Sigh

The US Supreme Court denied Troy Davis' cert petition today. I guess I can't really be surprised, but I can be disappointed. Technically, the standard of review at every level now is against granting Mr. Davis relief. He has been duly convicted by a jury at a trial. He has had appellate review of that trial and further review of his counsel's performance. It's certainly easy for everyone to hide behind all that and say simply that he's had all the process he's due, so there is no reason to prevent the state from executing him. Except that there's lots of evidence a jury never heard that suggests someone else pulled the trigger. And many of the eyewitnesses who id'd Mr. Davis as the shooter say they were pressured to make those ids. So what good is all that damn process if we have more questions about his guilt or innocence now than we did before his trial?

At some point, someone just has to stop hiding behind procedure and do the right thing. Somebody, a judge, a pardon board, a governor: someone has to find the courage to be the one (or ones) to stop this from happening. Where's the judge who freed Reuben "Hurricane" Carter when we need him? That federal judge would have had the full weight of procedure on his side if he'd decided to deny Carter relief. But he didn't hide behind that. He saw a manifest injustice come into his courtroom and he decided to fix it. He went out on a limb, all by his lonely self, and did the right thing.

It's an absolute tragedy that no one has been willing to stand up and do the same for Troy Davis.

Is it too much to hope that we can get through the rest of this campaign season without any more racist junk (like the guy in Louisiana who was arrested for making threats when he called the county clerk's office insisting he needed to get his voter registration card so he could make sure the "n-----" didn't get elected) or any Muslim bashing?

It seems there has been quite an uptick in referring to Barack Obama's middle name. Of course there's nothing wrong with his middle name and I'm sure he's fine with it. It's the name his mother gave him, after all. But people aren't using his middle name to show respect. They're using his middle name to make people think he's a dangerous terrorist. The only other Hussein most people can name is that bad guy from Iraq who once tried to kill W's dad, after all. (Calling W by his middle initial is different as he shares his first and last name with his father, also a president. Granted, I've been known to switch it from Dubya to "Dumbass", but it's still at least a fair reason for regularly using his middle initial to refer to him.) It's not a coincidence that the uptick in using the middle name has coincided with Sarah Palin's steady references to Obama's "terrorist" pal. Many people who have been attending McCain/Palin rallies in recent days have certainly picked up on that and made much of Obama's name and called him a terrorist. He's a United States Senator, for crying out loud!

There were the ballots in a county of New York state that listed the Democratic candidate as "Barack Osama." I really, really, really want to believe that was an innocent mistake. Certainly the county has acted swiftly to correct the error and send out proper ballots. But there is a little voice in the corner of my head that wonders if this was really a mistake? After all, I have seen many, many anti-Obama signs noting the similarity between Obama's name and the name of the world's worst guy.

And there are still thousands of people who cling to this belief that Obama is a Muslim. The clear implication from many of these people being that they would never, ever vote for a Muslim. I no longer want to challenge the belief that he's something other than what he is. I am now just so damn pissed off at the repugnant, intolerant idea that if he were in fact Muslim, that would disqualify him for the presidency.

John McCain FINALLY stood up to some of this crap at a rally yesterday. Said Obama is not an Arab, is a good and decent family man, and deserves all of our respect. And how did some in the crowd respond? They booed.

So maybe it is too much to hope. So I'll just hope for it all to be over soon. I can't take much more of the ugliness. So could someone please just knock me out today and wake me up on November 5th?


Endnote: For the record, I would be just as unhappy with racist or intolerant comments made at Obama rallies and aimed at McCain. I would also not ever want to hear booing of McCain and would be mightily disappointed in Obama if he didn't shush the crowd. I just haven't heard of any Obama rallies involving ugly crowd moments and cries of "kill him" aimed at the opponent.

Sarah Palin cleared!

By herself. Umm... I thought ethics were supposed to be her "thing." So shouldn't she get that the ethics probe needs to be conducted by people who aren't her?

She issued her own report tonight, pre-empting tomorrow's expected report from the lawmakers who have been conducting the actual probe. Well, I guess that settles it then. She didn't do anything wrong at all. Oh, and she really did say "thanks, but no thanks" to that bridge.

I'm just confused about one thing. I thought she was trying to run on a claim that she would bring "change" and "reform" to Washington. That she and McCain would not be just like the guys we can't wait to get rid of. She sure coulda fooled me, 'cause this sounds like something those Bush/Cheney folks would do.

