Fables of the reconstruction

Innocent Man Freed After 35 Years

Way to go, Innocence Project of Florida:

James Bain used a cell phone for the first time Thursday, calling his elderly mother to tell her he had been freed after 35 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit.

Mobile devices didn't exist in 1974, the year he was sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping a 9-year-old boy and raping him in a nearby field.

Neither did the sophisticated DNA testing that officials more recently used to determine he could not have been the rapist.

"Nothing can replace the years Jamie has lost," said Seth Miller, a lawyer for the Florida Innocence Project, which helped Bain win freedom. "Today is a day of renewal."

A new record:

Bain spent more time in prison than any of the 246 inmates previously exonerated by DNA evidence nationwide, according to the project. The longest-serving before him was James Lee Woodard of Dallas, who was released last year after spending more than 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.

Again, imagine all the cases out there in which no evidence that can be tested for DNA was collected. 

You know, the state innocence projects (where they exist) and the national innocence project are all underfunded and understaffed. Why don't you forgo whatever expensive thing you were thinking about buying for Xmas and make a difference with that money instead? Contribute to the Florida Innocence here, the Pennsylvania Innocence Project here, and the national Innocence Project here.

Imagine All The Cases With No DNA Evidence

How many people in prison who are like this guy, but don't have the evidence to prove it?

A man who spent 28 years behind bars for a rape and murder he said he did not commit walked out of a federal prison in Arizona after DNA testing showed he was innocent. The conviction of the man, Donald E. Gates, 58, was based largely on the testimony of an F.B.I. forensic analyst whose work later came under fire and a hair analysis technique that has been discredited. The same judge who had presided over Mr. Gates’s trial in District of Columbia Superior Court ordered his release.

Worst of the Worst

Hurray for justice:

The U.S. government released from Guantanamo Wednesday a Kuwaiti Airways engineer whom a judge freed from eight years detention because American interrogators had wrung a false confession out of him years ago.

The case of Fouad al Rabia, a 50-year-old father of four, brought into sharp relief questions about the quality of evidence the military intended to present at his military commission trial. ...

Rabia, who holds a business degree from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona, Fla., won his freedom after Cynamon argued that U.S. officials had mistakenly identified the obese flight engineer as a key aide to Osama bin Laden at the 2001 battle of Tora Bora, then subjected him to systematic abuse at Guantanamo until he told them what they wanted to hear.

Kollar-Kotelly, with access to secret Pentagon evidence, agreed in a 65-page ruling.

She found that Rabia had been subjected to a sleep deprivation program forbidden by the U.S. Army's field manual, that his interrogators themselves didn't believe his confession, and that the evidence backed his assertion that he was in Afghanistan on a humanitarian mission that he undertook annually.

"If there exists a basis for al Rabia's indefinite detention, it most certainly has not been presented to this court.''

It only took 8 fucking years of torture and the intervention of a Kuwaiti prince to spring an innocent guy. One down, 214 to go.

Sign of the Times

Seriously? Seen on public transit in Seattle:

 

RCW 9A.44.040 is Washington's forcible rape statute, so that checks out, but otherwise this strikes me as a well-executed stunt to raise rape-consciousness, both because it's ludicrous and because in this image from FAILblog the sign appears to be a sticker that is peeling away from the wall (although I suppose real warning signs in Seattle might be stickers and someone was just trying to steal one for themselves and I can't believe I am seriously trying to figure out if this is real). Great production values.

Cop Killers

Some guy was sentenced to death yesterday for murdering a Philly cop who walked in on an armed robbery. I've got no special brief for criminals and especially anyone who shoots someone whose job it is to stop knuckleheads like him, but as I get older I have less and less stomach for capital punishment. The local media seemed very eager to see this guy on death row. It just seems bizarre to me to think that killing someone is somehow more just and is going to make the victim's family and the public feel better, and that life in prison with no possibility of parole would be a gift to the murderer.

The jury deliberated for less than an hour before deciding to impose the death penalty. I'm very big on juries' ability to do their jobs in a fair and impartial way, and try to push back against people who criticize juries' decisions. But deciding whether someone lives or dies in less time than it takes some people to eat lunch? This tells me they didn't bother to actually re-read the jury instructions and deliberate. They had, either as a group or individually, decided in advance that the sentence was death.

Of course, in a blue collar town like Philly, you can't expect the decision to come out differently when a cop is murdered. But I do expect people to take the job of juror seriously, and to do it the right way.  They owe that duty to the victim's family, the defendant and his family, and the court.  They also owe it to themselves. In this case, there was no rush. It was mid-day when they went into the room. Either way the jury came out, life or death, it was a decision they would have to live with for the rest of their lives. I do, because I have served on a death penalty jury. If I could have advised them, I would have told them to take their time. I think that they're going to regret that they didn't.

The flip side of the general pro-cop attitude in Philly is that bad cops get away with too much. This past Saturday, an off-duty cop with a history of repeatedly flying off the handle and waving his gun around charged into a fight in the street outside his house to break it up. Witnesses say he was drunk. At some point, the cop claims he was attacked and fired his gun in self-defense. He shot and killed an unarmed 21-year-old neighbor who was also trying to break up the fight. Despite that, the cop is free and, while he's under investigation, I don't expect him to be charged with anything. If a civilian had done what he did, he'd be in jail on a murder charge, no question.  It's double standard in this town, with one law for cops and another for everyone else.

