In Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man, Stephen Daedalus is asked by his friend Cranly whether, having forsaken Roman Catholicism, he will become a Protestant.  “I said I had lost the faith,” he replied, “but not that I had lost selfrespect.  What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?”

But God works, as they say, in mysterious ways.  A black man, accused of being secretly a Muslim, a socialist and an illegitimate pretender to the presidential throne, has accomplished what all of the post-Vatican II reconciliation committees and joint worship services and inter-faith conferences could not.  Rev. Mike Huckabee has declared that Protestants will at last abandon illogic and incoherence.  No longer will the Pope be called the Antichrist, nor Holy Mother Church the Whore of Rome.  Once again, he says, we are all Catholics.  My late Irish grandmother’s faith has been vindicated.

Christians have reunited under the banner of Richard “Coeur de Lion” Santorum to defeat apostasy and reclaim America for Christendom.  The enemy this time?  An HHS regulation requiring most health insurance plans to include FDA approved forms of contraception in coverage for preventive health services.  There is, of course, an exception for churches, but not for religious institutions serving the general public.  The outrage has been intense, widespread and misguided.

The newest crusade, like its historical predecessors, is largely fueled by the bad faith of its leaders and the ignorance of its foot soldiers.  The President has graciously described the controversy as a difference of opinion between reasonable people, but his comments are undeservedly charitable.  The argument that the requirement is an assault on religious freedom is legally frivolous.  The suggestion that it raises serious questions under the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is laughable, unless one is a graduate of the Michele Bachmann School of Constitutional Revisionism and Beauty Culture.

It has never been the law that the First Amendment exempts religion from all civil authority.  The First Amendment “embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act.  The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.”  Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-304 (1940).  Public policy demands have been found to trump freedom of religion in a number of contexts.  The Mormon practice of polygamy was long ago held to be subordinate to criminal statutes.  Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879).  Jehovah Witnesses have been compelled to comply with child labor laws prohibiting the sale of printed materials on public streets by minors.  Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).  Bob Jones University was unable to prevent the loss of its tax exempt status despite its religious convictions opposing interracial dating and marriage.  Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).  And the courts have frequently ordered the provision of emergency medical care to minors over the religious objections of their parents.

The new regulation implements portions of the Affordable Care Act intended to expand the availability of preventive health services to women by requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for those services.  Meeting the public health needs of millions of women pursuant to a grant of legislative authority surely fits any reasonable definition of a compelling governmental interest.  And the impact on religious expression?  None.  Religious institutions are not required to change their moral views on contraception.  No woman will be compelled to practice birth control.

But if the regulation does not raise constitutional issues, why all the fuss?  The answer is that the reaction is a contrived and cynical political attack for election year consumption by Catholics and right-wing evangelicals.  It is an effort to extend the notion of religious expression to include what are clearly non-ministerial functions.  It is also part of an effort to further weaken the wall of separation between government and religion.  Indeed, the position of the Catholic bishops reinforces my opposition to the entire faith-based initiatives program.  How is it that a religious body can assert the propriety of accepting public tax dollars to support what it asserts to be a public function, such as operating a general hospital, and simultaneously insist that the operation of that same hospital is protected religious expression for all other purposes?

The government is obligated to respect the free exercise of religion.  Religious bodies engaged in the operation of public facilities are obligated to respect the rights of all employees, including those having incompatible religious beliefs, and to comply with applicable laws.  Once this has been made clear to all, Christians can return to warring among themselves.

Recent political events can’t be pleasing for the Tea Party. The rise of  the “moderate ” Mitt Romney coupled with the S.S. Gingrich running aground everywhere but South Carolina has forced many in the ostensibly “grass roots” movement to question their viability. The soul-searching has caused as least one prominent leader to declare the movement kaput. Ohio Liberty Council co-founder Chris Littleton said, “The tea party is dead. It’s gone.”

 This dire observation seems prompted by the lack of any enthusiasm for the Republican slate of Presidential candidates (Perish the thought that this “nonpartisan” group might consider a Democratic candidate). Says Littleton, “I think largely the Tea Party is irrelevant in the primaries. They aren’t passionate about any of the candidates, and if they are passionate, they’re for Ron Paul.” Damning praise indeed from an expert in the field.

 But what about Tea Party darling, Rick Santorum, now that Gingrich has faded? The former Pennsylvania Senator, who during office  resided in Virginia, did make some surprising noise in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. However as they say on that most Republican of boulevards, Wall Street, the “fundamentals” are against him. Santorum trails well behind Romney in fund raising and his infrastructure has the feel of the Afghan highway system.  Santorum promises an aggressive attack in Michigan where Romney’s father was governor, but polls show him dead last in the four horse race.

