes should the local squad pick up and move elsewhere.
Here in Houston the county government gave in to Bud Adams' demands that the Astrodome be renovated. Mr. Adams threatened to move the Houston Oilers someplace else if the county didn't spend taxpayer money to put in more seats and spruce up the luxury seating in the Dome. But, long before the bonds had been paid off (they still haven't been), Mr. Adams up and moved the Oilers to Nashville, leaving the residents of Harris County to foot the bill. Things reached the point of absurdity when it became more costly to tear down the Dome than just to let it rot from the inside. Just this week taxpayers rejected a request for millions more in bonds to turn the Dome into a convention center.
Much of what Mr. Easterbook writes about in regard to safety on the gridiron has to do with the "trickle down effect" the NFL has on college, high school, middle school and peewee football. When the NFL projects an attitude that safety isn't important - that message finds its way down to the lowest levels of football. With the amount of money that flows into the NFL there is no excuse for the league to shortchange player safety.
But, lest you think everything about football is rotten, Mr. Easterbrook gives us an in depth look at the Virginia Tech program and its long-time coach, Frank Beamer. Virginia Tech seems to get it. Coach Beamer understands the importance of education and emphasizes it in the way he runs the team. No, Virginia Tech isn't sitting at the top of the polls and they haven't contended for a national championship in years, but their players graduate and they reflect very well on the university. For Frank Beamer, there are things more important than winning football games. After all, football is just a game - it's what comes afterward that's more important.
But, while I don't agree with everything he writes in his TMQ column, and while I don't agree with everything he's written, I do find him to be an enjoyable read. Especially his latest book - The King of Sports: Football's Impact on America.
There is plenty wrong in football today. The NFL has done its best to hide the fact that repeated blows to the head can be hazardous later in life. The NFL has done its best to keep the public from learning about the lingering aftereffects of concussions. The NFL has done its best to shield us from the ugly reality that the league chews up and spits out young players day after day after day.
But colleges, and the NCAA, are equally complicit in the illusion we are presented daily about football. Too many colleges act as minor league affiliates of the NFL. Few coaches and administrators are concerned with graduation rates of athletes. The reality is that very few college football players will ever play on Sundays. And, of the ones who do, the average professional career is but four years.
Colleges and the NCAA have built a business model in which millions upon millions of dollars are exchanged between media companies, sponsors and schools while the players give their labor away for (almost) free. Now I'm not about to make the argument that players should be paid to play. Such a system would lead to more and more consolidation of the top teams and would leave a permanent underclass that has no chance of ever catching up. The players are rewarded with a scholarship that will permit them to earn a degree that they can use later in life. Mr. Easterbrook suggests that football scholarships should be for six years which would allow players an extra year after their playing career is over to earn their degrees.
He also suggests that players be paid a small stipend - much along the line as what students who participate in work-study programs or who work for the school get. The only way to be fair is to make it a fairly low number that every football players earns.
Allowing the free market to determine the price at which a player sells his ability to play football would never work because the vast majority of universities have athletic departments that lose money. In other words, at most campuses, regular students subsidize the football team (and other sports teams).
And it's not only college football. We all subsidize professional football. It's our tax money that's used to build playpens for the super-wealthy so that the owners of these teams can make even more money. Teams blackmail municipalities for more and more goodies - local politicians give in because they are scared of losing votes should the local squad pick up and move elsewhere.
Here in Houston the county government gave in to Bud Adams' demands that the Astrodome be renovated. Mr. Adams threatened to move the Houston Oilers someplace else if the county didn't spend taxpayer money to put in more seats and spruce up the luxury seating in the Dome. But, long before the bonds had been paid off (they still haven't been), Mr. Adams up and moved the Oilers to Nashville, leaving the residents of Harris County to foot the bill. Things reached the point of absurdity when it became more costly to tear down the Dome than just to let it rot from the inside. Just this week taxpayers rejected a request for millions more in bonds to turn the Dome into a convention center.
Much of what Mr. Easterbook writes about in regard to safety on the gridiron has to do with the "trickle down effect" the NFL has on college, high school, middle school and peewee football. When the NFL projects an attitude that safety isn't important - that message finds its way down to the lowest levels of football. With the amount of money that flows into the NFL there is no excuse for the league to shortchange player safety.
But, lest you think everything about football is rotten, Mr. Easterbrook gives us an in depth look at the Virginia Tech program and its long-time coach, Frank Beamer. Virginia Tech seems to get it. Coach Beamer understands the importance of education and emphasizes it in the way he runs the team. No, Virginia Tech isn't sitting at the top of the polls and they haven't contended for a national championship in years, but their players graduate and they reflect very well on the university. For Frank Beamer, there are things more important than winning football games. After all, football is just a game - it's what comes afterward that's more important.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
When driving the speed limit is breaking the law
If, on a highway having more than one lane with vehicles traveling in the same direction, the Texas Department of Transportation or a local authority places a sign that directs slower traffic to travel in a lane other than the farthest left lane, the sign must read "left lane for passing only." - Texas Transportation Code Sec. 544.011
An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is: (1) passing another vehicle; or (2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. -- Texas Transportation Code Sec. 545.051(b)
We all know that the left lane is the fast lane. We're all taught to pass to the left. I have been known to drive my car at a speed quite a bit above the one posted on the roadside traveling back and forth to the Dallas area for seminars - but even I move to the right when someone's coming up behind me at warp speed.
So, yes, there are plenty of motorists out there who think for some yet unknown reason that they are more than justified to plod along in the left lane at the speed limit. These tend to be the same people who count the number of items someone takes out of their basket in the express lane and who tattled on their younger siblings when they were growing up.
And, as much as I hate getting behind that person on the freeway, I have a hard time supporting anything that gives the police yet another excuse to pull someone over who isn't doing anything wrong. But, up in Montgomery County (the land the Constitution forgot) and out in Fort Bend County, if you're cruising along in the left lane not passing anyone - you risk getting pulled over and either being issued a warning or being ticketed. And, should you be coming home from a night out with friends after consuming an adult beverage or two, you could find yourself being arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Why else would Warren Diepraam and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office get themselves involved in such an initiative? Hell, if you can't pull 'em over for doing anything illegal - you might as well pull them over for driving the speed limit.
So, as annoying as it may be to be driving behind the guy who thinks he needs to police speeds on the highway, the last thing we need to do is give the police yet another excuse to pull someone over. It's bad enough that we allow DWI stops based on behaviors that during the day wouldn't get a second glance from a police officer. But to allow a DWI stop when the only sin being committed is driving the speed limit in the wrong lane is hardly a good idea.
And what about officers who want to have it both ways? Are the police not going to ticket anyone for speeding if they are passing slower moving vehicles to the left? At the rate things are going, pretty soon up in Montgomery County driving on the highway alone will amount to reasonable suspicion that someone is breaking the law.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Serving two masters
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. -- Hippocratic Oath (English translation)When a person becomes a doctor, or other health professional, they take the Hippocratic Oath vowing never to do anything to harm a patient. A doctor's ethical duty is to do what's in the best interest of his or her patient.
After the US government declared its War on Everything Terror after 9/11, the CIA began its programs of rendition and torture. In order to determine the most effective method to extract information from a prisoner, the Department of Defense looked to its Behavioral Science Consultation Teams made up of behavioral scientists - including psychiatrists.
Psychiatrists are considered to be medical professionals. They have a medical degree and they take the same Hippocratic Oath as a pediatrician, internist or neurologist.