Pennsylvania State Job Cuts Undermine Stimulus Effect on Infrastructure Spending and Environmental Safety

Duncan, talking about the self-defeating focus on the federal budget deficit:

I'm not talking about make work, I'm talking about real projects from basic maintenance to sewers to pothole filling to the demolishing and reclaiming of property with abandoned buildings etc... etc... The fact that the administration is signaling that it's more worried about the deficit than unemployment is incredibly frustrating.

He's also complained, rightly, in the past about the fact that stimulus funds for the states were cut at the behest of people concerned about spending too much.

There's a similar process at work here in Pennsylvania. Recently, the Rendell administration announced it was cutting an additional 319 state jobs:

[T]he Department of Environmental Protection will see the greatest reductions, losing 138 positions, or about 5 percent of its workforce ....

I was talking to a civil engineer last night who is working on several stimulus-funded infrastructure projects. He told me that people don't realize that every project requires the DEP to issue a permit before work begins. The DEP staff is already overworked; now, with the cuts, permits will be delayed even further. The net effect is that the stimulus money that Pennsylvania is getting won't be spent as quickly as it could be.

The state officials downplay it:

[DEP secretary John] Hanger said the layoffs, plus unfilled vacancies totaling an additional 120 jobs, would reduce the agency's overall staff complement from 3,011 to 2,760. He said sparing the inspection and enforcement staff was "the highest priority" but said the reductions might lengthen the permit-granting process for certain construction projects.

Making the unfilled vacancies permanent means that DEP is actually losing 258 staff, which is over 8% of the workforce.

But when it comes to development, they have their priorities:

Cuts to the Department of Environmental Protection will not affect oversight of increased natural gas exploration in the so-called Marcellus Shale reserve, the rich vein of gas that underlies most of the state, agency secretary John Hanger said.

He said the 120 salaried staffers who review applications for permits to drill for gas or oil and inspect drilling sites are covered by fees paid by the industry and aren't affected by the cuts.

The fracing that is required to extract the gas from the shale is also going to dump huge amounts of pollutants into the Susquehanna, which is already making people sick. And guess what? Under a law passed by Congress in 2004, fracing is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which means the federal EPA has no jurisdiction over the practice. That leaves the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which is now down 8% in staff, to regulate the problem.

Camera Makes Truck Driver Stop Blocking the Street

Minor victory; small mystery.

I was trying to get stuff done this afternoon when people started angrily blowing their horns in the street outside my window. This went on for several minutes. Finally, too distracted to work, I walked outside and found some truck driver inexplicably blocking the road, looking at his paperwork. Traffic was backed up for a block and people were incensed, but he could care less.

So I did what I do in this situations, I took pictures:

 

The gentleman driving the truck is shielding his face from the camera. (He then went on to give me the finger and told me to "go suck another man's dick." This wounded me.) Nevertheless, I got the company name and USDOT number in the shot, and the license plate in another, so I just said, "I'm calling your boss" and walked away.

He finally drove off. 

It turns out, the DOT website has a search tool that let you look up truck numbers. Turns out that McDaniel Trucking Enterprises is almost three years late in filing the paperwork for this truck, although it has undergone roadside inspection times in the past two years. How does the truck pass inspection if the company hasn't renewed the DOT license? And what recourse is there for me to complain to the company if the management clearly doesn't even bother to obey the law themselves?

Now I can get back to work.

Orly Taitz Refuses to Pay $20,000 Fine

Chief birther whackjob Orly Taitz was sanctioned $20,000 by a federal judge for filing repeated frivolous lawsuits against President Obama. Today was the deadline for her to pay, but:

“Absolutely not,” Taitz said Thursday afternoon when asked whether she would pay. “I have filed an appeal. It was a complete abuse of power.”

The original order says "if Taitz doesn’t pay by the deadline, the U.S. Attorney 'will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.' Taitz has appealed the sanction."

Pass the popcorn.

PA State Rep Perzel Indicted

Good news:

Rep. John M. Perzel, the former speaker of the state House, was charged today with 82 criminal counts in a sweeping scandal involving a sophisticated, multi-million software programs paid for by taxpayers but allegedly used for political campaigning. ...

Nine others with ties to the House Republican Caucus were also charged, including five former top Perzel aides and former Rep. Brett Feese of Lycoming County, who once headed the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Perzel is one of the many Republican state legislators who have repeatedly screwed over the city of Philadelphia and benefited Harrisburg, most notably via the money vacuum known as the Parking Authority.

Also, this:

The Philadelphia Republican is the most prominent political figure thus far to be charged in Attorney General Tom Corbett's long-running investigation unofficially known as Bonusgate. ...

The charges, laid out in a 188-page presentment, come 17 months after Corbett brought charges against a dozen House Democratic insiders - including former House Minority Whip Mike Veon - accusing them of misusing public funds for political purposes

Corbett is a Republican running for Governor and is going to be able to trade on these criminal cases as part of his campaign. In a statement, Perzel said:

"This investigation has lasted for nearly three years, and it's only now, on the eve of his gubernatorial campaign and in response to claims that he was unfairly pursuing only Democrats, that Attorney General Corbett has decided to bring charges against 10 Republicans, including me," said Perzel. "It smacks of political opportunism at the expense of my reputation, and I am going to fight very aggressively to prove my innocence.

Clearly, the timing is politically opportune for Corbett. Whether that means the case against Perzel is any good or not, I don't know.

Local Programming: PA Innocence Project Fundraiser Tonight

Thursday, November 12th
7:30 p.m.
Fundraiser for The Pennsylvania Innocence Project
Arcadia University in Glenside, PA will stage a performance of The Exonerated on Thursday, November 12th at 7:30 pm to benefit the Pennsylvania Innocence Project. Tickets for this special benefit performance can be reserved with a minimum donation of $100 each and can be purchased using a major credit card. Seating is limited, and tickets are expected to sell out, so please purchase tickets soon!

