Archive for December, 2005

A Christmas Miracle

Wednesday, December 14th, 2005

I’m not going to get my hopes up, I’m not going to get my hopes up, I’m not going to get my hopes up

Fox still hasn’t officially canceled “Arrested Development,” but if it does, other networks are interested in the show.

Both ABC and Showtime have had conversations with 20th Century Fox TV and indicated they’re open to making a deal for new episodes of the critically beloved, Emmy-winning comedy from creator Mitch Hurwitz. No formal negotiations have taken place, and there are still numerous hurdles that might prevent such a move — including the show’s hefty pricetag.

That said, those familiar with the talks described them as serious, with Showtime said to be in particularly hot pursuit of the ratings-challenged laffer, now on life support at Fox. SkeinSkein’s third-season order was recently cut to 13 episodes.

Showtime could be a good place for “Arrested.” Skein’s subversive humor and heavily serialized storylines always made it a tough sell as a mass-appeal broadcast series. What’s more, Showtime already has a potential companion for “Arrested” in “Weeds,” which just received a second-season pickup. That show is a suburban satire centered on a drug-dealing soccer mom played by Mary-Louise ParkerMary-Louise Parker.

Since Arrested Development is the funniest show on TV, I often get lines from the show stuck in my head. Lately, it’s been this scene from the pilot :

Lindsay: You know, Michael, Dad did name Mom as his successor.

Lucille: And I’m putting Buster in charge.

G.O.B.: He’s a good choice.

Michael: Buster? The guy who thought that the blue on the map was land?

Lucille: He’s had business classes.

Buster: Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. 18th-century agrarian business, but I guess it’s all the same principles. Let me ask you, are you at all concerned about an uprising?

This scene from a recent episode :

Lindsay: How do you think I feel? Bob Loblaw’s a handsome, professional man and I’m only used to… well, none of those things.

Tobias: Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over— an analyst and a therapist. The world’s first analrapist.

analrapist.jpg

And G.O.B.’s brilliant sexual harassment speech which has to be heard to be appreciated. Why isn’t this the most popular show on television?

The Fundies Are Right

Tuesday, December 13th, 2005

John at Americablog has a post that perfectly illustrates the maxim that politics makes strange bedfellows :

Joe’s firm is working on a case where they represent a city employee who claims he was fired from his job because a supervisor disapproved of his dating a white woman (I’m going to assume the man is black, though the article doesn’t say). Attorneys for the city want the judge to limit what the man’s lawyer can say in his opening and closing statements. To wit, they want the judge to tell the man’s lawyer (Joe’s boss) that he can’t mention God, Jesus or the Bible in his opening or closing statements.
. . .
I get on the religious right’s case with all of their war on Christmas bull, I think they’ve just gone too far with their persecution complex. But that doesn’t mean that sometimes they’re not right (even a broken clock is right twice a day). In this case, whether you like religion or not, I just don’t see the problem with a lawyer invoking God or the Bible in a closing argument, especially when he’s doing it on a civil rights case in favor of fairness.

Though, having said that, my argument could backfire. What if the city’s lawyer wanted to argue that the Bible makes clear that blacks shouldn’t have the same rights as whites, and that blacks shouldn’t date whites? (Once upon a time, that was the thinking.) Would that be okay, legally or otherwise? Or if the lawyer tried to bias the jury in an anti-gay discrimination case by saying “sure the law says you can’t fire the gay guy, but let’s face it, the Bible says he’s an abomination” – would that be okay? In both those cases, I’d obviously have a problem with the lawyer’s arguments.

John’s right. The fact that the lawyer in question isn’t allowed to reference god or the Bible is wrong. This is clearly a case of free speech and the lawyer in question should be allowed to craft any sort of argument that he wants. The fact that this could, in John’s words, “backfire” is just the price you pay for free speech. Besides, there shouldn’t be anything stopping the other attorney from taking the same tactic.

Now you could make the argument that religious talk would unfairly sway the jury, but in my mind, the fault lies with the jurors who are dumb enough to let “WWJD?” interfere with their duty to make a decision according to the judge’s instructions. Anyone who would be willing to change their position based on a couple of out-of-context Bible quotes is a simple-minded rube who has no business serving on a jury. I’m not saying all religious people should be disqualified from jury duty, just anyone whose religious views would interfere with their ability to render a fair verdict. I don’t see how that’s any more unjust than death penalty opponents being disqualified from the juries in capital murder cases.