I'm sure even those of you not from Kansas have heard of our Phelps clan. The Phelps clan lives and works in Topeka, with their Westboro Baptist Church as their hive. They are known throughout the nation as those wacky gay-haters whose disturbed ideology leads them to protest at soldiers' funerals. It seems that each dead soldier (and each blown-up space shuttle and each hurricane, etc.) is a welcome blessing from god who is trying desperately to punish us for our sinful, gay-accepting ways so that we can all repent and save our souls before we die.

Here in Kansas, they do a lot more than just protest military funerals. They can be seen regularly, protesting outside random businesses, courts, and public events that have media coverage. I've even seen them protesting outside a high school. (I don't know what that high school or school board had done -- probably allowed a book with a homosexual character to remain in the library.) Their chants are hate-filled. Their signs bear awful slogans and rather vile stick figures. They include all of their children in their protests. No matter how many times you see them, it's always jarring to see kids whole-heartedly participating in this stuff.

It makes no sense. They're awful, hateful, and generally considered a huge embarrassment to our state. (I'd say they're more embarrassing than our evolution fight.) I wish they'd all just shut up already. I won't be sad when Daddy, Fred, dies, and I sincerely hope the church (which is almost entirely made up of just this large family) folds.

But I don't want to use the courts to silence them. That seems like a bit of a First Amendment problem to me. Courts should not be in the business of putting vile protesters out of business. I'm troubled enough by the lawsuits families of dead soldiers have filed. A family in Maryland won a huge judgment against the clan that could bankrupt the whole lot. I personally think it would be a travesty if that judgment stands because I don't think an exercise of speech, no matter how despicable the actual message, should be considered "infliction of emotional distress" in a civil lawsuit.

My bigger beef right now, though, is with a prosecutor in Nebraska who is attempting to prosecute one of the main family members for flag desecration and child endangerment. The incident occurred at a military funeral protests. Shirley Phelps-Roper wore an American flag as a skirt that dragged on the ground. She further let her 10 year-old son stand on a flag. My question is: where the hell is the crime? Like it or not, using a flag (your own, personal property) as a prop at a protest to symbolize your discontent with some aspect of government is the exact kind of political speech the First Amendment was meant to protect. The fact is that this prosecutor is going after this woman simply because he or she hates her message. The prosecutor wants to silence the defendant. I agree completely that the message is despicable. But using the criminal justice system to punish them because you hate their message is a far more despicable act than anything the Phelps did at this funeral.

The United States Supreme Court has already held that flag desecration is protected speech and the context of this protest wouldn't seem to provide any legitimate basis for the court to somehow distinguish this fact pattern and allow it to be criminal in this case. Knowing that precedent exists, how can any prosecutor think it right to charge someone for flag desecration at a protest? That prosecutor is on thin ethical ice in pursuing a criminal charge that s/he ought to know violates the most fundamental of rights. The district court simply has to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. I don't want to have to live next to a state that would allow such a blatantly unconstitutional prosecution proceed to trial. I don't want to have to live in a country where people like the Phelps' can't peacefully state their message without fear of governmental action against them.

I wish I didn't have to hear their message. But I want to be free from it because they've collectively seen the light or they've just faded away. I would much rather listen to their hate-filled chants than be forced to live with their court-imposed silence.

The Most Dangerous (drinking) Game

John McCain said "My friends" twice in his first answer. It's a good thing I don't have a drink or I would be trashed by his third answer...

Really, OJ should be glad he gets to go to prison for a while. He vowed never to stop looking for the real killer and he's probably already exhausted every golf course in the country. So it was time to try somewhere new. And where better to look for the real killer than in prison.

Happy hunting, OJ.

I've been got

When did "Gotcha! Journalism" become the new phrase? 'Cause I've never heard it spoken of before Sarah Palin became a candidate for VP. But now it's being said by everyone. John McCain decries certain questions (like whether his VP candidate is saying things just like comments he has criticized his opponent for making) as being unfair "gotcha" journalism. Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller were just chatting about "gotcha" journalists as if we all have known for years who these specific journalists are that practice only this despicable form of low-brow journalism. It's the spin for how to respond to any bad answer Palin gives to any question. (Not that Bill O'Reilly would ever spin anything...) Turn the tables and claim the question just wasn't fair. The reporter is mean, maybe even unethical.

I get that in the history of our country, there have probably been examples of journalists asking the odd question now and then that was specifically intended to trip up the interviewee. I just didn't know there was an entire sector of the media that practiced only this mean, unfair "gotcha" journalism.

But has there really been a huge upswing in the practice in the past few weeks, that justifies this new category label? Or has there just been one candidate who has displayed herself to have no clue how to answer some pretty basic questions? I'm gonna go with the latter. Just because the questionee doesn't have an answer, doesn't mean the question was unfair.