Second-Most Senior RNC Member Resigns After Stalking Ex

Whoa:

Blake Hall, a leading figure in Idaho and national politics for 25 years, was fired Monday as a deputy prosecuting attorney in eastern Idaho and has resigned from the Republican National Committee. ...

Idaho Falls police reported that witnesses said Hall disposed of used condoms on the lawn of the woman's house. Nineteen condoms were turned over to police, collected on 10 different dates, according to a police report. Both Hall and his lawyer acknowledged the condoms belonged to him, according to a police report.

Wow. How crazy do you have to be?

Also, between March and August, Hall repeatedly followed the woman to restaurants, the movies and her home, and he ignored her repeated requests that he leave her alone, according to police and court records.

The victim testified Friday that Hall once followed her to a Walmart and took her car keys and would not return them until she agreed to "hear him out" concerning her marriage, the Idaho Falls Post Register reported.

"I was so tired of being victimized," the woman said. "It is unimaginable that a 56-year-old would be so deviant."

Hey, remember that Kentucky state official who shot his girlfriend to death in September? He was 56 years old. Good thing Hall was "just" obsessive, not violent.

Just like the attorney for that guy in Kentucky blaming the victim for her own death, some people in Idaho have some wacky ideas, too:

Hall, 56, will keep his $31,000-a-year job as the civil attorney in nearby Fremont County, according to Prosecutor Joette Lookabaugh, a Republican who hired Hall in January.

Lookabaugh said she told Hall he would keep his job "unless or until his ability to do an outstanding job for Fremont County citizens is compromised."

In a news release, Lookabaugh suggested Hall was singled out because of his notoriety.

"I understand that political figures are held to a higher standard," she said. "What is disturbing is the fact that often people who have devoted their lives to public service are not given the same benefits, or are treated more harshly, than the public at large. There seems to be a certain amount of political glee in striking down the well-known for any real or perceived foible."

Hall admits throwing used condoms on a woman's lawn. Does Prosecutor Lookabaugh really believe someone who does that should retain a position of trust?

Hall continues to accumulate pension benefits from Fremont County. Hall's law firm gets about $600,000 worth of business from the state, but that is being looked at.

Former NM Chief Justice Dies Giving a Speech to One Ls

Imagine the judge's poor wife (who was in attendance) and students who had to go through this:

Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Gene Franchini died Wednesday afternoon while addressing first-year law students at the University of New Mexico. 

... Franchini was giving his annual speech on ethics and the role of a judge Wednesday evening when he collapsed.

Faculty members said Franchini apparently suffered a heart attack. Students tried to perform CPR until emergency crews arrived.

Local Programming: Meet Death Row Exoneree Harold Wilson This Afternoon

Thursday, November 5th

4:30-6:00 p.m.
Meet Death Row Exoneree Harold Wilson at Temple Law
Meet Harold Wilson, who was wrongly sentenced to death for murder and then subsequently exonerated. The event is sponsored by the American Constitution Society, Witness to Innocence, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Pennsylvania Innocence Project. The program will be held at Temple University Beasley School of Law, 1719 North Broad St. (southeast corner of Broad and Montgomery Ave.), Philadelphia, PA 19122, Room K2B, from 4:30-6 p.m. Contact Chris Wickman for more information.

More Is Thy Due Than More Than All Can Pay

Some guy named Chiscolm sued Bank of America for $1.784 septillion dollars. That's $1,784,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  Or $1.784 trillion trillion. Any way you say it, he won't get it:

The gross domestic product of the entire world in 2008 was only $60 trillion, so even if Chiscolm won it might be a little hard to collect.

Also, or rather to reiterate, he's not going to win because he's nuts:

In a ruling issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin called Chiscolm's claim "incomprehensible," having something to do with incomplete routing numbers and inconsistent information given to him over the phone by a "Spanish womn [sic]."  Chiscolm now has a month to come up with a better explanation of his claims, so we can all look forward to that.

Damn Spanish womn. Get you every time.

(Via via.)

Birther Suit Dismissed and Orly Taitz Threatened With Sanctions

This is nice:

[Middle District of Georgia] U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land today tossed out a complaint by an Army captain fighting deployment to Iraq by questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama.

Land also put attorney Orly Taitz, who represents Capt. Connie Rhodes and is a leader in the national “birther” movement, on notice by stating that she could face sanctions if she ever files a similar “frivolous” lawsuit in his court.

“(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,” Land states in his order. “Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is ‘an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.’”

Orly Taitz, JD, DDS, and "frivolous" in the same sentence. I am glad some people are sane.

Update: The judge's order (pdf) will be included in an upper-level law seminar I will teach next year called Things You Don't Want a Judge to Say About You or Your Client:

The present action is the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deployment orders because President Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim. In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” [Cite omitted.] Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.

Subtle practice point here: As an attorney, you know you're in trouble when the judge writes that you have a modus operandi. Also, it's bad form to shop your case around to every District Court you think might give you a sympathetic hearing just because it's located in a red state.

Captain Rhodes entered the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor.  The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.

Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her “conscientious objections” to  serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil.

Captain, you've just been called a coward by a United States District Judge. Now how do you feel?

Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” ... She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States.” ... Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” ... (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.” (... (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” ... Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” ...