Body Count

Monday, December 12th, 2005

In a flash, Arnold Schwarzenegger has pissed away any chances the he might have had at being re-elected. here’s hoping this tough-on-crime posturing bites him in the ass :

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday refused to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, the founder of the murderous Crips gang who awaited execution after midnight in a case that stirred debate over capital punishment and the possibility of redemption on death row.

Schwarzenegger was unswayed by pleas from Hollywood stars and petitions from more than 50,000 people who said that Williams had made amends during more than two decades in prison by writing a memoir and children’s books about the dangers of gangs.

“After studying the evidence, searching the history, listening to the arguments and wrestling with the profound consequences, I could find no justification for granting clemency,” Schwarzenegger said, less than 12 hours before the execution. “The facts do not justify overturning the jury’s verdict or the decisions of the courts in this case.”

Schwarzenegger could have commuted the death sentence to life in prison without parole.

He could have, but he didn’t. Sorry Tookie, your poll numbers weren’t quite high enough for Arnold to do the right thing.

And whether or not you agree with the death penalty, granting clemency was clearly the right thing to do in this case. Granted, there are raw emotions and hyperbole on both sides of the Tookie Williams case, there’s no reason to believe that society will be better off once Williams has been killed. In fact, the loss of his anti-gang activism alone will be a big loss to the communities that he has served. If there was ever a case of someone having a change of heart in prison, this is it.

Perhaps it’s time to take a step back and re-ask a basic question. What’s the point of incarcerating people for their crimes? I’ve always been under the naive illusion that it was to (a) remove criminals from our society, (b) act as a deterrent to prevent people from committing crimes, and (c) rehabilitate criminals in order to make them more productive members of society upon their release. A quick glance at recidivism rates makes points (b) and (c) pretty goddamned laughable, which is why cowardly politicians like Schwarzenegger have always proscribed a healthy dose of (a).

But in the case of Tookie Williams, it’s not enough to simply remove the man from society forever. Yes, it would improve society by permanently removing a criminal off the streets and punish Williams by permanently stripping him of his freedom, but that’s not enough to feed the state’s apparent blood lust. It boggles the mind that there are people who don’t think life in prison without the possibility of parole is an inadequate punishment, but you can see that subtle cruelty again and again the the vengeance-soaked pleas for “closure”. I don’t mean for this to come off as an anti-death penalty rant, but I really am grasping for a practical reason why somebody who’s been in prison for 25 years should be put to death. How does the death of Stanley Williams make our society better?

Perhaps somebody should ask the Governor that question.

Christmas Slime Is Here Again

Wednesday, December 7th, 2005

Since it’s easy, fun, and the bulk of my mental energies are devoted to other tasks, I’m gonna waste another post bashing Bill O’Reilly for his absurd Christmas crusade. This time, the object of O’Reilly’s rage is the Daily Show, because O’Reilly is too fucking stupid to tell the difference between social commentary and satire. Brad Blog and Media Matters are all over this one, but I wanna start my two cents with a nitpick. Here’s what he said on his radio show :

O’REILLY: [Laughs] There you go. Jon Stewart, “Secular Central.” Oh, I’m sorry, Comedy Central — and I like Stewart, but we know what he’s doing over there.

And here’s what he said on Fox :

O’REILLY: Predictably, the opponents of public displays of Christmas continue to put forth counter-arguments on ‘Secular Central.’ I — I mean, Comedy Central.

A joke so funny you had to tell it twice, huh? Good work you bigoted, half-witted sexual predator — whoops, I meant, Bill.

While it’s funny occasionally, the faux-Freudian slip shtick gets old really, really fast. It’s bad enough that Bill and his staff of writers aren’t clever enough to write two different jokes, but the fact that he told the exact same “slip of the tongue” joke on the same day is simply pathetic. For that, Bill, I award you the Dennis Miller Memorial “I Don’t Want To Get Off On A Rant Here” award for fraudulent spontaneity. You can put it on the mantle next to your Peabody award.