But, instead of following their ethical obligations to do no harm to any patient, they jumped at the opportunity to put together interrogation programs designed to humiliate, degrade and cause physical harm to prisoners. Other medical professionals who worked for the government provided assistance to the regime of torture by advising interrogators how far they could go in a given "interrogation technique." They treated prisoners and nursed them back to health so they could be tortured again. They also assisted the government by forcibly inserting feeding tubes into prisoners who were on hunger strike so they wouldn't die on the government's dime.
Even more galling is the fact that not one of the doctors, nurses or other medical professionals who witnessed and participated in the torture program ever raised their voice in protest against what can only be described as a crime against humanity. Not a one.
They were more than willing to sell their souls - and their ethics - to win the War on Terror.
The Institute of Medicine as a Profession and the Open Society Foundations conducted a two-year study that looked into the role medical professionals played in the torture regime initiated by President Bush and continued by President Obama. What they found should turn the stomach of anyone who hasn't yet drank the government's koolaid.
The US government would like us to believe it's no big deal. They would like you to believe that the oath these men and women took upon joining the team trumps the one they took when they became doctors and nurses. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.
A doctor takes an oath to serve his or her patient. The doctor didn't take an oath to serve another power. He didn't take an oath to serve a publicly-held hospital corporation. He didn't take an oath to serve an insurance company. He took that oath to put his patient first.
The medical professionals who provided assistance to those who tortured prisoners may very well have gone into government service for the very best of motives. But they were blinded by the pre-packaged patriotism that we are fed like turkeys being fattened up for the holidays.
They violated the oaths they took when they helped design torture regimes. They violated the oaths they took when they monitored prisoners during the torture process. They violated their oaths when they strapped prisoners down and forced feeding tubes down their noses. They violated their oaths when they kept their mouths shut about what they had seen and what they had done.
A lawyer takes an oath to represent his client as zealously as possible (with the exception that a prosecutor takes an oath to see that justice is done). Everything that a lawyer does in a particular case must be weighed against that duty. A lawyer serves his client - and his client alone. A lawyer can't have two masters. And neither can a medical professional. Once you start trying to serve two masters you will find that you can't do it and act in the best interest of your client - or your patient - at the same time.
Those medical professionals who assisted the torture program betrayed not only the prisoners they were supposedly there to assist; they also betrayed society.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Cutting the cord
On Saturday I spent a glorious day running the trails in Huntsville State Park with my colleague Rand Mintzer in the Rocky Raccoon 50K. Just imagine - eight hours with no cell phones, no text messages, no e-mails, no voice mails and no list-serve refuse.
Instead we had fellow runners, aid station workers, random hikers and bikers and the sounds of nature.
It does the body good to get completely off the grid every now and then. There has to be more to life than that shiny little phone on your belt or that tablet in your briefcase. There is a world out there with dirt and sand and mud underfoot and tree canopies overhead. Trail running forces you to focus on the present.
Take your eyes off the trail, lose concentration for a moment and you'll find yourself taking a tumble. Or, you might even find yourself off course if you're engaged in an interesting conversation with another runner.
We live in our own virtual worlds - our artificial constructs. To maintain sanity and to ground ourselves, sometimes you need to exit stage left and explore the real world. I have a sore foot and tight muscles and it hurts to walk at times but, damn, that was a good day out in the woods.
Instead we had fellow runners, aid station workers, random hikers and bikers and the sounds of nature.
It does the body good to get completely off the grid every now and then. There has to be more to life than that shiny little phone on your belt or that tablet in your briefcase. There is a world out there with dirt and sand and mud underfoot and tree canopies overhead. Trail running forces you to focus on the present.
Take your eyes off the trail, lose concentration for a moment and you'll find yourself taking a tumble. Or, you might even find yourself off course if you're engaged in an interesting conversation with another runner.
We live in our own virtual worlds - our artificial constructs. To maintain sanity and to ground ourselves, sometimes you need to exit stage left and explore the real world. I have a sore foot and tight muscles and it hurts to walk at times but, damn, that was a good day out in the woods.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Lurching from crisis to crisis
Yesterday on my home from the office I was listening to All Things Considered on NPR. The subject was an interview with Richard Anderson, the CEO of Delta Airlines. The host was asking him questions about the state of the economy as seen through the eyes of the airline industry.
Mr. Anderson said he thought one key to sustained economic growth was for Congress to get its act together when it comes to the sequestration, budget negotiations and raising the debt ceiling. His thesis was that Congress' inability to do its job with regard to these matters was slowing the pace of economic growth.
He made the point that the economy is doing better than the statistics imply. He pointed out that savings rates were up, that businesses were sitting on a huge pile of cash and that investment by US companies overseas was increasing.
Corporations are sitting on mountains of cash because they aren't hiring new workers. All those folks sitting at home looking for work are putting downward pressure on wages. All that investment overseas means more and more good paying manufacturing jobs are leaving the US, leaving lower paid service jobs instead.
The result of all of this is decreased demand for goods and services which means lower economic growth. As wages and unemployment continue to stagnate the structural crisis in our capitalist system will continue to fester.
The goings-on in Washington are just a side show. The real crisis is hidden from view. Mainstream journalists, economists and politicians are more than happy to pontificate about partisan gridlock and who's getting the upper hand - just so long as no one questions any of the basic assumptions that underlie our economic system.
This current crisis has been some 40 years in the making and wouldn't have happened but for the cooperation between the two major political parties and the business and finance communities. The policies of both Democans and Republicrats have only served to weaken the labor movement and strengthen the hand of capital.
Until we decide to make a critical analysis of our economic system and to address those factors that lead to systemic crisis we will continue to lurch back and forth between boom and bust. Meaningful change will only occur when a critical mass of the population makes the decision to question the basic assumptions that underlie our economic system.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Click here to listen to the interview.
Mr. Anderson said he thought one key to sustained economic growth was for Congress to get its act together when it comes to the sequestration, budget negotiations and raising the debt ceiling. His thesis was that Congress' inability to do its job with regard to these matters was slowing the pace of economic growth.
He made the point that the economy is doing better than the statistics imply. He pointed out that savings rates were up, that businesses were sitting on a huge pile of cash and that investment by US companies overseas was increasing.
The government needs to solve the sequester issue and the debt ceiling issue permanently. And regardless of whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you're in the leadership of the most powerful, wealthiest nation in the world, it's just not acceptable that we lurch from event to event every 90 days. And that's what's causing a lot of the angst in the economy. 2012, our economy in the U.S. grew at 2.8 percent, and it's 1.5 percent in 2013. And one of the factors, I believe, is that we need stability in the underlying funding of government and the debt ceiling issue. -- Richard Anderson, CEO, Delta AirlinesAh, there is your problem, sir. The economy is just creeping along, not because of gridlock on Capitol Hill, but because of the inner contradictions of capitalism. Why are corporate profits growing? Could it possibly be because of increased automation and productivity and the accompanying elimination of jobs? Could it possibly be because workers' wages are growing (if they are growing at all) at a rate less than increases in productivity?
Corporations are sitting on mountains of cash because they aren't hiring new workers. All those folks sitting at home looking for work are putting downward pressure on wages. All that investment overseas means more and more good paying manufacturing jobs are leaving the US, leaving lower paid service jobs instead.