Cites omitted, but I'll note that some of them refer to page 148 of the complaint. That's not a brief, that's a book. I would sanction Taitz on that basis alone, which is one of many reasons I am not a judge.

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.

In three sentences, Judge Land proves why Article III rocks. Do you think the rightwingers are going to go after him? Guess who appointed him: George W.  (This is the first time that I can recall ever wanting to post a smiley emoticon on this blog.)

On to Footnote 5:

One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. ... Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document.

Taitz failed to produce Obama's official Kenyan birth certificate! I can hear 60,000 wingnuts, or a million, give or take, sputtering in confusion.

One more thing: The judge went out of his way to not just dismiss the complaint, but to demonstrate that the plaintiff's allegations didn't survive any of the different legal tests that it would have to satisfy if she hoped to prevail. He didn't need to do that, but I suppose he didn't want to repeat the District Court in Texas' mistake of issuing just a summary order. After it failed one standard, he could have dismissed it on that basis alone, but he chose to show that the complaint lacked any merit, which provides the justification for the best part of the order:

Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

Rule 11 provides, among other things:

A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

One thing I want to know is: Is Taitz admitted to practice in the Middle District of Georgia, or did she waive in pro hac vice? If the latter, then there is also some local counsel who vouched for her who is also going to suffer for inflicting this nonsense on the court. Good.

John Yoo: A One-Man Crime Wave

Publius:

As I noted earlier, John Yoo played a starring role in the new IG report (pdf) on the Bush administration’s surveillance program (PSP).  And it wasn’t a flattering one.

Yoo’s actions were dishonest and inappropriate on so many different levels that I’m going to try to break them up into three categories:  (1) procedural abuses; (2) legal inaccuracies; and (3) factual inaccuracies.

The details are summarized pretty quickly and convincingly. John Yoo conspired with other top malefactors in the Bush Administration to violate all Americans' civil liberties and then lied to cover it up. He should be standing trial.

Yet that same John Yoo is a professor at a respected law school and is paid to write occasional columns for my once-great local newspaper.

Local Programming: American Constitution Society Supreme Court Event Noon Thursday

Thursday, July 9th
American Constitution Society Supreme Court Event
ACS’s Philadelphia Lawyer Chapter and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights present “Replacing Justice Souter: President Obama’s First Pick and The Future of the Supreme Court”, featuring William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Steven Duffield, Former Policy Director and Chief Counsel, Senate Republican Conference; moderated by Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The event will be held on Thursday, July 9, 2009, 12:00 p.m - 2:00 p.m., at Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads LLP, Justice Owen J. Roberts Room, 123 S. Broad Street, Avenue of the Arts, Philadelphia, PA. RSVP here or on Facebook.

Busted For Breastfeeding While Intoxicated

Not a joke:

Police responding to a domestic disturbance arrived at Stacey Anvarinia's home to find the mother breast-feeding her 6-week-old baby in front of them. And she was drunk, they said.

Officers arrested the woman, who later pleaded guilty to child neglect and faces up to five years in prison. Now her case has touched off a debate among moms about breast-feeding, alcohol — and privacy.

Since Anvarinia's arrest, blogs have been abuzz with comments questioning whether breast-feeding mothers could risk criminal charges if they drink even modest amounts. Authorities insist police were right to make the arrest, even if the mother had not been breast-feeding, out of concern for the child's welfare. ...

It's unclear how much Anavarina had to drink. Police never conducted a blood-alcohol test. Investigators believed she was drunk, and her arrest on a charge of child abuse and neglect did not require a test. ...

"This case is more than just the breast-feeding. It was the totality of the circumstances," said Grand Forks Police Lt. Rahn Farder. "It is quite unusual for a mother to be breast-feeding her child as we are conducting an investigation, whether she was intoxicated or not."

What a mess. First of all, breastfeeding your kid in front of the police is not yet a crime. Second, while I am skeptical of the healthiness of the habit, all kinds of activities that pose a risk to the kid's well-being are legal - say, smoking - and the police would never even imagine they should lock people up for them. It seems that the woman's job as a mom is somehow open to public scrutiny and disapproval, especially when she is pregnant or breastfeeding. Somehow, the more personal and private the matter for a woman, the more authority male police officers arrogate to themselves to control the woman's behavior.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Outlawed in Delaware

The first state, coming in near the back of the pack:

Anyone who loses a job, a housing opportunity, an insurance policy, a public contract or a spot in a public facility because of sexual orientation now has legal remedy. For the first time, that kind of discrimination is no longer legal in Delaware.

Finally. What took you so long? Next: marriage and other privileges granted other people.

Via Fred Clark.

"Don't Do Anything Stupid"

From the Form 8-K - in this case, a filing required of publicly-traded companies called "Safe Harbor For Forward-Looking Statements" - dated June 23, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., in response to a question asking the company to estimate future legal fees for an ongoing matter:

Without being trite, as we’ve addressed this topic before on more than one occasion, an attempt to predict the magnitude of these expenses at this juncture would be pointless as we feel the ongoing questions asking us to predict future legal spend have been. We understand everyone’s interest in the topic, it is something we are keenly interested in as well. We would hope, however, that everyone understands that if we actually knew enough to be able to predict our legal expenses, that would be an associative discussion which would follow a much more serious disclosure. At that juncture, legal fees would be of lesser concern.

