Posts
My Blackberry is failing me. The much-beloved Crackberry and I have been together since July 2008. It's been a wonderful, fulfilling relationship. My Crackberry keeps me connected to my e-mail, to my facebook, to my google reader. I can comment on my local newspaper's website (a sad addiction on my part, I know). I can play BrickBreaker. I can text and Blackberry Message at will. It's shiny and red. It's the Pearl, so it's small, the perfect size for my oddly-small hands. And it has a track ball. There's just something so pleasing about running my thumb along that track ball.
But now my Crackberry is sick. It started a few weeks ago when I first noticed that all of my text messages and my call log had deleted themselves. Odd and annoying, but I thought it was a one-time glitch. Until it happened again. And again. And by yesterday, it was a daily occurrence. I came back to my office after a meeting yesterday and saw that I had a missed call. I went to view that call, but the call log had already deleted itself. Later in the day I sent a text message. 7 minutes later, that text was gone. How many texts have I been sent but disappeared before I ever saw my phone? (Let me pretend that I am so popular and in demand that I have missed countless such messages.) Obviously a phone that does not work as a means for people to leave me messages is failing at its central job.
After some playing around last night, I uncovered the root of the problem: a memory problem. But a long-term fix to that problem seems beyond my ability. And I am due for an upgrade. Getting a new phone just seems like the simplest solution. And it's always fun to get a new toy, play with new ring tones and apps.
So now the dilemma: Do I get another Blackberry, knowing that I have loved my current phone and that a new one will do all that I want it to? Or do I make the iPhone switch? Blogging would be easier on an iPhone. But texting and e-mailing are easier on a Blackberry. I wouldn't have to learn a new keyboard if I stayed with a Pearl. But they make way more apps for the iPhone. The calculator on iPhone is better. But the Blackberry has BrickBreaker.
I can't decide. Votes? Thoughts? Opinions? Help me, oh internet. I am waiting for a sign.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A Godless Huzzah to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court!
They did it! With one stroke of the pen. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated thousands of juvenile convictions entered by that corrupt judge who was taking kickbacks for sending kids to juvenile detention. As a quick refresher, the judge was railroading kids, denying them access to counsel, and sending them to detention at a rate more than double the rest of the state. Vacating all of those convictions is one giant good deed.
Rather than waste everyone's time by taking the injustice one case at a time, leaving it to the individual juveniles to figure out they were wronged and find attorneys to pursue each individual case, they just fixed every single one. The Court's opinion, a mere 9 pages, vacated every conviction in every case heard by former Judge Mark Ciavarella 2003 and 2008. "[T]his Court simply cannot have confidence that any juvenile matter adjudicated by Ciavarella during this period was tried in a fair and impartial manner." The vast, vast majority of these will not be able to be re-tried, but there are fewer than 100 juvenile defendants who remain under court supervision and may be re-tried.
The Court had previously overturned hundreds of cases and at the time I declared it a good start. But then in July, the Court seemed poised to destroy all of the records of all juveniles who may have been involved. I worried then that maybe the Court wasn't all that eager to probe too deeply into just how much corruption had occurred on their watch. I'm thrilled to see I was right on the first point and wrong on the second.
At the risk of sounding too much like a perky pediatric surgeon (think Grey's Anatomy), I think this is awesome. It is the fairest, most just thing to do. It is also the best possible way to show defendants in Pennsylvania that the court system takes protecting their rights seriously. Anything less than this response would have been an insult.
On a side note, Ciavarella is a defendant in a civil suit stemming from his kickback scheme. He's representing himself, lending further proof to that old adage that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Rather than waste everyone's time by taking the injustice one case at a time, leaving it to the individual juveniles to figure out they were wronged and find attorneys to pursue each individual case, they just fixed every single one. The Court's opinion, a mere 9 pages, vacated every conviction in every case heard by former Judge Mark Ciavarella 2003 and 2008. "[T]his Court simply cannot have confidence that any juvenile matter adjudicated by Ciavarella during this period was tried in a fair and impartial manner." The vast, vast majority of these will not be able to be re-tried, but there are fewer than 100 juvenile defendants who remain under court supervision and may be re-tried.