What’s funnier than O’Reilly’s unfortunate attempts at humor, however, is that O’Reilly is targeting Jon Stewart. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Bill, but Jon Stewart is a Jew and Jews don’t celebrate Christmas. When you’ve sunk to the point that you’re attacking non-Christians for not celebrating Christian holidays, your witchhunt has completely jumped the shark. I say you hang this one up and prepare for your next crusade. Here’s a suggestion : Did you know that those anti-American bastards in Canada don’t even celebrate the Fourth of July?! If we can stretch that one between May and July sweeps weeks, then we’re good as gold.

The other day I was talking to my friend Josh about ways to destroy Christmas and he brought up an interesting point. The unending wave of inclusion and good-will that O’Reilly is attacking isn’t the fault of secular progressivism, but good ol’ fashioned capitalism. At some point, retailers noticed that the shameless orgy of consumption we experience between Thanksgiving and New Year’s was only sucking in Christians. Rich Uncle Pennybags figured out that a simple semantic change from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays” (which, until recently, was considered a kind thing to say) would broaden the base of consumers to include the 20% or so of Americans that don’t celebrate the pagan celebration that was turned into Jesus’ birthday. It’s not an attempt to diminish Christianity or make the country more inclusive, it’s just an attempt to make more money.

Which reminds me of this speech by Ned Beatty from the movie Network :

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it, is that clear?! You think you have merely stopped a business deal — that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians. There are no Arabs! There are no third worlds! There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars! petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars!, Reichmarks, rubles, rin, pounds and shekels! It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet! That is the natural order of things today! That is the atomic, subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and you will atone! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

I can imagine a similar exchange happening between the CEO of Wal-Mart and O’Reilly any day now. This isn’t about Christmas or Chanukah, Target or Macy’s, liberal or conservative. It’s about dollars and cents, Mr. O’Reilly. You’re dealing with market forces much bigger than you and your sad, little show. The invisible hand that controls this economy will not stand for a disruption in the bottom line, am I making myself clear?

A Hero Is Someone Who Hasn’t Lived Long Enough To Disappoint You

Wednesday, December 7th, 2005

As regular readers of the site know, I’m a huge Beatles fan. I’ve written semi-obsessive posts about their bootlegs, I defended them with my criticism of the ridiculously overrated Grey Album, and even praised their bizarre Christmas records. So it’s with a heavy heart that I’ve got to make this statement :

The martyrdom of John Lennon must stop.

Seriously guys, it’s just embarrassing to watch. Every year around this time we’re faced with the spectacle of people tearfully quoting Imagine and praising Lennon’s “humanity”. Don’t get me wrong, his death was extremely tragic, but he was a musician, not a messiah. Still, the lessons of Lennon’s work have sugar-coated the man to the point that any unpleasantness is somehow a taint on his legacy. Case in point :

Former Beatle John Lennon was the master of the peacenik anthem, exhorting listeners to live in harmony and give peace a chance. He also asked us to imagine a world without possessions.

Yet the bickering among family and fans over his legacy is as loud as ever, as record releases, autobiographies and commentaries jostle for attention ahead of the 25th anniversary of his murder on Thursday.

In recent months the musical “Lennon,” endorsed by his widow Yoko Ono, flopped on Broadway and an autobiography by his first wife Cynthia described how he once hit her out of jealousy and how his use of the LSD drug destroyed their marriage.

Ono made a barbed comment about Lennon’s former songwriting partner Paul McCartney at a British awards ceremony in October, suggesting that their infamous feud rumbles on, although she did later apologize.

“It’s a pity that the people who loved John can’t love each other,” said Richard Porter of the British Beatles Fan Club, adding that he believed Lennon would have been uncomfortable with the way his image had been manipulated since his death.

Thank you, professional Beatles fan. Lennon’s two wives and musical partner wouldn’t know what John Lennon would have really wanted. For that, you’d have to consult someone who has a first-state mono version of the Butcher Cover.

Now I know I’m not the first person to point this out, but John Lennon was a wife-beating, substance-abusing, deadbeat dad. He smacked around his first wife, he abandoned his first son, and he had a serious drug problem that took him from pill-popping to hallucinogens to heroin to booze. In the early 70′s when his marriage was getting rocky, he ran off with his wife’s assistant to L.A. to get loaded every night and start the occasional bar fight. I’m not saying this to denigrate the man, but to point out that he was just a flawed human being like the rest of us.