When you come from a frame of reference, as we do, where $0 spent on legal expense would be the most preferred alternative, having to predict anything beyond that, by its nature, would become inherently and incredibly biased towards our own wants, desires and expectations. To us, this is somewhat akin to being asked to predict how many minutes after being force fed a dead frog we would throw-up…and the operative word is “force,” as we’d never elect to do either on our own. In both cases (the legal fees or swallowing the dead frog) we’re certain we would eventually throw up. In neither case do we know exactly how much money or how much time would pass before we did. In both cases, however, our gut check, no pun intended, is not very much and not very long! It should go without saying that given our druthers, we’d rather not spend the legal fees or eat the dead frog in the first place. Sometimes you don’t get the luxury of deciding what you have to eat. When you do, and it’s unpalatable, it should be obvious that you would eat as little as possible. What we are certain of is that if we were talking about being force fed dead frogs and not incurring excessive legal fees, people would be content accepting at face value that it would be as little as possible. Please rest assured, however, that whatever our legal costs are during the next year, while they will be more than we want, they will be the least amount that we can spend to completely and competently comply with ongoing requests or requirements of the various government and/or civil authorities overseeing these various proceedings.

Further down the document, in response to a question about cost-cutting measures:

We initiated a hiring freeze last year. There are, of course, reasonable and logical exceptions that need to be made in instances, for example, where new business comes on—trying to handle new business with inadequate resources flies in the face of one of our 2009 corporate goals—“Don’t do anything stupid”. Our hiring freeze is also a “Don’t do anything stupid” (D²AS) kind of hiring freeze.

I like the fact that they made "Don't do anything stupid" a defined term - "D²AS". That's the kind of touch a lawyer appreciates.

(Via Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog.)

First Trial of Gitmo Captive in U.S.

Good move:

The Obama administration on Tuesday transferred its first Guantánamo detainee to U.S. soil by having U.S. marshals move a Tanzanian man from Guantánamo to New York City for trial on capital terror charges.

A predawn Justice Department statement said Ahmed Ghailani, about 35, was being housed in the Metropolitan Correction Center, a medium to maximum-security lockup in downtown Manhattan that has held everyone from alleged al Qaeda arch-terrorists to financier Bernard Madoff.

Ghaliani, born in Zanzibar and captured in Afghanistan, had been at a secret Super Max-style lock-up at the remote U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba for former CIA captives called Camp 7.

He faced arraignment in federal court later in the day as an alleged co-conspirator in the Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 234 people.

Okay, do that 200 more times and then we're done. Seriously, it will be more difficult than that, but at least this is a start.

Ambinder notes:

Notice the date that Ghailani arrived at Guantanamo: 2006 -- that's after the reign of enhanced interrogation techniques had ended...after the torture that extracted (lots of bogus information and some accurate information) from his fellow detainees was put to an end. There was plenty of collateral information about Ghailani's involvement in the embassy bombings, and so the decision to grant him an Article III trial was probably one of the easier calls the administration had to make.

That is, Ghailini probably wasn't tortured, so that won't hinder the admissibility of any incriminating statements he may have made.

It's Okay If You're a Cop

Police officers probably feel they more often get treated like shit than are given breaks, but when stuff like this happens, it just galls me:

Back in September 2006 -- with no lights or siren -- [New Jersey State Trooper] Robert Higbee ran a stop sign while in pursuit of a speeding suspect in Upper Township. 

Christina and Jacqueline Becker were on their way to buy milk, and happened to be in his path.

He was acquitted of vehicular homicide, which in New Jersey requires a showing that the person driving acted recklessly:

A person acts recklessly when (he/she) consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from (his/her) conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to (him/her), disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the defendant's situation.

So, you're engaged in a high-speed pursuit, in this case doing 80 in a 35 mph zone, and you don't have your lights or siren on. And you end up killing two kids. In any comparable civilian circumstance, that driver would not only be going to prison, he'd be getting the max. But because this guy is a cop, he walks.

"I Am The Government"

The judge who wrote this (which is funny but a pdf) turns out to be a power-mad drunk who sexually assaults his staff.

New Hampshire Legalizes Gay Marriage

Some good news for a bleak day.

The First Black President Nominates the First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice

And the first black President hands the Republican Party a dilemma: Further alienate the country's fastest-growing minority group or abandon their "Party of No" resistance strategy at the first test?

It's like the Civil War wreath-laying thing for Memorial Day. Yes, Obama continued the practice of honoring the dead traitors. It's an expression of his avowed Lincolnism - malice for none, charity toward all.  But he also began the practice of sending a wreath to the memorial to African-American Union soliders - the ones that the Confederates would routinely murder or enslave if they managed to capture them. The contrast is nice and instructive.

It's so nice we elected not just the smart one, but the shrewd one.

Department of Really Bad Ideas: Forging Homeland Security "Photography License"

I appreciate the impulse, but this was a fucking stupid thing to do.

ACLU of PA and Anthony Romero on LGBT Rights Tomorrow Night

Join the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s Greater Philadelphia Chapter for a frank discussion about the current state of LGBT rights and what we can do to ensure equality for ALL Americans.

Featuring:

Anthony Romero

Anthony Romero, Executive Director, National ACLU
Stephen Glassman, Chair, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

When: Monday, May 11, 2009, 7:00 p.m.

Where: The Hub, Cira Centre , 2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia
(across from 30th Street Station) Directions and parking information

You are invited to attend a wine and cheese reception before the program beginning at 6:15 p.m. at the same location.

Free & open to the public. No RSVP needed.

Questions? Contact us at aclupa@aclupa.org or 215-592-1513 x122.

I Must Have Missed That Memo

Shorter Michael Kinsley:

Even though Bush denied ordering people to be tortured and covered up the fact that he did, we're all responsible for it because he won the 2004 election. Prosecute yourself first!