 That said, what’s a right-wing anti-government type to do? Well look to the future for one thing: “When the (Republican) candidate is selected, I think ‘anybody but Obama’ will have nationwide support from groups like us,” Dayton Tea Party President Don Birdsall said. But that presumes the Tea Party will show up at the polls despite its admitted lack of enthusiasm. The next time they do that will be the first time it’s been done.

 Groups that are agin’ things tend to peter out rather quickly. Think Ross Perot. The Tea Party claimed some headway (though how much is debatable)  in 2010 when it pointed to victories in the mid-term elections of Marc Rubio and Rand Paul and the Republicans took over the House. But has anybody heard from these two since their matriculation to Capitol Hill? How about legislation cutting taxes or cutting government? Lots of talk about it, but most of the meaningful legislation passed is Obama proposed law. Groups with staying power tend to be “for” something and not just agin’ something else.

 The Tea Party suffered from a lack of  a charismatic spokesperson and any real traction in the political middle where staying power is built. Oh, there were pretenders to the throne. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and several others had plenty of rhetoric but no real intellectual gravitas to throw the disgruntled right on their back and carry them to the White House. Most are still trying to pick up the standard, but being out of the Presidential Race in 2012 doesn’t help. At best, they are left to cheerlead from the sidelines or offer timid advice like this stuff from Sarah Palin: Romney has work to do to convince GOP voters he’s moved beyond his “pretty moderate past … even in some cases a liberal past. I am not convinced, and I do not think the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced.” Not exactly “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead,” is it?

 The Party does claim success in shaping the Republican campaign issues, but are cutting taxes, less government, run-away capitalism, and the Second Amendment really anything new in Republican circles? More importantly will they be front and center in a Romney White House? History says emphatically “no,” and that’s what has the Tea Partiers hopping mad and likely to take their six-packs and stay home this Fall.

 There still a chance the movement could rally around a Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, or Sen. Rand Paul, but none have the national stature to get traction before November. All in all the Tea Party seems fated to be just another passing fancy littering the political landscape.

 Anyone remember the Whigs?

 Source: Daily Beast; Detroit Dailey News; and USA Today.

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

Just the other day we learned of the proposed foreclosure abuse settlement between the Attorney Generals of almost all 50 states and the Big Banks.  In that pending settlement, the Banks will be depositing up to $26 Billion dollars into a fund designed to help homeowners whose homes are under water and who have been foreclosed upon.  “Federal and state officials today will finally announce that they’ve reached a settlement with the nation’s biggest banks over the banks’ various foreclosure fraud abuses, such as “robo-signing” foreclosure documents and submitting falsely notarized documents to courts. The settlement has been in the works for several months, as a few key states — most notably California and New York — were holding out for tougher terms against the banks.”  Think Progress  While some still think the settlement does not go far enough, there is evidence that the settlement could provide real relief for homeowners and for the real estate market.  But the concept of helping the market and homeowners gets lost, at least in the mind of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin!

Gov. Walker and his Wisconsin Attorney General have decided that the lions share of any settlement funds heading to Wisconsin are not going to be used for their agreed upon purpose, but to help balance his ailing state budget!  “However, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) — whose high profile assault on workers’ rights has prompted a recall effort against him — isn’t planning to use the money to help homeowners. Under the terms of the settlement, Wisconsin is set to receive $140 million, $31.6 million of which comes directly to the state government. And Walker is planning to use $25.6 million of that money to help balance his state’s budget:  Of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money – $25.6 million – will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. [Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen], whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.  “Just like communities and individuals have been affected, the foreclosure crisis has had an effect on the state of Wisconsin, in terms of unemployment. … This will offset that damage done to the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said.”  Think Progress

Somehow, Gov. Walker and his AG are trying to make us believe that funds that have been tentatively agreed upon to be used to help individual homeowners and former homeowners, will be better utilized to balance his budget that has been criticized for making gifts to corporations at the expense of the individual citizens and public education.  Journal Sentinel   Did Gov. Walker think that the big blow-up over contraception the last few days would hide this story of outright theft from the homeowners who need it the most?

Notwithstanding your opinion of the proposed settlement, what good at all will this proposed settlement be to homeowners and the real estate market if individual Governors are allowed to raid the funds and use them in ways that they were not intended to be used?  Is this just one more example of politicians attempting to line their pockets or to service their “base” and leaving the taxpayers in their dust?  Will this attempted theft by Walker be one more nail in his political coffin with his pending recall election later this year?

In this writers opinion, the Feds and the majority of Attorney Generals from across the country need to make sure that when the agreement is finalized that individual Governors cannot be allowed to defraud the public and steal the funds delegated for homeowner relief.  How do the state Attorneys General prevent this kind of deception what weakening the impact of this settlement?  What do you think?