The result of all of this is decreased demand for goods and services which means lower economic growth. As wages and unemployment continue to stagnate the structural crisis in our capitalist system will continue to fester.
The goings-on in Washington are just a side show. The real crisis is hidden from view. Mainstream journalists, economists and politicians are more than happy to pontificate about partisan gridlock and who's getting the upper hand - just so long as no one questions any of the basic assumptions that underlie our economic system.
This current crisis has been some 40 years in the making and wouldn't have happened but for the cooperation between the two major political parties and the business and finance communities. The policies of both Democans and Republicrats have only served to weaken the labor movement and strengthen the hand of capital.
Until we decide to make a critical analysis of our economic system and to address those factors that lead to systemic crisis we will continue to lurch back and forth between boom and bust. Meaningful change will only occur when a critical mass of the population makes the decision to question the basic assumptions that underlie our economic system.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Judge strikes portions of Texas anti-abortion law
On Monday a federal judge sitting in Austin declared parts of Texas' new stringent anti-abortion law to be unconstitutional. In particular, Judge Lee Yeakel declared that the provision requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic would place an undue burden on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies.
On the other hand, Judge Yeakel let stand a provision requiring doctors to follow an 18-year-old FDA protocol for performing drug-induced abortions. He did point out, however, that doctors must still be allowed to adjust the protocol to protect the health of the woman.
The protocol does not allow doctors to use medications for so-called off-label purposes. In other words, doctors would not be permitted to use a drug to induce an abortion if that was not the intended use of the drug.
Ironically enough, such a prohibition on off-label usage of medications does not apply to the state's use of pentobarbital to murder inmates. Wouldn't it seem logical that if you're going to restrict a doctor's ability to use a drug for an off-label purpose when it's medically necessary that you would also restrict the practice when the use has no medical benefit?
Gov. Rick Perry and his merry band of wingnuts continue to bandy about the trope that they are out there doing their best to protect the sanctity of life. Yet they have absolutely no problem strapping down an inmate and pumping a lethal dose of pentobarbital into their veins. Likewise, they have no problem supporting a policy in which unmanned drones fire missiles into crowds killing scores of innocent men, women and children halfway around the world.
The state, of course, is appealing.
See also:
"Renewed showdown over Texas anti-choice law highlights state-by-state battle for abortion access," Democracy Now! (Oct. 30, 2013)
"Oklahoma Supreme Court rules medication abortion ban unconstitutional, sends case back to SCOTUS," RH Reality Check (Oct. 29, 2013)
On the other hand, Judge Yeakel let stand a provision requiring doctors to follow an 18-year-old FDA protocol for performing drug-induced abortions. He did point out, however, that doctors must still be allowed to adjust the protocol to protect the health of the woman.
The protocol does not allow doctors to use medications for so-called off-label purposes. In other words, doctors would not be permitted to use a drug to induce an abortion if that was not the intended use of the drug.
Ironically enough, such a prohibition on off-label usage of medications does not apply to the state's use of pentobarbital to murder inmates. Wouldn't it seem logical that if you're going to restrict a doctor's ability to use a drug for an off-label purpose when it's medically necessary that you would also restrict the practice when the use has no medical benefit?
Gov. Rick Perry and his merry band of wingnuts continue to bandy about the trope that they are out there doing their best to protect the sanctity of life. Yet they have absolutely no problem strapping down an inmate and pumping a lethal dose of pentobarbital into their veins. Likewise, they have no problem supporting a policy in which unmanned drones fire missiles into crowds killing scores of innocent men, women and children halfway around the world.
The state, of course, is appealing.
See also:
"Renewed showdown over Texas anti-choice law highlights state-by-state battle for abortion access," Democracy Now! (Oct. 30, 2013)
"Oklahoma Supreme Court rules medication abortion ban unconstitutional, sends case back to SCOTUS," RH Reality Check (Oct. 29, 2013)
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Do not go quietly into that good night
Just when you thought it was safe to wander around Galveston comes news that disgraced former judge Christopher Dupuy is the subject of another arrest warrant.
This time, according to The Houston Chronicle, the problem seems to be Mr. Dupuy's inability to show up for a deposition in a legal malpractice suit.
I don't know what has become more riveting for Houston-area legal observers: Mr. Dupuy's travails or the soap opera that is the life of former Houston hand surgeon Michael Brown.
This time, according to The Houston Chronicle, the problem seems to be Mr. Dupuy's inability to show up for a deposition in a legal malpractice suit.
I don't know what has become more riveting for Houston-area legal observers: Mr. Dupuy's travails or the soap opera that is the life of former Houston hand surgeon Michael Brown.
Missing the point entirely
A little bit over a week ago Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports that humanized the victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. The reports presented case studies of the people who were victimized by the "surgical strikes" carried out by unmanned drones flying high overhead.
The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?
With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.
Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.
The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?
Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.
This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War onEverything Terror is the ultimate example of hubris.
The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.
But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.
The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?
With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.
Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.
The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?
Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.
This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War on
The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.
But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
But the cupboard was bare
Just what is a state to do when it is so desperate to kill an inmate and it can't get its hands on the key drug in the lethal cocktail?
Texas and Georgia solved that problem by turning to local compounding pharmacies who were only too willing to mix up a batch of a powerful sedative in exchange for some cold, hard cash. Florida decided to use a drug that had never been used before in an execution under the theory that the inmate would end up dead so there'd be no one to complain about the process afterward.
Missouri changed its protocol so they could use the drug propofol as the sedative in its lethal mix. For those of y'all scoring at home, propofol is the sedative that Michael Jackson overdosed on back in 2009. And, as in interesting little twist, Conrad Murray, the doctor convicted of causing Mr. Jackson's death, was just released from prison after serving almost half of his four-year sentence.
But Missouri's best laid plans fell apart when the company that manufactures the drug, Germany's Fresenius Kabi, announced they would not sell it to any state or state agency that planned on using the drug as part of its lethal injection protocol.
The announcement stemmed from an EU statute outlawing the exporting of any drugs for use in capital punishment.
As a result, Missouri is now looking to acquire pentobarbital to carry out its executions. However, since the manufacturer of pentobarbital has already said they will not sell their wares to anyone for use in the state-sponsored murder of inmates. Missouri will likely look to local pharmacists to see who is more interested in turning a profit than in helping the sick and the ill. My guess is they won't have to look long for takers.
Of course the problem with acquiring the drugs from a compounding pharmacy is the fact that there is no quality control checks on the drugs. The drugs aren't subject to testing by the FDA to ensure that they do what they purport to do. There are no studies to determine whether or not the inmate undergoes any pain or discomfort during the procedure. So long as the second drug in the cocktail (the paralytic agent) works, there is no way of knowing whether the inmate senses any of what is happening since he would be unable to alert anyone.
But the states, the politicians who favor capital punishment and supporters of state-sponsored murder don't care. The state isn't interested in watching over those it locks up in its prisons. Politicians are all too happy to pander to the bloodlust of the right. And supporters are so caught up in their Old Testament notions of revenge that they fail to see that the world has changed.
Texas and Georgia solved that problem by turning to local compounding pharmacies who were only too willing to mix up a batch of a powerful sedative in exchange for some cold, hard cash. Florida decided to use a drug that had never been used before in an execution under the theory that the inmate would end up dead so there'd be no one to complain about the process afterward.