But to Lennon acolytes, his humanity is paradoxically used as an excuse to put him on a higher pedestal, to the eternal denigration of everyone around him who doesn’t support the Lennon-as-spiritual-guru myth. The rest of the Beatles and Ono in particular have faced the wrath of Lennon fans for even suggesting that Lennon was less than perfect. McCartney is seen as a cheesy asshole who’s jealous of John’s genius and Ono is the money-obsessed dragon lady who never really loved John. I suppose zealotry doesn’t leave much room in your brain for the idea that these are all complex people with complicated relationships.

Nope, John Lennon is a “man of peace”. End of story. Nevermind the fact that the whole point of one of his most-quoted songs, God, was that people should drop their bullshit idolatry and start beliving in themselves. If you’re gonna do that, though, the first step is figuring out a way to define yourself that isn’t based on the lyrics of a dead celebrity.

Then again, it’s been two thousand years and we’re still trying to get people to realize that Jesus cared about the poor. The fanaticism is the most important part. The rest will take care of itself, I suppose.

Homeland Security Is A Joke

Monday, December 5th, 2005

The 9/11 Commision issued a pretty scathing report today that, if recent history is any indicator, will be a distant memory by this weekend. The most salient recommendation from the prepared remarks was this long overdue attack on the partisan sycophants in the Congress :

Now more than ever Congress needs powerful Intelligence and Homeland Security oversight Committees.

Why? — Because the Congress has provided powerful authorities to the Executive branch in order to protect us. It has created a Director of National Intelligence, a National Counterterrorism Center, and given the Executive branch powers to investigate citizens and inspect their documents.

Congress now needs to be an effective check and balance on the Executive branch in carrying out the counterterrorism policies of the United States.

Because so much information is classified, Congress is the only source of independent oversight on the full breadth of intelligence and homeland security issues before our country.

Last year, the word we heard most often on Capitol Hill describing this oversight was “dysfunctional.”

The oversight Committees need stronger powers over the budget, and exclusive jurisdiction. When too many Committees are responsible, nobody is responsible.

The Congress cannot play its proper role under the Constitution to provide a check and balance on the actions of the Executive if its oversight committees are weak.

Strong oversight by the Congress protects our liberties and makes our policies better. Our freedom and safety depend on robust oversight by the Congress.

And here’s an example of the extent of Congress’ failures :

Many obvious steps that the American people assume have been completed, have not been. Our leadership is distracted.

Some of these failures are shocking.

Four years after 9/11:

– It is scandalous that police and firefighters in large cities still cannot communicate reliably in a major crisis.

– It is scandalous that airline passengers are still not screened against all names on the terrorist watchlist.

– It is scandalous that we still allocate scarce homeland security dollars on the basis of pork barrel spending, not risk.

We are frustrated by the lack of urgency about fixing these problems.
. . .
It should be obvious that our defenses should be strongest where the enemy intends to strike—and where we are most vulnerable.

The first responders to any attack will be local police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. They are a crucial part of our national defense. Therefore, the Commission recommended that federal grants to first responders be distributed based on an impartial assessment of risk and vulnerability.

However, the current formula for allocating these grants has no risk assessments or benchmarks to guide this spending.

One city used its homeland security money for air conditioned garbage trucks.

One used it to buy Kevlar body armor for dogs.

These are not the priorities of a nation under threat.

What’s most disappointing, though hardly unfair, is that they make sure to put the blame where it ultimately belongs : the American people :

Today is the last time we will appear together as a group.
. . .
People then ask us: Why are you closing your doors when there is so much work to be done?

Our view is a simple one: Congress and the President gave the ten of us a mandate. We carried it out to the best of our ability. We made our recommendations. As private citizens, we have worked on behalf of those recommendations. Each of us as individual citizens will continue to speak out.

Now it is time to take the responsibility we were given and give it back.

To whom?

First, to all of you. What we learned this past year is that change and reform doesn’t happen in this country unless the American people demand it. There is no substitute for an engaged and attentive public watching what its elected leaders do. The 9/11 families are an example for every student of government: Citizen involvement makes a huge and positive difference.

Second, we hope that from the seeds of our work this past year other efforts will grow. Every institution of government benefits from the attention of outside watchdog groups. The Intelligence Community, above all, needs the interest and attention of those outside of government who care deeply about its success.

Finally, we call upon our elected leaders. The first purpose of government, in the preamble of our Constitution, is to “provide for the common defense.” We have made clear, time and again, what we believe needs to be done to make our country safer and more secure: The responsibility for action, and leadership, rests with Congress and the President.