It’s hard to believe that I’m already six-months-old! Where has the time gone? I’ve made some amazing progress since I was born last August. I can roll over, sit up, and babble a blue streak.

I have two teeth—and I’m eating solid food. I especially like butternut squash.  Yum!

I’m such a big girl now that I can eat some things without any help.

I love it when Grammy reads to me.

Books are the best! They taste good too.

I wanted to wish everyone a Happy Valentine’s Day.

Tell the people who are close to you that you love them. I try—but my mom and dad don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. So…I just give them a big smile. They always smile back at me. Then I smile at them again.

My Grammy picked out a special valentine poem for me to share with you today. The author of the poem is “Unknown.”

To My Valentine

If apples were pears,

And peaches were plums,

And the rose had a different name;

If tigers were bears,

And fingers were thumbs,

I’d love you just the same!

HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY!

For those who oppose abortion no tactic is too sleazy. The scare tactic of stopping abortion by linking it with breast cancer was manna from heaven. The visceral fear of breast cancer would present the faithful with a weapon to be wielded with no regard for the facts. The fact that the scientific evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer fazed them not.

The recent Komen/Planned Parenthood publicity and Komen’s ties to this woo, has reanimated this long-dead controversy.

The Komen tie-in is via Jane Abraham, a member of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance board of directors. Abraham is also on the board of directors of The Nurturing Network, an organization founded and chaired by Mary Cunningham Agee. It was Agee who, in 1999, wrote in a Culture of Life Foundation newsletter that “the undeniable link between breast cancer and abortion is only the ‘tip of an iceberg’ of damage that medical science is now able to reveal about this procedure.”

Abraham is also founder and General Chairman of the Susan B. Anthony List. On its website, the SBA List touts its Komen connection while claiming:

There are also studies that link abortion to breast cancer- which is precisely what SGK is supposed to be fighting against.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a lie.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released a report, Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk, that found:

More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found:

Breast cancer: induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The American Cancer Society studied the link and reported the results:

• Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.
• Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.

These scientific results are known to the anti-abortion cadre, and they’d rather lie to women.

H/T: Jodi Jacobson, Catholics For Choice (pdf).

Since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has rejected Obama’s contraception compromise, and since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called the mandate unconstitutional, it’s a good time to look at what the Supreme Court has decided. A critical case is Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in which J. Scalia wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Although there has been a torrent of invective regarding the Smith decision, I find it well-argued and compelling.

The question before the Court in Smith was whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment could exclude religious use of peyote from criminal prohibition. Although contraception is not illegal, as peyote is, the principles put forth in the Court’s opinion present real problems for those contending the mandate is an unconstitutional encroachment on the Free Exercise Clause.

In Smith the Court notes that when the law is not specifically directed at a particular religion, “the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.”

The Court notes the test from Sherbert v. Verner (1963) where “governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.” In Smith the Court rejects the “compelling interest” test:

To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling” — permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. at 167 — contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

The contraception debate has raised the issue of “Religious Liberty.” In Smith the Court addresses that issue when a similar argument is raised:

The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind …

In Reynolds the Court expressed a similar concept:

To permit [polygamy among members of the Mormon Church] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

“Religious Liberty” does not extend to the case where an employer or insurance company CEO gets to decide what medical procedures are “immoral.” With our diversity of religion, every medical practice, procedure, or regulation is sure to be considered “immoral” and conflict with someone’s religious beliefs. If we water down every statute with religious exemptions, we will be courting anarchy. We are a nation of secular laws, and religious exemptions to those laws need to be few and far between.

The USCCB could try the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in response to the Smith decision, which says that any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. However, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court held that the RFRA is an unconstitutional use of Congress’s enforcement powers. Although the opinion applies only to States, the principle may extend its application should the USCCB decide to file suit under the RFRA.

H/T: TPM, Marci A. Hamilton (pdf), Paul E. McGreal.

Today we present The Marathons in glorious STEREO!

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

It appears that the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Republicans are not happy with the change that President Obama made to the health care contraceptive coverage requirement for religious employers. The President’s announcement about the change yesterday initially met with a “reserved response” from the bishops who said it was a “first step in the right direction.” Hours later, however, the bishops issued a statement “blasting the plan.” Along with others, the bishops are calling for Congressional legislation that would reverse the contraceptive policy.

In a blog post earlier today, Judy Waxman, who is Vice President for Health and Reproductive Right at the National Women’s Law Center, expressed her concern about some of the proposed legislation. Waxman wrote that “opponents of birth control in Congress are still focused on taking away access to contraception introducing extreme legislation that threatens health across the board. The pieces of legislation range from allowing any employer, regardless of whether it is a religious entity, to deny coverage of contraception to giving employers the right to refuse coverage of any health care service they find religiously or morally objectionable.”

Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress echoed Waxman’s concern. He reported that Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, is expected to introduce an amendment next week “that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.

Excerpt from Blunt’s proposed amendment:

(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —

“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —

“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Waxman also wrote the following in her post:

They are playing politics with women’s health – and it would hurt everyone. Tell your Senators to reject all extreme legislation that would take away women’s access to birth control without a co-pay, and other needed health care.

What would happen if some of these bills became law?

• Any employer could offer a plan that does not cover maternity care for unmarried women in its plan, claiming that such coverage violates its belief that sex and procreation are permissible only within the marital relationship. (Amendment No. 1520 sponsored by Senator Blunt, R-MO, also known as the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)
• Any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. (S. 2092, also known as “The Manchin-Rubio Bill” and the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)
• Any employer who objects to coverage of vaccines for children could deny this coverage to all employees. (The “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)

Do you agree with Waxman that some people are playing politics with women’s health? Do you think our Senators should be called upon to reject–what Waxman calls–”extreme” legislation?

**********

I’d like to note that birth control pills can be used to treat some medical conditions—including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, adenomyosis, dysmenorrhea, and acne. Birth control pills can also lower a woman’s risk of getting ovarian cancer—as well as some other kinds of cancers—if she takes the pills for more than five years.

FYI: Last December, Alice Park penned an article for Time’s Healthland titled Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer?

Park wrote:

Kara Britt at Monash University and Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, writing in the journal Lancet, argue that the scientific evidence is strong enough to consider whether nuns, who do not bear children — a lifestyle that puts them at higher risk of certain reproductive cancers — could be protected by taking the birth control pill.

The article in the Lancet claimed that Roman Catholic nuns pay a “terrible price for their chastity” because not having children puts them at a higher risk of growing breast, ovarian and, uterine tumors.

SOURCES

GOP Ups The Ante, Introduces Legislation To Allow Any Employer To Deny Any Preventive Health Service (ThinkProgress)

Roy Blunt Amendment (ThinkProgress)

Protect Women’s Health: Tell Your Senators to Reject Extreme Legislation (National Women’s Law Center)

Blunt expected to intro bill on contraception coverage (St. Louis Business Journal)

Senator Blunt’s Response To President Obama’s Remarks On HHS Mandate

GOP Sen. Roy Blunt to introduce bill allowing employers to deny coverage for any health service (Daily Kos)

Groups rail against contraceptive coverage ‘mandate’ despite rule change (My Fox Philly)

Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer? (Time/Heathland)

Nuns On Birth Control? Experts Say The Pill May Reduce Health Risks Posed By Chaste Lifestyle (Huffington Post)

Nuns should go on the Pill, says Lancet study: Nuns should go on the Pill to reduce their chances of developing cancer, researchers say (The Telegraph)

Combined oral contraceptive pill (Wkipedia)

The post fashion show booking photo of Andrew Toothman.

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Sc. 5

Some days when you wake up, don’t you just feel like doing something new and exciting? A way to change things up? Most people follow through with this urge by going to a new restaurant or visiting some place new or getting a different haircut. Perhaps trying a new outfit. Like all ideas, you can go too far with this impulse for change. Sometimes people get an idea and figure anything worth doing is worth overdoing, but I’m still trying to guess where the good idea/bad idea line was crossed in this case. If any forethought was given, I’m thinking the line was crossed fairly early on.

But crossed it was early on the morning of February, 3, 2012, in Neon, Kentucky. Andrew Toothman, 22, was apparently feeling the need to change things up when he broke into the IGA grocery store.  What were his intentions you might be asking? I think possibly his intention was to make a bold fashion statement. That or he had simply taken leave of his senses. When the IGA employees arrived for work that morning, they found a surprise waiting for them. They found Mr. Toothman wearing black boots, chocolate and peanut butter.  That’s it.

In addition to the broken glass and Mr. Toothman’s unusual choice in apparel, there was chocolate and peanut butter smeared on the floor and the manager’s desk and several fire extinguishers had been discharged.  In what could be considered an act of contrition (or further madness), Toothman had also written “sorry” on the floor. His artistic media for this message? To mix things up a bit, he used NyQuil. Sorry? Most certainly, although about precisely what, he was not clear.

There is no probative legal analysis of this case. No pressing civil rights issue. Toothman’s eventual charges, from breaking and entering to vandalism, will probably be in line with his actions. This is just a tale of high – I think possibly very high – weirdness in the rolling hills of eastern Kentucky.  Although one must wonder if Toothman’s message of contrition will move the judge to consider lesser sentencing? Will his choice in attire (and the possibly errant mental state leading to that fashion choice) impact the court’s decisions? Other than a peanut butter cup now sounds dreadfully unappealing, what do you think?