The Court had previously overturned hundreds of cases and at the time I declared it a good start. But then in July, the Court seemed poised to destroy all of the records of all juveniles who may have been involved. I worried then that maybe the Court wasn't all that eager to probe too deeply into just how much corruption had occurred on their watch. I'm thrilled to see I was right on the first point and wrong on the second.
At the risk of sounding too much like a perky pediatric surgeon (think Grey's Anatomy), I think this is awesome. It is the fairest, most just thing to do. It is also the best possible way to show defendants in Pennsylvania that the court system takes protecting their rights seriously. Anything less than this response would have been an insult.
On a side note, Ciavarella is a defendant in a civil suit stemming from his kickback scheme. He's representing himself, lending further proof to that old adage that an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
You can't believe everything you read on the internet
Yesterday, I read a report claiming that at a public event in Arizona, Justice Scalia had declared he would have dissented from the unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. I'm fairly certain that my head exploded when I read that. How could that be? How could any rational jurist think that Brown, which declared segregation in the public schools to be unconstitutional, was wrong?
This alleged statement by Scalia was part of a larger complaint about other justices with very different ideas of constitutional interpretation who, in Scalia's mind, "invent" rights. Was Scalia suggesting that individuals in this country did not have a right under the 14th Amendment not to be segregated by race? Because that would be an outrageous proposition. And if he did say that, boy, would I have something to rant about on this blog. But it also didn't sound quite right, knowing what I know of Scalia's fairly bizarre style of constitutional interpretation. As a self-proclaimed "originalist", he would have looked to the history of that amendment's passing and most likely would have concluded that the amendment was understood by its passers to address racial inequalities.
So, I checked it out before writing this blog post. And, sure enough, that's not what he said. He said he would have joined Justice Harlan in dissenting in the earlier case Plessy v. Ferguson, the case Brown overruled. In that earlier case, the majority of the court came up with that famous line of bs, "Separate but equal." Scalia is clear in his opinion that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is all about racial equality and, as such, Plessy was dead wrong. Phew, he's not such a bad justice. And that's why I always check into things before I go off on rants. Because you really can't believe everything you read.
Scalia is all about the equal protection clause protecting racial equality. He just thinks the Court shouldn't go around "inventing rights" by extending the equal protection clause to include other groups like gays and women. Because same-sex marriage and equal pay for equal work weren't in the minds of those guys who passed the 14th Amendment over 100 years ago. The reasonable person living in 1868 wouldn't have thought the phrase "equal protection under the law" meant that women should be treated equally with men. Hell, women didn't even have the right to vote yet. In many states, women couldn't enter into contracts on their own or even own their own property. (They always could in Kansas because, once upon a time, Kansas was a really progressive place. Sigh.) So, clearly, the equal protection clause can't apply to equality between the sexes. And I would guess he could make a pretty good case that the reasonable person in 1868 sure didn't think gays should be treated as equals to straight folks.
Well, he may not think that women have a right to equal pay for equal work, but at least he would probably say that a black woman and a white woman employed by the government to do the exact same work should be equally underpaid. Because that racial equality might be within the "original meaning" of the 14th Amendment.
This alleged statement by Scalia was part of a larger complaint about other justices with very different ideas of constitutional interpretation who, in Scalia's mind, "invent" rights. Was Scalia suggesting that individuals in this country did not have a right under the 14th Amendment not to be segregated by race? Because that would be an outrageous proposition. And if he did say that, boy, would I have something to rant about on this blog. But it also didn't sound quite right, knowing what I know of Scalia's fairly bizarre style of constitutional interpretation. As a self-proclaimed "originalist", he would have looked to the history of that amendment's passing and most likely would have concluded that the amendment was understood by its passers to address racial inequalities.
So, I checked it out before writing this blog post. And, sure enough, that's not what he said. He said he would have joined Justice Harlan in dissenting in the earlier case Plessy v. Ferguson, the case Brown overruled. In that earlier case, the majority of the court came up with that famous line of bs, "Separate but equal." Scalia is clear in his opinion that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is all about racial equality and, as such, Plessy was dead wrong. Phew, he's not such a bad justice. And that's why I always check into things before I go off on rants. Because you really can't believe everything you read.