So if we get attacked again, don’t act too shocked, folks. This is the government you chose. If you really cared about keeping the nation safe, you would have paid more attention and voted for representatives that took their constitutional duty seriously. Cronyism, incompetence, graft, abuse of power, etc. didn’t just start with the hurricanes. It just got so bad that it was impossible to ignore.

Thanks for all your hard work, 9/11 Commisioners. We’ll see you again after the terrorist attack the Congress and President are doing nothing to stop.

Have Yourself A Wary Little Christmas

Monday, December 5th, 2005

As a liberal, I normally think any Christmas display in a public setting is a crime on par with murder or political incorrectness, but I have no problem with the Christmas tree display in this article. It’s pretty obvious to me that the school project wasn’t about Christmas, but teaching the children an important lesson about irony.

A Christmas tree that elementary school students decorated with discarded lottery tickets was removed from the state Capitol over the weekend after a lawmaker complained it was inappropriate.

Rep. Randy Terrill, who opposes the lottery, said he spotted the tree on Wednesday when it was erected as part of the governor’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The Republican lawmaker called the Westwood Elementary School principal, who apologized and asked the governor’s office to remove the tree.

Sherry Fair, spokeswoman for Oklahoma City Public Schools, said the teachers and children did not intend to offend anyone. The teachers went to various convenience stores and got used lottery tickets, which were cut into various geometric shapes and placed on the tree.

How dare these little bastards even hint at the fact that Christmas has been over-commercialized to the point of being a secular holiday?

And on the “Christmas is under attack” front, here’s an O’Reilly-ism that I wanted to address last week :

This is so insane, I don’t think of anything — I’ve seen anything this stupid in the 30 years I’ve been in this business. Here you have a national public holiday signed into law by Ulysses S. Grant in 1870. Christmas, all right? Federal holiday, everybody gets off, no mail delivered, everybody shuts down. Federal holiday. Why is it there? To honor a philosopher, Jesus. Whose philosophy was part of the foundation of our country. All of this is indisputable. Can’t dispute it. OK? A man was born, his name is Jesus, he had a philosophy, the philosophy was incorporated by the Founding Fathers to make up the United States of America, U.S. Grant signs into law the holiday, Christmas.

Now there are plenty of people who have pointed out that Bill O’Reilly is a neo-McCarthyite asshole, but I don’t think people are spending nearly enough time emphasizing the fact that he’s a dumbass. From the History Channel :

In the early 17th century, a wave of religious reform changed the way Christmas was celebrated in Europe. When Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces took over England in 1645, they vowed to rid England of decadence and, as part of their effort, canceled Christmas. By popular demand, Charles II was restored to the throne and, with him, came the return of the popular holiday.

The pilgrims, English separatists that came to America in 1620, were even more orthodox in their Puritan beliefs than Cromwell. As a result, Christmas was not a holiday in early America. From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston. Anyone exhibiting the Christmas spirit was fined five shillings. By contrast, in the Jamestown settlement, Captain John Smith reported that Christmas was enjoyed by all and passed without incident.

After the American Revolution, English customs fell out of favor, including Christmas. In fact, Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America’s new constitution. Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.

So Bill gets points for pointing out that Pres. Grant declared X-Mas a holiday, but he’s completely ignorant about the role of Christmas in this nation’s history.

When I use the words “dumbass” and “ignorant”, I don’t mean them strictly as an ad hominem attacks. I want to emphasize the fact that I think these terms accurately describe Bill O’Reilly. The biggest problem isn’t that he’s a loudmouth or a bully, but that he’s a fool who doesn’t know what he’s talking about most of the time. It not that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand the subjects he opines upon, it’s just that he never does homework. For anti-intellectuals like Bill, making up your mind before knowing all the facts is an asset, as sign of moral and intellectual clarity. For the rest of us, it just makes you look like a dipshit. Having your mouth move faster than your brain may come in handy on the radio or Fox News, but to those of us who aren’t just letting O’Reilly’s self-righteous rage turn into background noise, Bill looks like a complete moron. In a real marketplace of ideas, a mental midget like Bill O’Reilly would get laughed into a homeless shelter, but in the information as entertainment era, O’Reilly has carved out a perfect niche for himself.