Source(s): Huffington Post, The Smoking Gun, CBS

~ Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

It has long been my conviction that Saudi Arabia is a bigger player on the world stage than it is given credit for in media reports. The normal Western prejudice viewing this country as a cultural, repressive backwater may be true if one looks at the non-royal Saudi citizenry. However, the Saudi Royal family and its minions are quite sophisticated in worldly matters and for years have skillfully played the game of international politics. Odiously repressive Royals, enforcing an archaic view of Sharia Law, can nevertheless be quite modern and sophisticated in outlook. Everywhere in our current and in our historic world, there have been many examples of a nation’s elite demanding adherence to repressive religious standards, while indulging themselves in what is forbidden.

“WHOWhatWHY” an excellent investigative news site run by Russ Baker, a distinguished investigative journalist, ran an article that caught my attention. This article discussed the fact that most media was diffident and/or silent in reporting that Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal, had invested $300 million in Twitter, a privately held corporation:

“Twitter’s market valuation is something like $10 billion (choose what huge number you prefer). Given that, why would this company, which is all about empowering ordinary people to communicate unfiltered and thereby get control of their lives and their governments, sell a big chunk to a representative of one of the quintessential repressive forces—an element that has a stake in preventing exactly the sort of communication that defines Twitter?” http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/02/close-reading-the-saudis-a-twitter-investment-and-the-end-of-arab-spring/

It is common knowledge at this point that Twitter has been the driving force in much of the uprisings now characterized as “The Arab Spring”. With Twitter, government opponents were able to organize their ranks/actions and quickly communicate news updates to people who would not be able to get this information from a controlled media. In an oil rich country, such as Saudi Arabia, ruled with an iron fist by the top half of one percent, there is great danger of overthrow by a people poverty stricken in the midst of great opulence. Mr. Baker finds it curious when in the past year Twitter has had an ominous change in policy, at the same time allowing an investment by a member of one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Is this merely coincidence or an indication of an underlying effort to prevent the Saudi Royals from following the fate of other Islamic countries ruled by despots?

Twitters policy change may have enormous negative consequences for nascent freedom movements in various countries, by shutting off communications by dissident elements, who are already handicapped by a controlled media. As Russ Baker puts it:

“Is Twitter (a) a leading vehicle for freedom movements, or (b) primed to control and shut down open discourse throughout the world? This question emerged recently when we learned that the global messaging service was planning to abide by the rules of each country in terms of content it carries. Here’s the New York Times:

“This week, in a sort of coming-of-age moment, Twitter announced that upon request, it would block certain messages in countries where they were deemed illegal. The move immediately prompted outcry, argument and even calls for a boycott from some users.”

Twitter said it would also “give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world.””

Twitter’s full announcement and rationale can be seen here: http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html  Please consider the impact that Twitter’s policy change would have on communicating news to people starving for it, in country’s whose media is under the control of elites, providing their population with propaganda, rather than information. At the same time think of the curiousness of a successful, privately held company, getting cash infusion from the scion of a despotic family and almost simultaneously announcing a policy to block messages deemed illegal by a country’s rulers.

In the United States the fact that our media is controlled by a small number of interlocking corporate conglomerates has been disturbing to many of us for quite awhile. The Internet has replaced traditional news sources for many citizens. Many have come to realize that traditional media has failed to give us the full picture of the world around us we need as supposedly free citizens in a supposed democracy. Recently, an attempt to control Internet content was beaten back for the time being, yet there will be future efforts to try to impose corporate control over the Internet.

The Saudi’s represent one of the most repressive and backward countries on this planet. Yet their ruling family controls great oil wealth and has been sophisticated in playing “The Great Game” of international politics. My own opinion, stated here many times, is that the Saudi’s are actually the United States closest ally in the Mid East. To me, it is an open question whether our country’s policies there are manipulated by the Saudi’s and Big Oil, or whether they instead do our bidding. During the first Iraq War, the feeling that our troops were the “Hessian’s” in that conflict kept running through my mind.

Whether my assumptions above are right or wrong is immaterial to the questions raised here. To me the Saudi Prince’s investment in Twitter and the change of policy looks more than merely coincidental. In the midst of the great wealth of Saudi Arabia and the luxury enjoyed by its rulers, the average person is relatively poor and lives in backward conditions. This is an absolute monarchy, aided by a pact with the ultra Fundamentalist Wahhabi Sect, which keeps its citizens brutally under its thumb. If ever there was a nation ripe for revolution Saudi Arabia is that country. It is therefore in the best interests of the Saudi rulers to keep the tools for organization and revolt out of the hands of its citizens. We have seen these phenomena all over the world as repressive states like China, make efforts to block Internet content from citizens.