Missouri changed its protocol so they could use the drug propofol as the sedative in its lethal mix. For those of y'all scoring at home, propofol is the sedative that Michael Jackson overdosed on back in 2009. And, as in interesting little twist, Conrad Murray, the doctor convicted of causing Mr. Jackson's death, was just released from prison after serving almost half of his four-year sentence.
But Missouri's best laid plans fell apart when the company that manufactures the drug, Germany's Fresenius Kabi, announced they would not sell it to any state or state agency that planned on using the drug as part of its lethal injection protocol.
The announcement stemmed from an EU statute outlawing the exporting of any drugs for use in capital punishment.
As a result, Missouri is now looking to acquire pentobarbital to carry out its executions. However, since the manufacturer of pentobarbital has already said they will not sell their wares to anyone for use in the state-sponsored murder of inmates. Missouri will likely look to local pharmacists to see who is more interested in turning a profit than in helping the sick and the ill. My guess is they won't have to look long for takers.
Of course the problem with acquiring the drugs from a compounding pharmacy is the fact that there is no quality control checks on the drugs. The drugs aren't subject to testing by the FDA to ensure that they do what they purport to do. There are no studies to determine whether or not the inmate undergoes any pain or discomfort during the procedure. So long as the second drug in the cocktail (the paralytic agent) works, there is no way of knowing whether the inmate senses any of what is happening since he would be unable to alert anyone.
But the states, the politicians who favor capital punishment and supporters of state-sponsored murder don't care. The state isn't interested in watching over those it locks up in its prisons. Politicians are all too happy to pander to the bloodlust of the right. And supporters are so caught up in their Old Testament notions of revenge that they fail to see that the world has changed.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Execution Watch: 10/29/2013
On Tuesday night the State of Texas will kill again...
ARTHUR BROWN, JR., The Los Angeles native was convicted in the 1992 drug-related slayings of four people at a home in Houston. His accomplices were identified as Marion Dudley and Antonio Dunson. In 1997 the United States Supreme Court refused to review his case, but four of the nine justices signed an unusual public statement questioning a Texas law prohibiting juries in the sentencing phase of a capital trial from considering how much time a defendant would actually serve in prison if sentenced to a life term instead.
It is ironic that juries may be told that a defendant may be eligible for parole after serving only a portion of his sentence - an instruction that almost begs a jury to give a harsher sentence when given a choice. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that when the "dangerousness" of a capital defendant is at issue it made no sense that a jury could not be told of an alternative to the death penalty such as life without parole.
Life without parole, by the way, was not an option in Texas at the time of Mr. Brown's trial.
It is even more interesting, as The New York Times pointed out, that it only takes four votes from the Court for a case to be heard. The four justices who signed the statement could very easily have voted to hear the case - but they chose not to do so. The Times article speculated that they may have been worried that the other five members of the Court would have upheld the law on review which would have made the Texas law the law of the land.
For more information on Mr. Brown , click here.
It is ironic that juries may be told that a defendant may be eligible for parole after serving only a portion of his sentence - an instruction that almost begs a jury to give a harsher sentence when given a choice. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that when the "dangerousness" of a capital defendant is at issue it made no sense that a jury could not be told of an alternative to the death penalty such as life without parole.
Life without parole, by the way, was not an option in Texas at the time of Mr. Brown's trial.
It is even more interesting, as The New York Times pointed out, that it only takes four votes from the Court for a case to be heard. The four justices who signed the statement could very easily have voted to hear the case - but they chose not to do so. The Times article speculated that they may have been worried that the other five members of the Court would have upheld the law on review which would have made the Texas law the law of the land.
For more information on Mr. Brown , click here.
RADIO SHOW PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast live:
Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 6-7 PM Central Time
KPFT FM Houston 90.1 and Online...
http://executionwatch.org > Listen
UPDATE: As has been the case before, the information provided by Execution Watch is incorrect. Mr. Brown's scheduled execution date has been removed from the TDCJ website. No reason was given.
UPDATE: As has been the case before, the information provided by Execution Watch is incorrect. Mr. Brown's scheduled execution date has been removed from the TDCJ website. No reason was given.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
For your viewing pleasure
The Houston Chronicle's science and weather blogger, Eric Berger, found this incredible animation that shows just how the moon would appear if it orbited the Earth at the same distance as the international space station. The animation gives you a pretty good idea of just how big the moon really is. The multiple daily solar eclipses would be quite spectacular - but I don't think I'd want to be anywhere near an open body of water at high tide.
Next up we have a slideshow of aerial views of old baseball stadiums from the New York Times. The link comes courtesy of Paul Lukas who puts out the incredibly interesting Uniwatch blog. The most amazing thing about the pictures are the ways in which the dimensions of the ballparks resulted from trying to cram a massive stadium into a small space.
Friday, October 25, 2013
If at first you don't succeed...
Last week, in Iran, a convicted drug smuggler named Alireza was executed. At least that's what everyone thought. He was left dangling from the gallows for 12 minutes. A doctor checked to make certain he was dead (what Hippocratic Oath?).
Alireza's body was taken to the morgue. And that's where things got weird.
When his family arrived at the morgue to claim the body they found him breathing. He was taken to the hospital in order to recover so the state could take a second crack at killing him.
Not only has Amnesty International put out a call to spare his life, the Iranian justice minister, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, has also called on the government not to carry out a second execution.
This bizarre episode opens up an old question - what do you do when the inmate doesn't die?
It was not uncommon in the past for the electric chair not to work as planned. There are numerous examples across this country of men who were forced to sit through multiple jolts of electricity before they died. There was even an incident in Florida in which an inmate's head caught on fire.
With the drug cocktails used in lethal injection executions, we have no way of knowing how well the drugs worked. In the three drug cocktail the first drug is a powerful sedative that is supposed to cause the inmate to lose consciousness before the paralytic is injected. The third drug then induces cardiac arrest and causes the death of the inmate.
There is no way of knowing whether the first drug did what it was supposed to. Once the paralytic has been injected the inmate has no way to indicate whether he is experiencing excruciating pain. We just assume that he was knocked out by the first drug and was asleep when the next two drugs were administered. But, as to whether or not that's what happened, well, your guess is as good as mine.
While there are medical personnel on-site for an execution, not one of them is concerned with the well-being of the inmate. They are only there to provide cover for the state. Their job is to prep the inmate for the lethal injection and to administer the drugs. The only role for the physician on duty is to announce that the inmate is dead.
With the drying up of legal pentobarbital supplies, states such as Texas and Georgia, are turning to compounding pharmacies to manufacture the sedative. Unlike drug manufacturers, compounding pharmacies aren't subject to FDA regulation of their drugs. The drugs made in the compounding pharmacies are untested. The condemned inmate is nothing more than a guinea pig to the state and to the pharmacists who do the state's bidding.
Alireza was excecuted. He was pronounced dead by the doctor in attendance. His body was carted off to the morgue. The sentence was carried out.
It certainly isn't Alireza's fault he's alive today. I can't even begin to imagine the terror that must have gripped him as he hung there for 12 agonizing minutes. Twelve minutes of impaired breathing. Twelve minutes of intense pain in the neck. There can be few things more cruel than to be hanging unassisted for twelve long minutes.
Yet the state demands their pound of flesh. The state wants Alireza nursed back to health so they can try it all over again.
This is what the death penalty does to us. We demean life itself. We dehumanize the condemned inmate. We pervert the mission of doctors and other medical professionals. We lose all sense of perspective.