And for the record, Bill, one of the reasons I love Christmas is because Santa always gives a lump of coal to humbugs like you.

Do Two Wrongs Make A Right?

Thursday, December 1st, 2005

North Carolina just presided over the 1,000™ execution since capital punishment was reinstated in the late 70′s. To commemorate this grim milestone, I’m going to rerun something I posted here a year and a half ago under the title Overturning The Death Penalty.


The death penalty has been overturned twice in this country (that I’m aware of). The first time was the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia in 1972 :

It has been assumed in our decisions that punishment by death is not cruel, unless the manner of execution can be said to be inhuman and barbarous. In re Kemmler. It is also said in our opinions that the proscription of cruel and unusual punishments “is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice.” A like statement was made in Trop v. Dulles, that the Eighth Amendment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

The generality of a law inflicting capital punishment is one thing. What may be said of the validity of a law on the books and what may be done with the law in its application do, or may, lead to quite different conclusions.

It would seem to be incontestable that the death penalty inflicted on one defendant is “unusual” if it discriminates against him by reason of his race, religion, wealth, social position, or class, or if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for the play of such prejudices.
. . .
The words “cruel and unusual” certainly include penalties [408 U.S. 238, 245] that are barbaric. But the words, at least when read in light of the English proscription against selective and irregular use of penalties, suggest that it is “cruel and unusual” to apply the death penalty – or any other penalty – selectively to minorities whose numbers are few, who are outcasts of society, and who are unpopular, but whom society is willing to see suffer though it would not countenance general application of the same penalty across the board.
. . .
We cannot say from facts disclosed in these records that these defendants were sentenced to death because they were black. Yet our task is not restricted to an effort to divine what motives impelled these death penalties. Rather, we deal with a system of law and of justice that leaves to the uncontrolled discretion of judges or juries the determination whether defendants committing these crimes should die or be imprisoned. Under these laws no standards govern the selection of the penalty. People live or die, dependent on the whim of one man or of 12.
. . .
Those who wrote the Eighth Amendment knew what price their forebears had paid for a system based, not on equal justice, but on discrimination. In those days the target was not the blacks or the poor, but the dissenters, those who opposed absolutism in government, who struggled for a parliamentary regime, and who opposed governments’ recurring efforts to foist a particular religion on the people. But the tool of capital punishment was used with vengeance against the opposition and those unpopular with the regime. One cannot read this history without realizing that the desire for equality was reflected in the ban against “cruel and unusual punishments” contained in the Eighth Amendment.
. . .
The high service rendered by the “cruel and unusual” punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment is to require legislatures to write penal laws that are evenhanded, nonselective, and nonarbitrary, and to require judges to see to it that general laws are not applied sparsely, selectively, and spottily to unpopular groups.
. . .
Thus, these discretionary statutes are unconstitutional in their operation. They are pregnant with discrimination and discrimination is an ingredient not compatible with the idea of equal protection of the laws that is implicit in the ban on “cruel and unusual” punishments.

And the second time was when Illinois Governor George Ryan passed a death penalty moratorium last year :

Four years ago I was sworn in as the 39th governor of Illinois. That was just four short years ago — that’s when I was a firm believer in the American system of justice and the death penalty. I believed that the ultimate penalty for the taking of a life was administrated in a just and fair manner.

Today — three days before I end my term as governor, I stand before you to explain my frustrations and deep concerns about both the administration and the penalty of death …
. . .
The death penalty has been abolished in 12 states and in none of those states has the homicide rate increased. Now, here’s a good number for you to remember: In Illinois last year, we had about 1,000 murders and only 2 percent were sentenced to death. I want to know, where is the fairness and the equality in that? The death penalty in Illinois is not imposed fairly or uniformly, because of the absence of standards for 102 counties in this state and the state’s attorneys who must decide whether to request a death sentence. Should geography be a factor in determining who gets the death sentence? I don’t think it should. But in Illinois it makes a difference. You are five times more likely to get a death sentence for the first-degree murder in the rural areas of the state than you are here in Cook County. Five times more. Where’s the fairness in that? Where is the fairness in the justice system? Where is the proportionality?

The Most Reverend Desmond Tutu wrote to me this week stating that “to take a life when a life has been lost is revenge. It’s not justice.” He says justice allows for mercy and clemency and compassion. These virtues are not weaknesses.