Below is a video of this Arab Prince whose lifestyle and demeanor seems quite different from that of a committed Wahhabi. However, hasn’t that always been the human way where our leaders demand we abide by their moral strictures, while enjoying sybaritic existences themselves? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ55rXZvTEY&feature=player_embedded  For more on this Prince this is his Wikepedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal  You will note that the investments of one of the world’s richest people include: AOL, Apple Inc., MCI Inc., Motorola, Fox News and other technology and media companies.

Perhaps I am merely being too cynical to not believe that these investments are purely business for the world’s 26^th richest person, who has been called the”Warren Buffett” of Saudi Arabia. If you think I am being too suspicious, I would love for you to ease my disquiet. However, until your responses and proof, I continue to see this investment and Twitter’s policy change as ominous.

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

Eve Ellis, a major fundraiser for Susan G Komen for the Cure, has raised her last dollar for the charity. Ellis calls for the resignation of CEO and founder Nancy Brinker and the nine member board to be replace. In an angry letter, Ellis condemns the decision to end funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast screening as political and misguided.

The Komen brand may have been tarnished beyond salvation. Pulling funding for breast cancer screening for the poorest, underserved women in our society has turned a once beloved brand into a reviled brand in a mere couple of days.

While donations from the Planned Parenthood haters have helped, they may not be sustainable. Corporate sponsors may be having second thoughts. In a move perhaps unrelated to the Planned Parenthood episode, Pepperidge Farm is concluding “its sponsorship of Susan G. Komen for the Cure at the end of 2011 for business reasons.” General Mills and its Yoplait brand of yogurt “will continue to partner with organizations that will have the greatest impact in that fight.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

There are five “Races” coming up in March including the big one in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure has released a statement saying they were strongly opposed to the Planned Parenthood policy. What will be the turnout? Will there be protests?

The Komen brand will be tested in the coming months. Maybe appealing to religious conservatives will turn out to be a winning strategy.

H/T: The Guardian, POLITICO, Jodi Jacobson, The Hill, US News, LA Times, Advertising Age.

Arthur Conley is even sweeter in glorious STEREO!

The basis for the lawsuit is breach of contract, but the faculty is likely to argue that the questionable basis for lawsuit reaffirms the grade given by the adjunct professor. They add equally bizarre claims of defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress as well as negligence by the law school.

Chan, 26, and Ford, 27, say that the adjunct, who is a partner at a Chicago law firm, refused to explain the grades.

They are represented by attorney Jason Bach and they are seeking reinstatement to TSU’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

I am afraid that I would not give them much higher points for torts based on these claims. If the defamation claim is based on the grades themselves, it  is a curious claim since it is the lawsuit that publicized the grades. Moreover, most students experience emotional distress with poor grades but it hardly satisfies the standard under the common law. Notably, in Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. College Station Indep. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 1996), the court addressed a negligent infliction claims based on the alleged poor performance and abusive language of a high school teacher. The court held “a constitutional violation does not occur every time someone feels that they have been wronged or treated unfairly. There is no constitutional right to be free from emotional distress.”

Likewise, in Allison v. Howard Univ.,209 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002), Howard University law student Albert Allison sued the law school that expelled him after subjecting him to an improper grading process by wrongfully ratifying the expulsion. The court rejected all of the contractual and tort claims.

The odds against such a lawsuit are enormous. Schools actually have an incentive not to expel students. Moreover, absent a complete lack of review in the awarding of a grade, courts are unlikely to second-guess such grades. This is why I threw my exams down the stairs three times to be sure that I have the distribution correct.

The claim of being “curved out” could be made against any curved system. Generally such curved work to the advantage of students as schools try to avoid putting their students at a disadvantage in the market against schools with higher curves. However some schools are certainly known for the approach of “admit 60 graduate 6″ — adding the marketability of students with a hard knocks reputation. That is fairly rare however.

Source:  Chroncileas first seen on ABA Journal

The lawsuit in Nebraska references four beer stores in Whiteclay, a Nebraska town near the reservation’s border. The town only has about a dozen residents but reportedly sold nearly 5 million cans of beer in 2010. Either the residents have the world’s biggest beer guts or they are making huge profits by selling alcohol to the local indians. The town lies less than 250 feet from the reservation border.