Since the state didn't grant life, the state shouldn't have the power to take it away. It is time we move away from this anachronistic viewpoint that there are some people in society who just don't deserve to live. That is an awfully arrogant position to take. And to allow a fallible institution that we created - the State - to exercise that very power is the height of folly.
Alireza's body was taken to the morgue. And that's where things got weird.
When his family arrived at the morgue to claim the body they found him breathing. He was taken to the hospital in order to recover so the state could take a second crack at killing him.
Not only has Amnesty International put out a call to spare his life, the Iranian justice minister, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, has also called on the government not to carry out a second execution.
This bizarre episode opens up an old question - what do you do when the inmate doesn't die?
It was not uncommon in the past for the electric chair not to work as planned. There are numerous examples across this country of men who were forced to sit through multiple jolts of electricity before they died. There was even an incident in Florida in which an inmate's head caught on fire.
With the drug cocktails used in lethal injection executions, we have no way of knowing how well the drugs worked. In the three drug cocktail the first drug is a powerful sedative that is supposed to cause the inmate to lose consciousness before the paralytic is injected. The third drug then induces cardiac arrest and causes the death of the inmate.
There is no way of knowing whether the first drug did what it was supposed to. Once the paralytic has been injected the inmate has no way to indicate whether he is experiencing excruciating pain. We just assume that he was knocked out by the first drug and was asleep when the next two drugs were administered. But, as to whether or not that's what happened, well, your guess is as good as mine.
While there are medical personnel on-site for an execution, not one of them is concerned with the well-being of the inmate. They are only there to provide cover for the state. Their job is to prep the inmate for the lethal injection and to administer the drugs. The only role for the physician on duty is to announce that the inmate is dead.
With the drying up of legal pentobarbital supplies, states such as Texas and Georgia, are turning to compounding pharmacies to manufacture the sedative. Unlike drug manufacturers, compounding pharmacies aren't subject to FDA regulation of their drugs. The drugs made in the compounding pharmacies are untested. The condemned inmate is nothing more than a guinea pig to the state and to the pharmacists who do the state's bidding.
Alireza was excecuted. He was pronounced dead by the doctor in attendance. His body was carted off to the morgue. The sentence was carried out.
It certainly isn't Alireza's fault he's alive today. I can't even begin to imagine the terror that must have gripped him as he hung there for 12 agonizing minutes. Twelve minutes of impaired breathing. Twelve minutes of intense pain in the neck. There can be few things more cruel than to be hanging unassisted for twelve long minutes.
Yet the state demands their pound of flesh. The state wants Alireza nursed back to health so they can try it all over again.
This is what the death penalty does to us. We demean life itself. We dehumanize the condemned inmate. We pervert the mission of doctors and other medical professionals. We lose all sense of perspective.
Since the state didn't grant life, the state shouldn't have the power to take it away. It is time we move away from this anachronistic viewpoint that there are some people in society who just don't deserve to live. That is an awfully arrogant position to take. And to allow a fallible institution that we created - the State - to exercise that very power is the height of folly.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Voting, education and guns
It's election time here in Houston and, with the Republicans in power, we've got to deal with voter restriction measures such as the requirement that a voter present a government-approved photo ID before being allowed to carry out their constitutional right to vote.
It's interesting that when the GOP was winning presidential elections (or, stealing them with the help of the US Supreme Court and local voter officials), no one from the right raised the slightest hint of voter fraud. I suppose it's because the last thing you want to do is draw attention to voting irregularities when your own party is elbow-deep in suppressing votes in minority areas.
Here is a look at the poster that Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart is posting at voting locations throughout the county:
Interesting that a military identification card or a concealed handgun license is acceptable ID for voting purposes, but a photo ID issued by a public college or university doesn't quite cut the mustard. Kind of speaks volumes about the importance we place on education here in the Lone Star State as opposed to how we play violence on a pedestal.
And, as an aside, since when did the office holder become more important that the office? Most elected county officials now place their names above the name of the department they head. Just something to think about.
It's interesting that when the GOP was winning presidential elections (or, stealing them with the help of the US Supreme Court and local voter officials), no one from the right raised the slightest hint of voter fraud. I suppose it's because the last thing you want to do is draw attention to voting irregularities when your own party is elbow-deep in suppressing votes in minority areas.
Here is a look at the poster that Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart is posting at voting locations throughout the county:
Interesting that a military identification card or a concealed handgun license is acceptable ID for voting purposes, but a photo ID issued by a public college or university doesn't quite cut the mustard. Kind of speaks volumes about the importance we place on education here in the Lone Star State as opposed to how we play violence on a pedestal.
And, as an aside, since when did the office holder become more important that the office? Most elected county officials now place their names above the name of the department they head. Just something to think about.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
No more room at the inn
Anyone who practices criminal law in Harris County knows that the Harris County Jail is packed to the gills. The two main causes that people know about are coercive bond policies and arrests for possession of trace amounts of cocaine and other drugs. But there is another cause.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Harris County has spent almost $50 million over the past two years to hold illegal immigrants at the request of federal authorities. Over that time span, Harris County housed more than 30,000 detainees on immigration holds. That is more than two-and-a-half times what Travis County (the second ranking county) held during the same time period.
The reason for Houston's hospitality is the county's participation in two federal programs aimed at the immigrant community - 287(g) and Secure Communities. Under both programs, law enforcement officers in Harris County run inmates' fingerprints through an immigration database. Those that have "questionable" histories are reported to los federarles.
For its efforts, Harris County is reimbursed about $2 million by the federal government.
Critics of the programs, such as University of Houston law professor Michael Olivas said the programs encourage law enforcement agencies to overcharge immigrants. Alan Bernstein,chief apologist spokesman for the Harris County Sheriff's Office, has a different take on the matter. According to Mr. Bernstein, the immigrants sitting in the county jail on immigration detainers would be sitting in jail anyway so the programs aren't costing taxpayers any more money than would already have been spent.
But, conveniently, Mr. Bernstein seems to have forgotten that once an immigration detainer has been placed on a detainee he is held without bond. That means one less space to house an inmate.
Harris County has no business doing the work of federal immigration officials. As I have pointed out before, being in this country without the permission of the government is not a crime (albeit, coming into the country without permission is). Hiring illegal immigrants and not paying taxes is, however, against the law.
Many undocumented immigrants work to support their families here in the Houston area and back in their country of origin. They pay rent and they pay taxes. The taxes they pay help to fund the public schools and the county-run hospitals. They are here for the same reason my ancestors, and your's, came over generations ago -- to make a better life for themselves and their families.
These programs tear up families and punish children for the (alleged) sins of their parents. Funny that the "family values" folks who support Ted Cruz and the Tea Party have no qualms about tearing families apart, ain't it?
State Senator Tommy Williams (R- The Woodlands) argues that the federal government isn't doing its job and that states and localities need to be reimbursed for the number of detainees who are being held in our county jails. Mr. Williams seems to forget that no one forced counties to adopt these federal programs. No one came down from Washington and told local officials they were now going to be in charge of immigration policy on the ground.
Nope. The counties that are complaining about the cost of housing immigrants on federal detainers are the ones that decided to sign up to be junior immigration officials. If they don't like looking at the red numbers that indicate the amount of money they're spending, there is an easy solution -- just tell los federales they're no longer interested in doing their job.