Scalia is all about the equal protection clause protecting racial equality. He just thinks the Court shouldn't go around "inventing rights" by extending the equal protection clause to include other groups like gays and women. Because same-sex marriage and equal pay for equal work weren't in the minds of those guys who passed the 14th Amendment over 100 years ago. The reasonable person living in 1868 wouldn't have thought the phrase "equal protection under the law" meant that women should be treated equally with men. Hell, women didn't even have the right to vote yet. In many states, women couldn't enter into contracts on their own or even own their own property. (They always could in Kansas because, once upon a time, Kansas was a really progressive place. Sigh.) So, clearly, the equal protection clause can't apply to equality between the sexes. And I would guess he could make a pretty good case that the reasonable person in 1868 sure didn't think gays should be treated as equals to straight folks.
Well, he may not think that women have a right to equal pay for equal work, but at least he would probably say that a black woman and a white woman employed by the government to do the exact same work should be equally underpaid. Because that racial equality might be within the "original meaning" of the 14th Amendment.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
What I do when I'm not lawyering
My knitting skills have come a long way since that first blanket I made in February. In the past few weeks, I have completed several projects. I think I can officially consider myself a real knitter now.
First came my second baby blanket. Being a Jayhawk starts at birth. So a blanket like this seems perfect for a new baby Jay.
Then via facebook, P asked someone to help make a Halloween costume. Feeling all crafty and capable with knitting needles, I jumped at the chance. (Sorry I beat you to it, Harley.) The task was to replicate a very homemade-looking hat that a favorite character on "Firefly" wore. His mama made him a warm hat complete with pompom and earflaps.
First came my second baby blanket. Being a Jayhawk starts at birth. So a blanket like this seems perfect for a new baby Jay.
If you remember the last (and first ever) baby blanket I made, you might notice how much simpler this pattern was. Stripes. Straight stockinette. This blanket took no time and made me feel like I was really accomplishing something because I could see the results so quickly. I can't wait to see the little baby Jay covered in her crimson and blue blankie.
Then via facebook, P asked someone to help make a Halloween costume. Feeling all crafty and capable with knitting needles, I jumped at the chance. (Sorry I beat you to it, Harley.) The task was to replicate a very homemade-looking hat that a favorite character on "Firefly" wore. His mama made him a warm hat complete with pompom and earflaps. Upon seeing this hat, one friend proclaimed, "It's candy corn!" Well, yes, I guess I can see that. But I also think it's a pretty good replica of Jayne's hat. I hope N & P think so, too.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Umm, Missouri, that hasn't been a chargeable offense for 20 years
Apparently, at least one prosecutor in Missouri is behind the times. About 20 years behind the times. Last Friday, a man in Cape Girardeau was charged with desecrating a flag. Apparently the prosecutor was unaware of the 1989 United States Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson that declared flag-burning to be protected activity under the First Amendment. Presumably over the weekend, someone pointed out the famous case to the prosecutor because he has since dismissed the charge. The Missouri charge was a misdemeanor, so I hope that means the charged defendant was not held in jail for any length of time. If somebody did spend any jail time on a charge like this, well, he would have a pretty good claim that he was being held unconstitutionally.
It troubles me when prosecutors don't know the Constitutional limits to their charging ability. I don't think the fact that the statute prohibiting flag desecration technically remains on the books in Missouri is really a good excuse for the prosecutor not realizing he couldn't file this charge. To me, this seems like the sort of charge that any lawyer ought to know is invalid, or at least needs to be researched first. I expect lawyers to stay abreast of case law that directly affects their practice. I wonder how many other defendants nation-wide have been wrongly charged with some form of flag desecration (or consensual sodomy post Lawrence v. Texas) by a prosecutor who either didn't know those charges won't fly or just didn't care. If it's the former, well, it's incompetent, and if it's the latter, it's an abuse of power. Either way, I think it's very likely an ethical violation.