However, beer sales are perfectly legal and these indian customers are adults who have a right to purchase alcoholic beverages — and the citizens of Whiteclay have a right to sell the beer so long as they have the required permits. Notably, as this picture represents, taverns have existed in Whiteclay (or Pine Ridge) for many decades. (This is from the 1940s)

Tom White, the tribe’s Omaha-based attorney, “[y]ou cannot sell 4.9 million 12-ounce cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate, and say we’ve got nothing to do with it being smuggled.” Actually, you can. It is called retail sales. The question is not whether the lawsuit will succeed but whether it could generate sanctions. The legislature has thus far declined to impose limitations on beer sales around the reservation. Absent such measures (which could be challenged in court), there is a conspicuous absence of legal authority to support such a claim. The tribe is offering policy arguments that are quite compelling but they are inviting a court to function as a super legislature in the imposition of such liability.

It is certainly true that state law prohibits drinking outside the stores and the nearest town that allows alcohol is over 20 miles south (alcohol sales are banned on the reservation). However, the tribe would be best served by taking up the matter with tribe members rather than suggesting that stores should not be able to sell beer to indians.

None of this questions the good-faith goals of the tribe, only its means. One in four children on the reservation reportedly suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and the average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years.

The state is considering a ban or limitation on beer sales in Whiteclay — though I would question the constitutionality of such a law in designating certain areas to be “alcohol impact zones.”

The complaint is long on narrative and short on legal authority or claims. This is the sole claim:

PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT
43. Plaintiff restates each and every previous allegation in support of this Cause of Action as if fully set forth herein.
44. As part of a common enterprise, the Defendants and each of them, have knowingly acted in concert to manufacture, distribute and sell beer through the Whiteclay retail outlets in amounts that cannot be legally sold, consumed or possessed under the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST.
45. The Defendants and each of them, know or should know that the Retail Defendants’ conduct in the sale of the vast amount beer which is smuggled into and resold in the Reservation is in breach of their duties under the law of the State of Nebraska and the OST.
46. The Defendants and each of them give substantial assistance and encouragement to the Retail Defendants by supplying and transporting volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST. The Defendants and each of them, also give further substantial assistance and encouragement to the Retail Defendants through advertisements, marketing materials, and other business accommodations to promote the consumption of beer in the PRIR.
47. The Defendants and each of them have the duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure their products are distributed and sold in obedience to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the OST. The Defendants and each of them have breached that duty by cooperating and engaging in a common enterprise which is focused on assisting and participating in the illegal sale of alcohol.
48. The Defendants and each of them have thereby caused the OST to suffer massive
damages in an amount yet to be determined.

The claim of working in concert reflects the common purpose of selling a legal product.

Here is the complaint: Sioux Suit
Among the defendants are Jason J. Schwarting who runs the Arrowhead Inn in Whiteclay; Stuart J. Kozal who runs the Jumping Eagle Inn and Clay M. Brehmer and Daniel J. Brehmer who run the State Line Liquor in Whiteclay.

Here are the corporate defendants:

Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc.
SAB Miller d/b/a Miller Brewing Company
Molson Coors Brewing Company
Miller Coors, LLC
Pabst Brewing Company
Pivo, Inc. d/b/a High Plains Budweiser
Dietrich Distributing Co., Inc.
Arrowhead Distributing, Inc.
Coors Distributing of West Nebraska d/b/a Coors of West Nebraska
Jason Schwarting d/b/a Arrowhead Inn, Inc.
Sanford Holdings, LLC d/b/a D&S Pioneer Service
Stuart Kozal d/b/a/ Jumping Eagle Inn
Clay Brehmer and Daniel Brehmer d/b/a State Line Liquor

Source: SF Gate

Wiggins was arrested after police detected “an overwhelming odor of marijuana” in the judge’s room at the local Hilton hotel in College Station. Wiggins was due to attend the V.G. Young Institute: School for County Commissioners Courts.

Wiggins was arrested with possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana and police report that he admitted that he was smoking pot.

The arrest for a misdemeanor does not always lead to the removal of a judge from the bench or a resignation. However, it seems likely in this case. Judges are occasionally charged with DUI but do not always leave the bench.

Do you feel that 2 ounces of marijuana should be grounds for removal?

Here is his court bio:

Mike Wiggins was elected Guadalupe County Judge after winning the Republican Primary Runoff on April 11, 2006. He was sworn into office on January 1, 2007, becoming the 31st Guadalupe County Judge. And, he is a native Texan!A retired Texas DPS Sergeant, Wiggins has served his State for thirty years; the last fourteen years were served here in Guadalupe County where he was responsible for the DPS operations, he received extensive budget experience with the Texas State Legislature and was responsible for the local emergency management operations. He received his Police Administration Diploma from Northwestern University, and continuing coursework from St. Edwards University and Lamar University.