At a time when we should be looking for ways to reduce our jail populations, programs that contribute to overcrowded jails should be questioned.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Harris County has spent almost $50 million over the past two years to hold illegal immigrants at the request of federal authorities. Over that time span, Harris County housed more than 30,000 detainees on immigration holds. That is more than two-and-a-half times what Travis County (the second ranking county) held during the same time period.
The reason for Houston's hospitality is the county's participation in two federal programs aimed at the immigrant community - 287(g) and Secure Communities. Under both programs, law enforcement officers in Harris County run inmates' fingerprints through an immigration database. Those that have "questionable" histories are reported to los federarles.
For its efforts, Harris County is reimbursed about $2 million by the federal government.
Critics of the programs, such as University of Houston law professor Michael Olivas said the programs encourage law enforcement agencies to overcharge immigrants. Alan Bernstein,
But, conveniently, Mr. Bernstein seems to have forgotten that once an immigration detainer has been placed on a detainee he is held without bond. That means one less space to house an inmate.
Harris County has no business doing the work of federal immigration officials. As I have pointed out before, being in this country without the permission of the government is not a crime (albeit, coming into the country without permission is). Hiring illegal immigrants and not paying taxes is, however, against the law.
Many undocumented immigrants work to support their families here in the Houston area and back in their country of origin. They pay rent and they pay taxes. The taxes they pay help to fund the public schools and the county-run hospitals. They are here for the same reason my ancestors, and your's, came over generations ago -- to make a better life for themselves and their families.
These programs tear up families and punish children for the (alleged) sins of their parents. Funny that the "family values" folks who support Ted Cruz and the Tea Party have no qualms about tearing families apart, ain't it?
State Senator Tommy Williams (R- The Woodlands) argues that the federal government isn't doing its job and that states and localities need to be reimbursed for the number of detainees who are being held in our county jails. Mr. Williams seems to forget that no one forced counties to adopt these federal programs. No one came down from Washington and told local officials they were now going to be in charge of immigration policy on the ground.
Nope. The counties that are complaining about the cost of housing immigrants on federal detainers are the ones that decided to sign up to be junior immigration officials. If they don't like looking at the red numbers that indicate the amount of money they're spending, there is an easy solution -- just tell los federales they're no longer interested in doing their job.
At a time when we should be looking for ways to reduce our jail populations, programs that contribute to overcrowded jails should be questioned.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Judge resigns after texting controversy
Back in March I wrote about a disturbing incident involving State District Judge Elizabeth Coker in Polk County (see "Text parte communications"). For those of y'all not familiar with the story, Judge Coker allegedly sent a text message to a prosecutor in the middle of trial suggesting questions she might want to ask.
The allegations came from an investigator for the Polk County District Attorney's Office and also included the fact that the DA, William Lee Hon, not only saw the message but authorized it to be passed along to the prosecutor trying the case.
I called for Judge Coker to step down from the bench as a result of her conduct.
And, yesterday, she did. As part of an agreement with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Elizabeth Coker will step down from the bench for the 258th Judicial District Court as of December 6, 2013. She will take a leave of absence immediately, however.
Ms. Coker's actions disgraced both herself and the bench. Her fall from power was (relatively) swift and hard. However, I'm not so certain that this agreement is in the best interest of the State of Texas. I do believe that the public has a right to know the extent and level of Ms. Coker's misconduct on the bench. This case raises serious questions about due process and whether or not criminal defendants received fair trials in her court. The allegations also raise questions about plea negotiations - how many defendants pled guilty to charges because they didn't think they would get a fair trial in front of Ms. Coker?
A bigger question still is whether the punishment fit the crime? With such ethical lapses in a position of authority, should Ms. Coker even be allowed to keep her bar card?
And what about Mr. Hon? As I pointed out back in March, he knew the communication was improper, yet he allowed the information to be passed on to the trial prosecutor anyway. He had a duty to act ethically and he failed to do so. He shouldn't escape from this mess without as much as a slap on the wrist. And, let's be honest, the incident that served to bring Ms. Coker down wasn't the first time it had happened - and it (more than likely) wasn't the first time that Mr. Hon was aware of the improper communications. Still, he sat quiet and did nothing to stop it.
And, what about Judge Kaycee Jones? She was the prosecutor who received the message (again, probably not the first time) and now she sits on the bench for the 414th Judicial District Court. She knew the rules when she was a prosecutor. She knew the communication was improper and she, too, failed to do anything about it. In fact, she benefited from the communication.
Maybe she and Mr. Hon can teach an ethics class together.
The allegations came from an investigator for the Polk County District Attorney's Office and also included the fact that the DA, William Lee Hon, not only saw the message but authorized it to be passed along to the prosecutor trying the case.
I called for Judge Coker to step down from the bench as a result of her conduct.
And, yesterday, she did. As part of an agreement with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Elizabeth Coker will step down from the bench for the 258th Judicial District Court as of December 6, 2013. She will take a leave of absence immediately, however.
"My dad and grandfather taught me that judges have to be accountable for their actions and conduct. Resigning the bench as well as taking a voluntary leave of absence is the best way for me to take responsibility for this situation in a way that honors the office and serves the best interests of Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity counties. It has been a painful decision, but I believe it is the right decision.
"I want to express my sincere regret to the people of Polk, San Jacinto and Trinity counties. The integrity and impartiality of our courts have always been my highest priority, and I am deeply sorry that my actions created a circumstance where that could be questioned.
"The Judicial Commission takes the rules surrounding judicial interaction with parties in a lawsuit very seriously, and I will always regret the lapses in judgment that helped create this situation, especially knowing that my conduct as a judge is subject to a higher standard.
"It has been an honor of a lifetime serving as judge, and I will always be grateful the people of this district gave me such an amazing opportunity, and I am very sorry for the difficulty this has caused for everyone.
"My family has deep roots in Polk County, and now I am raising my girls in the same community that gave me my start. We will be starting a new chapter here for our family, and as always I ask for your support and prayers. The kindness, friendship, and love of so many people in these three counties have always sustained us, and I will always be grateful for that." -- Elizabeth CokerAccording to news reports there were additional allegations that Ms. Coker had improper ex parte communications with other prosecutors and defense attorneys. There were also allegations that she spoke with jurors during the course of trial.
Ms. Coker's actions disgraced both herself and the bench. Her fall from power was (relatively) swift and hard. However, I'm not so certain that this agreement is in the best interest of the State of Texas. I do believe that the public has a right to know the extent and level of Ms. Coker's misconduct on the bench. This case raises serious questions about due process and whether or not criminal defendants received fair trials in her court. The allegations also raise questions about plea negotiations - how many defendants pled guilty to charges because they didn't think they would get a fair trial in front of Ms. Coker?
A bigger question still is whether the punishment fit the crime? With such ethical lapses in a position of authority, should Ms. Coker even be allowed to keep her bar card?
And what about Mr. Hon? As I pointed out back in March, he knew the communication was improper, yet he allowed the information to be passed on to the trial prosecutor anyway. He had a duty to act ethically and he failed to do so. He shouldn't escape from this mess without as much as a slap on the wrist. And, let's be honest, the incident that served to bring Ms. Coker down wasn't the first time it had happened - and it (more than likely) wasn't the first time that Mr. Hon was aware of the improper communications. Still, he sat quiet and did nothing to stop it.
And, what about Judge Kaycee Jones? She was the prosecutor who received the message (again, probably not the first time) and now she sits on the bench for the 414th Judicial District Court. She knew the rules when she was a prosecutor. She knew the communication was improper and she, too, failed to do anything about it. In fact, she benefited from the communication.