I never intended to be an activist on this issue, needless to say. But soon after taking office, I watched in surprise and amazement as the freed death row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail. Anthony Porter was 48 hours away from being wheeled into the execution chamber where the state would kill him.

It would be so antiseptic that most of us wouldn’t have even paused for a second, except that Anthony Porter was innocent. He was innocent for the double murder for which he had been condemned by the state of Illinois to die.

After Mr. Porter’s case there was the report by Chicago Tribune reporters Steve Mills and Ken Armstrong documenting the systemic failures of our capital punishment system. Half of the nearly 300 capital cases in Illinois had been reversed for a new trial or resentencing.
. . .
Thirty-three percent of the death row inmates were represented at trial by an attorney who had later been disbarred or at some point suspended from the practice of law. Of the more than 160 death row inmates, 35 were African-American defendants who had been convicted or condemned to die not by a jury of their peers, but by all-white juries. More than two-thirds of the inmates on death row were African-Americans. Forty-six inmates were convicted on the basis of testimony from jailhouse informants.

I can recall looking at these cases and the information from the Mills/Armstrong series, and I asked myself and my staff: How does that happen? How in God’s name does that happen? In America, how does it happen? I’ve been asking this question for nearly three years, and so far nobody’s answered the question. Even as I stand here today, nobody’s answered the question.

If the arbitrary use of the death penalty was “cruel and unusual” in 1972, how is it any better now? Regardless of whether or not you feel that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment, it seems that the systems isn’t any less flawed now than it was thirty-two years ago.

Populism 101

Thursday, December 1st, 2005

Digby’s been doing some great blogging on the illegal workers front, but he poses a question in his latest post that seems pretty obvious to me :

That’s a problem for us because no matter how tempting it might be to go and grab those Virginians who are so disenchanted with George Bush and promise to close the borders and solve their problems: nobody has yet figured out how (short of an economic catastrophe so huge that people will disregard everything else) we can keep a coalition of liberals, workers, urbanites, racial minorities and nativist immigrant bashers in the same tent.
. . .
Democrats can look to the future and find a populist message that doesn’t cater to white fear and tendencies to scapegoat minorities. And we can add the Hispanic community permanently into our coalition, denying Karl Rove his most coveted goal. Or we can take the easy way out and catch a few Bubbas until the economy turns around, at which point they’ll go right back home to the party that really knows how to feed their worst instincts on regular basis — the Republicans.

Why is this a problem?? What do all of these groups have in common? They’re willing to work hard to make a decent living. I don’t mean to go all Lakoff on you guys, but this issue is framed incorrectly and it will always hurt Democrats the way it’s discussed now. It’s not about American citizens vs. illegal immigrants, it’s about employers vs. labor.

The best thing Democrats can do is to stop pretending that immigrants are the bad guys here. I hate to plagiarize myself here, but people wouldn’t be flooding across the border if there wasn’t a steady supply of crooked employers willing to exploit them. If you got serious about stopping these scumbags, the borders would suddenly become a lot less porous. Why spend all of our time attacking the symptoms if we’re going to ignore the disease?We shouldn’t waste so much time kicking people out when the best long-term solution is to stop them from wanting to come over here in the first place.

Y’know, if we had a nickel for every time a politician quoted Martin Luther King, we’d all be rich enough to vote Republican. It makes sense since King was such a quotable guy, but going back to Digby’s question about how to unite the various breeds of pissed off working class voters, one figure seems to be left out of the mix : Cesar Chavez. Through his commitment to non-violence and his leadership of the labor movement in California, Chavez has become a hero for millions of workers, yet he’s rarely mentioned by politicians (especially to non-Hispanic audiences). He had a dream too.

Since politicians these days are only able to speak in sound-bytes and pander to audiences, here’s a few choice quotes from Chavez :

“History will judge societies and governments— and their institutions— not by how big they are or how well they serve the rich and the powerful, but by how effectively they respond to the needs of the poor and the helpless.”

“I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness, is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us to be men!”

“Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak… Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win.”

“You are never strong enough that you don’t need any help.”

If you want to start appealing to both the legal and illegal segments of the working class, bridge the cultural divide, and attract Hispanic voters, this is a good start. If you want to do even better, try reading more than a few quotes. In reading about Cesar Chavez. you might even rediscover that spark that made you want to devote your lives to public service in the first place.