It troubles me when prosecutors don't know the Constitutional limits to their charging ability. I don't think the fact that the statute prohibiting flag desecration technically remains on the books in Missouri is really a good excuse for the prosecutor not realizing he couldn't file this charge. To me, this seems like the sort of charge that any lawyer ought to know is invalid, or at least needs to be researched first. I expect lawyers to stay abreast of case law that directly affects their practice. I wonder how many other defendants nation-wide have been wrongly charged with some form of flag desecration (or consensual sodomy post Lawrence v. Texas) by a prosecutor who either didn't know those charges won't fly or just didn't care. If it's the former, well, it's incompetent, and if it's the latter, it's an abuse of power. Either way, I think it's very likely an ethical violation.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
There is no escape from the darkness
My kitchen will never be lit again. I stopped at a store on my way home from work tonight to buy light bulbs. The grocery store did not have the special tube fluorescent 4-pin things I needed. The hardware store had 2-pin tubes, but not 4-pin. So I hiked down to Home Depot because Home Depot has everything, right? Well, they had the 4-pins, of course. But they didn't have 18W, so I got the wattage they did have because they have the same base, so they should work, right?
Wrong! Because the 26W tubes have a notch on the base that's on the right side while the 18W tubes have the notch on the left side! And apparently that notch is important because just cutting off the notch does not make the bulb work. I might have screamed a little and threatened to throw things. Then I opened a bottle of wine and hit the internet. I could not find this particular light bulb on Home Depot's website. Or Lowe's. Or Amazon. I had to go to the Light Bulb Market. Where I could get free shipping if I bought over $100. But I only need two $6 bulbs. So I have to pay $9.50 in shipping. And I should finally have light again in 2 business days and a week.
Do you suppose the previous owner who installed this light fixture had any idea how much trouble he would be causing me by picking this fixture that requires the world's most obscure light bulbs?
On the bright side, SO fixed the hall light, and since he's a foot taller than I am, there wasn't much precarious balancing required. Maddie bounded down the stairs this morning in appreciation.
Wrong! Because the 26W tubes have a notch on the base that's on the right side while the 18W tubes have the notch on the left side! And apparently that notch is important because just cutting off the notch does not make the bulb work. I might have screamed a little and threatened to throw things. Then I opened a bottle of wine and hit the internet. I could not find this particular light bulb on Home Depot's website. Or Lowe's. Or Amazon. I had to go to the Light Bulb Market. Where I could get free shipping if I bought over $100. But I only need two $6 bulbs. So I have to pay $9.50 in shipping. And I should finally have light again in 2 business days and a week.
Do you suppose the previous owner who installed this light fixture had any idea how much trouble he would be causing me by picking this fixture that requires the world's most obscure light bulbs?
On the bright side, SO fixed the hall light, and since he's a foot taller than I am, there wasn't much precarious balancing required. Maddie bounded down the stairs this morning in appreciation.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The problem won't go away just because no one wants to pay for the solution
Remember the 8 year-old boy accused of shooting his father and another man in Arizona last fall? I blogged about it multiple times. Well, sadly, his case is back in the news today. He was supposed to be sentenced on Thursday, but it appears now that won't happen because the prosecutor and defense attorney have not been able to find any place willing to foot the bill for his care . The plea agreement calls for intensive, and costly, psychiatric treatment, which no state or county agency is willing to pay for.
The state department of juvenile corrections can't afford it and doesn't know how to deal with a child that young. The county's juvenile probation office would blow its entire annual budget if it took charge of the boy. Here's my favorite passing the buck quote in the story: "Even the county mental health consortium in the region refused to take on the case, calling it a behavioral issue and not a mental health issue." How is this not a mental health issue? Of course a 9 year-old boy who killed his father needs serious help from a mental health professional.
This situation is unacceptable. Somebody, somewhere has to take charge here. This boy has to go somewhere, be supervised and treated by someone. And it's got to come out of someone's budget. It's not a real live game of hot potato. It's a little boy. Ignoring the problem he presents is not an option.
The state department of juvenile corrections can't afford it and doesn't know how to deal with a child that young. The county's juvenile probation office would blow its entire annual budget if it took charge of the boy. Here's my favorite passing the buck quote in the story: "Even the county mental health consortium in the region refused to take on the case, calling it a behavioral issue and not a mental health issue." How is this not a mental health issue? Of course a 9 year-old boy who killed his father needs serious help from a mental health professional.
This situation is unacceptable. Somebody, somewhere has to take charge here. This boy has to go somewhere, be supervised and treated by someone. And it's got to come out of someone's budget. It's not a real live game of hot potato. It's a little boy. Ignoring the problem he presents is not an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