Maybe she and Mr. Hon can teach an ethics class together.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Book review - The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football
College football is one of this country's favorite activities. Every Saturday thousands of students, alumni and ordinary fans pack stadiums across the country to watch young men wearing plastic armor clash against one another on the gridiron. But there is an ...
In their new book, The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football, Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian peel back the curtain and take a look at what happens when the cameras aren't on. And, in many cases, it isn't pretty.
The first thing you need to know is that, for the vast majority of players, once they leave school, they leave football behind for good. The glory of the NFL calls only for a few select young men - and, even then, most are chewed up and spit out by the pros in less than four years. Buy you'll never hear a coach or recruiter point out that little fact to any of the impressionable high school seniors they're courting. Instead they promise glory and fame. The kids see the inner sanctums of football programs across the country. They visit locker rooms, trophy rooms and training facilities. They are escorted around campus by attractive young ladies who flirt with them until they've signed their letter of intent.
There are exceptions, however. There are those coaches who demand that the young men in their charge get their education. But, with escalating salaries and pressure from boosters, the pressure is to win, win, win. And that means cutting corners and promising the moon. It also means that more and more coaches are willing to take chances on kids with sketchy backgrounds if they think the kid can help win more ball games.
The authors take you behind the scenes for a look at how the big money boosters play and at the world of 7-on-7 spring football. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out looking for something - whether it be access to studly football players, cash in exchange for delivering a recruit, a big check from the television network or the next big job. The only ones not cashing out are the players themselves.
Yes, they're given the opportunity to obtain a free education at some of the nation's finest colleges and universities. But, they are also pressure to sacrifice everything for the football team - and that includes their education. While there are some coaches, and some schools, that insist their athletes leave with a diploma - there are too many others who couldn't care less about what happens to those young men once they hang their helmets and pads up for good.
And that's the ultimate tragedy in all of this. College football should be an activity that brings students and alumni together - an activity that makes a university a family. It has, however, become the tail that wags the dog.
In their new book, The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football, Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian peel back the curtain and take a look at what happens when the cameras aren't on. And, in many cases, it isn't pretty.
The first thing you need to know is that, for the vast majority of players, once they leave school, they leave football behind for good. The glory of the NFL calls only for a few select young men - and, even then, most are chewed up and spit out by the pros in less than four years. Buy you'll never hear a coach or recruiter point out that little fact to any of the impressionable high school seniors they're courting. Instead they promise glory and fame. The kids see the inner sanctums of football programs across the country. They visit locker rooms, trophy rooms and training facilities. They are escorted around campus by attractive young ladies who flirt with them until they've signed their letter of intent.
There are exceptions, however. There are those coaches who demand that the young men in their charge get their education. But, with escalating salaries and pressure from boosters, the pressure is to win, win, win. And that means cutting corners and promising the moon. It also means that more and more coaches are willing to take chances on kids with sketchy backgrounds if they think the kid can help win more ball games.
The authors take you behind the scenes for a look at how the big money boosters play and at the world of 7-on-7 spring football. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out looking for something - whether it be access to studly football players, cash in exchange for delivering a recruit, a big check from the television network or the next big job. The only ones not cashing out are the players themselves.
Yes, they're given the opportunity to obtain a free education at some of the nation's finest colleges and universities. But, they are also pressure to sacrifice everything for the football team - and that includes their education. While there are some coaches, and some schools, that insist their athletes leave with a diploma - there are too many others who couldn't care less about what happens to those young men once they hang their helmets and pads up for good.
And that's the ultimate tragedy in all of this. College football should be an activity that brings students and alumni together - an activity that makes a university a family. It has, however, become the tail that wags the dog.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Medical experiments and murder
The Sunshine State was so desperate to kill William Happ this week that they used an untested drug as the sedative in their lethal cocktail. The three-drug protocol calls for a sedative to be pumped into the condemned man's vein. The sedative is followed by a drug that paralyzes the inmate which is followed by a drug that induces cardiac arrest.
The idea is that the sedative will help the inmate slip into unconsciousness so that he is unaware of the paralysis that is to follow. If everything works as planned, when cardiac arrest is induced the inmate will feel no pain.
But the State of Florida found itself in a bit of a pickle. Being that the supply of pentobarbital has dried up due to the manufacturer's objection to its drug being used to kill people, the death machine needed new fuel. They decided to use an untested sedative - midazolam hydrochloride - as the first course.
Now aside from the fact that the entire procedure is utterly barbaric and that we should be ashamed, as a society, that we murder inmates for the sake of revenge, this antiseptic form of murder is used to assuage those among us who might oppose the use of the electric chair, the gallows or the firing squad.
William Happ committed a horrible crime and he caused irreparable damage to a family who lost a loved one. For his actions Mr. Happ deserved to be punished by the society whose mores he violated. But Mr. Happ shouldn't have been used as a guinea pig or a lab rat to see if a new drug cocktail would work.
The drug is used as an anesthetic. The literature seems to indicate that a person could be fully anesthetized in a matter of a few minutes. But no one has ever tested the drug to see how it reacts with the other drugs in the lethal cocktail or to determine whether or not a person sedated with it feels any pain when cardiac arrest is induced.
I'm sure there are those who couldn't care less if Mr. Happ suffered excruciating pain while being executed. There are those who probably wished he suffered more than he may or may not have. For folks of that bent, there is very little I can say that would change their minds regarding the death penalty -- I can only hope that one day they might achieve enough enlightenment to understand how the use of capital punishment demeans our entire society.
Mr. Happ was a person. No matter how badly he behaved, he was still one of us. Even though he had been banished from society, he was still a living, breathing person. His death brought no one back to life. His death healed no scars or filled any voids. There was no purpose in killing him other than to do so because the men and women on that jury were really, really mad at him. But does that make it right to kill?
Does having a piece of paper signed by a judge authorizing the state to take the life of another make it right? Does that piece of paper make what the state did any different that what Mr. Happ did? There is no sanctity in that piece of paper. Innocent men have been convicted and sent to death row over and over again. That piece of paper signed by the jury foreman didn't make it right. That judgment signed by the judge didn't make it right. The decisions by the appellate courts didn't make it right.
A piece of paper is nothing more than a piece of paper.
We will never know what Mr. Happ went through as he lay there on the gurney with an IV in his arm. There's no one who can tell us. And that should be disturbing. We should all be outraged that the State of Florida decided to use an untested drug to kill a man just because the law said they had to kill him.
The idea is that the sedative will help the inmate slip into unconsciousness so that he is unaware of the paralysis that is to follow. If everything works as planned, when cardiac arrest is induced the inmate will feel no pain.
But the State of Florida found itself in a bit of a pickle. Being that the supply of pentobarbital has dried up due to the manufacturer's objection to its drug being used to kill people, the death machine needed new fuel. They decided to use an untested sedative - midazolam hydrochloride - as the first course.
Now aside from the fact that the entire procedure is utterly barbaric and that we should be ashamed, as a society, that we murder inmates for the sake of revenge, this antiseptic form of murder is used to assuage those among us who might oppose the use of the electric chair, the gallows or the firing squad.
William Happ committed a horrible crime and he caused irreparable damage to a family who lost a loved one. For his actions Mr. Happ deserved to be punished by the society whose mores he violated. But Mr. Happ shouldn't have been used as a guinea pig or a lab rat to see if a new drug cocktail would work.