Poor, Oppressed White Men

Mark Halperin reveals the big problem with Obama replacing Souter with a woman:
I love that the "white man" depicted is from a stock photo site. It doesn't matter to Halperin which white man gets the job, so long as one gets the job.

Souter to Retire

I figured Specter switching was part of a Supreme Court deal, but damn, that was fast.

Hopey-Changey: Administration Caves on Extremism Report

I'm sorry, so sorry:

A detailed account of the meeting from the American Legion states that "Hunched forward with head bowed, the Secretary of Homeland Security looked the National Commander of The American Legion straight in the eye and said, very quietly, 'I’m sorry, Dave.'"

"Nice hat, too."

Next I expect Napolitano to apologize to some militia and white-supremacist organizations.

Local Programming: ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero on LGBT Rights

Monday, May 11th:

Join the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s Greater Philadelphia Chapter for a frank discussion about the current state of LGBT rights and what we can do to ensure equality for ALL Americans.

Featuring:

Anthony Romero

Anthony Romero, Executive Director, National ACLU
Stephen Glassman, Chair, Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission

When: Monday, May 11, 2009, 7:00 p.m.

Where: The Hub, Cira Centre , 2929 Arch Street, Philadelphia
(across from 30th Street Station) Directions and parking information

You are invited to attend a wine and cheese reception before the program beginning at 6:15 p.m. at the same location.

Free & open to the public. No RSVP needed.

Questions? Contact us at aclupa@aclupa.org or 215-592-1513 x122.

Hopey-Changey for CIA Torturors

They were just following orders:

The Justice Department will not prosecute CIA officers who used harsh interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects, Obama administration officials said this afternoon, as they released four Bush-era legal memos detailing practices that critics have likened to torture. ...

Both Obama and Holder for months have indicated a desire to look forward rather than ignite investigations that could alienate the intelligence community and ignite partisan rancor. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution," Obama said in his statement this afternoon even as he bemoaned the recent passing of a "dark and painful chapter in our history."  ...

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," [Attorney General Eric H. ] Holder said in a statement.

For the first time, officials said today that they would provide legal representation at no cost to CIA employees subjected to probes by international tribunals or U.S. congressional inquiries. They also said they would indemnify agency workers against any possible financial judgments.

What makes this decision worse for me is that I agree with it.

Tax Topic: Standard Deduction for Kidnapped Children

Tax Topic 357:

Tax Information for Parents of Kidnapped Children

You may claim a kidnapped child as your dependent if the following requirements are met:

1. The child must be presumed by law enforcement to have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of your family or a member of the child's family, and
2. The child had, for the taxable year in which the kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year before the date of kidnapping.

If both of these requirements are met, the child may meet the requirements for purposes of determining:

• The dependency exemption
• The child tax credit, and
• Head of household or qualifying widow(er) with dependent child filing status.

This tax treatment will cease to apply as of your first tax year beginning after the calendar year in which either there is a determination that the child is dead or the child would have reached age 18, whichever occurs first.

I'm glad the IRS provides guidance for this situation, but why is there no deduction if the child is kidnapped by a family member? Is there a deduction available for the kidnapper in that case? It would be safe for them to do so, because I assume the IRS is not checking returns for the Social Security numbers of kidnapped children.

(Via.)

Taping Cops

Here's what happens when a black man drives a Jag:

[Terence] Jones says he remains "bothered and upset" that he was prosecuted for filing a false police report when he complained he was racially profiled in a 2007 traffic stop in Woolwich Township.

Jones, who is African American, had faced up to 18 months in prison; his restless nights dragged on longer than a year until his trial in December.

Visibly angered, Superior Court Judge M. Christine Allen-Jackson had called the case "chilling" when she found him not guilty. It was over, and Jones sobbed in relief. ...

A videotape of the stop, recorded by a camera in the police car, was never played for the grand jurors. It shows Patrolman Michael Schaeffer, who is white, pulling Jones over on a blustery night and asking why Jones was exiting an industrial park. ...

Jones believes the tape saved him.

"It would have been my word against the police officer's," he said. "I might have been doing 18 months in jail."

Or, as field negro says, he might be dead.

And here's what happens when you give unchecked authority to wage a war on (some) drugs:

Officer Jeffrey Cujdik told store owner Jose Duran that police were in search of tiny ziplock bags often used to package drugs. But, during the September 2007 raid, Cujdik and fellow squad members seemed much more interested in finding every video camera in the West Oak Lane store.

"I got like seven or eight eyes," shouted Officer Thomas Tolstoy, referring to the cameras, as the officers glanced up. "There's one outside. There is one, two, three, four in the aisles, and there's one right here somewhere."

For the next several minutes, Tolstoy and other Narcotics Field Unit officers systematically cut wires to cameras until those "eyes" could no longer see.

Then, after the officers arrested Duran and took him to jail, nearly $10,000 in cash and cartons of Marlboros and Newports were missing from the locked, unattended store, Duran alleges. The officers guzzled sodas and scarfed down fresh turkey hoagies, Little Debbie fudge brownies and Cheez-Its, he said.

What the officers didn't count on was that Duran's high-tech video system had a hidden backup hard-drive. The backup downloaded the footage to his private Web site before the wires were cut. ...

Duran's video bolsters allegations by eight other Philadelphia store owners who said that Cujdik and other officers destroyed or cut wires to surveillance cameras. Those store owners also said that after the wires were cut, cigarettes, batteries, cell phones, food and drinks were taken.