The drug is used as an anesthetic. The literature seems to indicate that a person could be fully anesthetized in a matter of a few minutes. But no one has ever tested the drug to see how it reacts with the other drugs in the lethal cocktail or to determine whether or not a person sedated with it feels any pain when cardiac arrest is induced.
I'm sure there are those who couldn't care less if Mr. Happ suffered excruciating pain while being executed. There are those who probably wished he suffered more than he may or may not have. For folks of that bent, there is very little I can say that would change their minds regarding the death penalty -- I can only hope that one day they might achieve enough enlightenment to understand how the use of capital punishment demeans our entire society.
Mr. Happ was a person. No matter how badly he behaved, he was still one of us. Even though he had been banished from society, he was still a living, breathing person. His death brought no one back to life. His death healed no scars or filled any voids. There was no purpose in killing him other than to do so because the men and women on that jury were really, really mad at him. But does that make it right to kill?
Does having a piece of paper signed by a judge authorizing the state to take the life of another make it right? Does that piece of paper make what the state did any different that what Mr. Happ did? There is no sanctity in that piece of paper. Innocent men have been convicted and sent to death row over and over again. That piece of paper signed by the jury foreman didn't make it right. That judgment signed by the judge didn't make it right. The decisions by the appellate courts didn't make it right.
A piece of paper is nothing more than a piece of paper.
We will never know what Mr. Happ went through as he lay there on the gurney with an IV in his arm. There's no one who can tell us. And that should be disturbing. We should all be outraged that the State of Florida decided to use an untested drug to kill a man just because the law said they had to kill him.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
The new welfare
The other day, while perusing Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback site, I came across a link to an article he penned for The Atlantic last month regarding the way the NFL acts as a conduit for transferring money from the poor to the very, very rich.
We are, of course, talking about subsidies handed out like candy to NFL owners who want to build expensive new playpens for their teams without reaching into their own pockets. The most glaring example is that of Tom Benson and the New Orleans Saints.
The Saints play in the Superdome which is in the middle of downtown New Orleans. For those of y'all who remember Katrina, you will remember that the Superdome suffered severe damage as a result of not only the storm, but also the aftermath. It took millions of dollars to rebuild - and that money came courtesy of the taxpayers in Louisiana. In return, Mr. Benson pockets all, or damn near all, of the game day revenue in exchange for a mere pittance of rent. He also pockets millions of dollars of national television revenue. And, as if that wasn't enough, the taxpayers in Louisiana pay him about $6 million a year NOT to move the team somewhere else.
So, let's get this straight. The city of New Orleans is still rebuilding after the storm. There is still widespread unemployment and poverty throughout the city. But the state can't afford to spend any money rebuilding infrastructure and homes. The state doesn't have the money to provide good paying jobs rebuilding the city. But the state has plenty of money laying around to lavish on a billionaire who owns a football team that uses the city's name.
And, as Mr. Easterbrook points out, the NFL copyrights all images from the games played in the Superdome and charges a fee to use them. Let us not forget that the Superdome is a publicly funded stadium paid for by the taxpayers of Louisiana and yet none of the taxpayers see any revenue either from the NFL's television deals or from the copyright fees charged by the NFL. All of that money finds its way into Mr. Benson's pockets.
Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it.
And that's just one example. All across the NFL extremely wealthy owners are threatening to move their teams if local municipalities and states down pony up the money to build new playpens. Then there are also the infrastructure improvements needed to support the stadium that are also paid for with taxpayer dollars. Not mentioned in Mr. Easterbrook's article is the ways in which cities exercise their powers of eminent domain to force landowners to sell their property at less than the going rate. Should a person who owns property the city needs to build the stadium dare ask for a premium price due to the value of his particular parcel of land, the city will step in and threaten to use its powers to take the land from him at a discount to what he could/should have made.
But that's not all. The price of admission to one of these grand gridiron palaces has become out of the reach of the ordinary football fan - the football fan whose tax dollars are being funneled straight into the bank account of the billionaire owner. So, not only are the taxpayers being fleeced by the NFL, they are also being denied entry into the buildings they paid for with their hard earned money. Nice.
We have all of this money being transferred from public coffers to private entities so that the owners can reap a fortune from their association with the NFL. At the same time cities and states are cutting the amount of money spent on social services, infrastructure improvement, housing and education.
We are told by the NFL and the media that these benevolent titans of football made their money the hard way - they earned it of the exploitation of others. They are capitalists to be admired. They are willing to part with vast sums of wealth in order to entertain us with football. No. They are nothing more than welfare queens who preach that unbridled capitalism is good for the masses while they belly up at the trough of the public till.
We are, of course, talking about subsidies handed out like candy to NFL owners who want to build expensive new playpens for their teams without reaching into their own pockets. The most glaring example is that of Tom Benson and the New Orleans Saints.
The Saints play in the Superdome which is in the middle of downtown New Orleans. For those of y'all who remember Katrina, you will remember that the Superdome suffered severe damage as a result of not only the storm, but also the aftermath. It took millions of dollars to rebuild - and that money came courtesy of the taxpayers in Louisiana. In return, Mr. Benson pockets all, or damn near all, of the game day revenue in exchange for a mere pittance of rent. He also pockets millions of dollars of national television revenue. And, as if that wasn't enough, the taxpayers in Louisiana pay him about $6 million a year NOT to move the team somewhere else.
So, let's get this straight. The city of New Orleans is still rebuilding after the storm. There is still widespread unemployment and poverty throughout the city. But the state can't afford to spend any money rebuilding infrastructure and homes. The state doesn't have the money to provide good paying jobs rebuilding the city. But the state has plenty of money laying around to lavish on a billionaire who owns a football team that uses the city's name.
And, as Mr. Easterbrook points out, the NFL copyrights all images from the games played in the Superdome and charges a fee to use them. Let us not forget that the Superdome is a publicly funded stadium paid for by the taxpayers of Louisiana and yet none of the taxpayers see any revenue either from the NFL's television deals or from the copyright fees charged by the NFL. All of that money finds its way into Mr. Benson's pockets.
Disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it.
And that's just one example. All across the NFL extremely wealthy owners are threatening to move their teams if local municipalities and states down pony up the money to build new playpens. Then there are also the infrastructure improvements needed to support the stadium that are also paid for with taxpayer dollars. Not mentioned in Mr. Easterbrook's article is the ways in which cities exercise their powers of eminent domain to force landowners to sell their property at less than the going rate. Should a person who owns property the city needs to build the stadium dare ask for a premium price due to the value of his particular parcel of land, the city will step in and threaten to use its powers to take the land from him at a discount to what he could/should have made.
But that's not all. The price of admission to one of these grand gridiron palaces has become out of the reach of the ordinary football fan - the football fan whose tax dollars are being funneled straight into the bank account of the billionaire owner. So, not only are the taxpayers being fleeced by the NFL, they are also being denied entry into the buildings they paid for with their hard earned money. Nice.
We have all of this money being transferred from public coffers to private entities so that the owners can reap a fortune from their association with the NFL. At the same time cities and states are cutting the amount of money spent on social services, infrastructure improvement, housing and education.
We are told by the NFL and the media that these benevolent titans of football made their money the hard way - they earned it of the exploitation of others. They are capitalists to be admired. They are willing to part with vast sums of wealth in order to entertain us with football. No. They are nothing more than welfare queens who preach that unbridled capitalism is good for the masses while they belly up at the trough of the public till.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)