You get the point. Without cameras, some cops can and will lie your ass into prison or a grave, while covering up their own crimes.  I don't want to characterize the percentage of cops who are bad, because it's not relevant. It happens, that's a fact.

Cameras can protect you. But you have to have a camera on you, because you can't count on a police car dashboard camera or a surveillance camera. One idea I have had for a while is a rig involving cameras in your cellphone and wristwatch that would upload video and sound to a server on the web with a press of a button, as Mr. Duran's cameras did, so there would be no tape for them to destroy. Worst case scenario, if you wound up dead someone would be able to watch how it went down. I don't think cell phone data networks are fast enough yet to do that, but it is a product I would definitely think would take off when it is feasible.

Old Philly Law Firm to Close

The former Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen will dissolve:

Hit hard by defections of top lawyers and tight credit markets, partners at Wolf Block voted this afternoon to disband the 106-year-old law firm, a Philadelphia institution that for generations played a central role in the city's civic, legal and governmental affairs.

The decision was made during an emotional partners meeting at the firm's Center City offices. Lawyers from offices in other cities were video-conferenced in.

That's unbelievable. How terrible for the staff and associates.

Like many other firms, Wolf Block had been hit by a sharp fall-off in revenue as credit markets seized last fall and the housing market collapsed. But the firm also had been plagued with defections by top fee generators and faced further defections in the coming months. ...

Little more than a year ago, several of the firm's top litigators left to join the Center City firm of Hangley, Aronchik, Segal and Pudlin. That departure and others over the years tended to underscore Wolf Block's reputation as a firm wracked by internal discord.

I can confirm the discord, but always thought that was a feature, not a bug, at a idiosyncratic place like Wolf.

Bye-Bye, Vince

There was a sideshow about one juror twittering updates about deliberations but the judge smacked down the defense motion to replace that juror. Max Kennerly thinks that's the right result.

Reading Comprehension at the Washington Post

Check this out:
The second paragraph of the piece says "the court did not rule on the merits", which is, you know, the exact opposite of what the headline says.

Hopey-Changey of the Day: Obama Goes to Bat for Eavesdropping Telcos

American Constitution Society:

The Obama administration is defending the constitutionality of a law that shields telecommunications companies from legal challenges over their support of the Bush administration’s domestic spying program. Legal Beat reports that the Justice Department’s position in a brief filed in a California federal court “underscores the surprising degree to which the Obama administration – at least in court – is determined to shield President Bush’s controversial counter-terrorism policies from legal challenge or even public scrutiny.” According to Legal Beat, the administration is urging U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to dismiss “a raft of consolidated lawsuits” from customers of telecommunications companies who argue their privacy rights were violated when the companies helped Bush administration eavesdrop on the calls and e-mail.

I don't know the merits of the constitutional challenge - can't even imagine what it is, frankly - but whether it's a good case or not, Obama clearly wants to let sleeping dogs lie. How's that for half-assed analysis?

Hope-Changey of the Day

It's all about the prerogatives:

The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails.

Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President say that large amounts of White House e-mail documenting Bush's eight years in office may still be missing, and that the government must undertake an extensive recovery effort. They expressed disappointment that Obama's Justice Department is continuing the Bush administration's bid to get the lawsuits dismissed.

A Good Time to Apply to Law School

Inky:

Law school applications typically rise in economic downturns, as job seekers give up hope and seek to ride out hard times in graduate school. But the increasingly uncertain job market, fears about how and when it will recover, and difficulty in finding student loans apparently have discouraged potential applicants. ...

The Law School Admissions Council, based in Newtown, Bucks County, which tracks law school admissions data and prepares the LSAT, the law school admissions exam, said that more than a year into the current recession, applications across the nation were off about 1 percent, at 56,481.

This probably doesn't apply to elite law schools and not all of the rest are subject to it, either. But overall, the pool of law school applicants is falling, so if you have good LSATs and can find funding, it's a good time to apply.

Facebook Relents on TOS Change - For Now

Terms of Use Update

A couple of weeks ago, we posted an update to our Terms of Use that we hoped would clarify some parts of it for our users. Over the past couple of days, we have received a lot of questions and comments about these updated terms and what they mean for people and their information. Because of the feedback we received, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

The last sentence was there until just a second ago - now the blog itself is missing. Whatever, they gave up, temporarily.

Update: The ever-changing non-denial denial, er, clarification:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of good feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

Almost there, dudes. Try to get someone involved in drafting your response who isn't pissed off at your members for, like, noticing shit.

Update on Facebook TOS: "Go Ahead and Be Outraged."

Amanda French:

With today’s outrage over Facebook’s newly altered Terms of Service at its peak, I figured I’d do a quick comparison of their terms of service as regards user-uploaded content to the terms specified by other social networking sites, just to see if said outrage is fully justified. It looks as though the finger-pointing at the Bush robots.txt file wasn’t justified, for instance, and I was guilty of spreading that story.

Conclusion? Go ahead and be outraged. Facebook’s claims to your content are extraordinarily grabby and arrogant.

She then breaks down the ways Facebook's TOS is way beyond what other sites use. Her objections come down to these two:

• No one else besides Facebook keeps the license to your stuff permanently, even after you have deleted your account.
• Facebook claims it has a license to any content on your other websites if you post a "Share this on Facebook" link on it.

The way I read the FB TOS, it's worse than that: I think they're claiming a license to any material you link to from FB. But whatever; it's incredibly overreaching.

Update 2/18/09: FB reverts to the old TOS, for now.

Facebook Gives Itself Permanent, Irrevocable License to Use Your Stuff and Your Image

Don't post pictures or other creative content to Facebook if you want to retain your rights to use it commercially:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

What all that means is if you ever post anything to Facebook, no matter how briefly, and even if you delete your account, they own rights to it. The right is non-exclusive, which means that they very generously allow you to use it, too.

(Via.)

Update: It's worse than I initially thought. Check out the definition of User Content:

"User Content" means any photos, text, link, audio, video, designs, ads and anything else that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. "Post" means to upload, post, transmit, share, store, link to or otherwise make available on or through the Facebook Service.

(Emphasis added.)

I think this makes clear that Facebook intends to take a license in all content of yours that you link to. So, if you link to a post on your blog, they claim they have a license to reprint your blog in its entirety.

A user group, People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS), has been created.

Update 2/18/09: Victory of sorts.

Things That Would Be Illegal in the US: Promotional Drawing Prize Includes Bag of Pot

The UK website for a movie called "The Wackness" has a no-purchase-necessary drawing in connection with promoting the film. The prize is a free trip to Amsterdam and a gram bag of pot from an apparently well-known coffeehouse.

Suffice to say, this offer could not be made by a U.S. company.

If Katie Says It's Legit, It's Legit

Here's an ad that's running on Facebook:

If you click it, it goes to a get-rich-quick site run by a guy named Kevin Hoeffer. The problem for Mr. Hoeffer, I think, is that it's unlikely that Katie Couric gave permission for her image to be used in a commercial ad. This is a violation of her right of publicity.

I just lobbed a message into Facebook informing them about it.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Cancer

Oh, no:

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is receiving treatment for pancreatic cancer, the court says.

It says the 75-year-old justice had surgery in New York and is expected to remain in hospital for up to 10 days.

The Supreme Court said her illness appeared to be in its early stages. Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancers.

(Via.)

You Can't Take Back a Pardon?

Interesting argument that Bush's attempt to revoke the pardon he granted to a Republican donor is ineffective:

The only argument the White House offered is that Toussie never received a paper copy of an individual warrant from the Office of the Pardon Attorney. All indications are that the administration cooked up this theory for this case. The master warrant that Bush signed and sealed did not say that he was ordering the pardon attorney to issue individual pardons on his behalf. It said that the people on the list were hereby pardoned. When the office called the recipients, it didn't tell them that the pardon was in the mail; it told them that they had been pardoned. And they accepted. ...

On his way out of office, President Bill Clinton pardoned more than a hundred people, including his brother, his longtime associate Susan McDougal, former housing secretary Henry Cisneros and, infamously, the financier Marc Rich. Because of the volume of Clinton's last-minute pardon jamboree, there was no way to deliver all of the individual warrants before George W. Bush took office. Some of them still have not been physically delivered.

But as president, Bush never purported to have the power to revoke any of these pardons. Surely he would have unpardoned Rich if he could have. And if Bush were right about Isaac Toussie, then he could have unpardoned both him and Rich. But he wasn't, and he couldn't.

Too Many Tabs Open

When I start counting on Firefox's restore session feature to make sure I don't lose the 37 tabs I have up, it's time to do a link dump. In no particular order:

In Britain, free speech supporters are pushing back against a new law which criminalizes certain kinds of porn:

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother's emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.

Opponents have no problems with two provisions banning images of bestiality or necrophilia - both of which are already illegal to do - but fear that the other definitions are so vaguely worded that even images of consenting adults engaging in fictional violence will now be outlawed, giving Britain the toughest anti-porn laws in Europe.

In related news, one of the last acts of the Bush administration was to drop new regulations on the disclosure of adult performer's ages, known as "2257 rules". You'd think such a reasonable goal couldn't be twisted to nefarious ends, but you'd be wrong:

Needless to say, from a sexually progressive standpoint, these new rules are, if anything, worse than the original....and serve the basic purpose of essentially using paperwork to drive the porn industry out of existence.

Presumably, implementation of these new 2257 regs have been suspended along with all other pending rules by the Obama administration. One delicious side effect of the rules, though, would be to criminalize the movies produced by anti-porn activists, which often use adult movie clips without any 2257 notices. I had intended to dig into the substance of the regs, but time ... yeah.

Adult Friendfinder, the largest adult dating site, is finally going public. The company plans to raise up to $460 million in the offering. I have written about AFF trying to go public in the past.

Two trials involving the distribution of the precursor chemical needed to make meth, with wildly different sentences. You'd probably never guess the difference is based on class and race.

You probably heard of this already by now, but Politifact is keeping track on the hundreds of promises Obama made during the campaign. He said to hold his administration accountable. Politifact doesn't have the Obamameter widget up yet, though.

How to preserve your Obama memorabilia.

Philly Beer Week is March 6th - 15th. Ten days seems like a week if you're really drunk, so there's that.

Down to a manageable 10 tabs now.

The Magic Words

So, Chief Justice Roberts re-administered the Oath of Office to Obama yesterday, as a result of Roberts' flub during the swearing-in on Tuesday.  First of all, obviously, how humiliating for the Chief to mess up the climactic moment of the biggest political event in 50 years. Did they not rehearse? I mean, really.

I find it fascinating that unless the right form of words are said, Obama is not President. The second swearing-in isn't just a formality or a chance to get the thing out smoothly, it's a lawyer's caution that someone may otherwise claim the person occupying the White House does not validly hold the office. Apparently, a similar problem has arisen in two prior inaugurations, with the same fix administered each time.

It also struck me how on Tuesday aggressively Roberts queried Obama at the end with the question, "So help you God?", which isn't part of the oath, of course.