Active in many civic organizations, he was a founding board member of the Seguin Outdoor Learning Center and the Guadalupe County Children’s Lodge; he has served as president of the DPS Officers Association; past president of the Seguin Little League Board; an active board member of Buck Fever, Committee Chairman of Bass Fever; a booster member of Seguin Sports; an active member of the Seguin Area Chamber of Commerce and the Seguin Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

In his campaign for County Judge, Wiggins pledged to provide a new level of leadership, guidance and direction of the County, to advocate for emergency services, seek federal funding, and continue to support and preserve the ranching and agricultural heritage of Guadalupe County.

Source: San Antonio as first seen on ABA Journal

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood at Ain Shams University were at the heart of the protest. It is distressing to see academics participating in such an attack on free expression and the literary arts.

In the wake of the “Arab Spring,” there is a cold wind blowing across countries like Egypt where Islamic parties have used their new freedom to deny the rights of others. As is often the case, artists and journalists are the first to be targeted for their free speech and art. Recently, famed Egyptian actor, Adel Imam, was sentenced to three months in jail for “defaming Islam” in several roles on stage and screen.

Citizens in Egypt can expect more of the same (and less of free speech): the Muslim Brotherhood is demanding the right to form the next government after sweeping election victories.

Source: Egypt Independent

You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”

The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.

The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.

Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”

Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Source: Washington Post

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), provides:

The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in [**8] their ability or inability to work….

The question is whether breast feeding is an affect or medical condition linked to pregnancy.

Hughes adopted a narrow view of discrimination on the basis for pregnancies: “Discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is illegal. Related conditions may include cramping, dizziness, and nausea while pregnant.”

The opinion, however, does not offer a full explanation of distinction and is fairly conclusory. He cites however earlier cases finding lactation claims to be outside of the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.” A more substantial treatment of the subject is found in cases like Fejes v. Gilpin Ventures, 960 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Colo. 1997) (which was the basis for the decision in the first case cited by Hughes). The court held that

“In appending the PDA amendment to Title VII, Congress considered the statement that “if a woman wants to stay home to take care of the child, no benefit must be paid because this is not a medically determined condition related to pregnancy.” H.R. No. 948, 95th Cong. 5, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 5, 4749, 4753. Nothing in the PDA, or Title VII itself, obliges an employer to accommodate the child-care concerns of breast-feeding workers. If Congress had wanted these sorts of child-care concerns to be covered in Title VII by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it would have said so in plain language”

Likewise, in in Wallace v. Pyro Mining Co., 789 F. Supp. 867 (W.D.Ky.1990), aff’d without opinion, 951 F.2d 351 (6th Cir.1991), the court ruled:

Nothing in plaintiff’s case states a claim under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act…. While it may be that breast-feeding and weaning are natural concomitants of pregnancy and childbirth, they are not [**9] “medical conditions” related thereto. Admittedly, the act does not define what constitutes “related medical conditions.” However, the substantive references to “related medical conditions” within that legislative history are all in the context of the extent to which female employees can be denied medical benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance coverage, arising from pregnancy and childbirth. Further, Congress’ express intent was to codify … EEOC guidelines that required “employers to treat disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, child-birth and recovery therefrom as all other temporary disabilities.” H.R. No. 948, 95th Cong. 2, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 4749, 4750.

Courts will often decline to “gap fill” an ambiguous statute in favor of leaving the question to Congress — particularly when an argument would impose consider costs on either the country or employers. It will be interesting to see if this is an issue upon which Congress will want to be heard as courts bar such claims. I view the nexus between lactation and pregnancy to be closer than these courts suggest. Certainly, some law professors in the field strongly contest the view of these courts. Regardless of how one comes out on the issue, it would seem worthy of congressional hearings.

Here is the opinion: Employment Opinion

Source: ABC as first seen on ABA Journal

In 2006, the NCAA called on 19 schools with American Indian nicknames, logos and mascots to drop them as “hostile and abusive” to local tribes.

I must confess that I have never been convinced that some of these team names are disrespectful or racist. To the contrary, the team names often idealize the fighting spirit of the tribes. While I strongly believe that these universities have to take active steps to guarantee that the depiction of the tribes are respectful, I do not see why there should be sanctions for the use of all such names or images. I do not doubt that some mascots can be hostile or culturally abusive, but I do not believe that any use of such a name or image is inherently hostile, abuse, or disrespectful. For example, the decision to bar the use of “Chief Illiniwek” by the University of Illinois killed a long tradition at the school that honored that image. I realize that many would disagree with me on this and I am concerned that some Native Americans do take offense at the use of such images. However, I am not convinced that they should have a veto on the use of names and images that are closely connected to these areas. Under the NCAA rules, the schools must get permission from any tribe to use such images. However, the opposition to such symbols has extended to even generic symbols of American Indians. The question is whether a name or image like the Sioux should be treated as essentially proprietary or exclusive for the current members of the tribe or whether it is an image that part of the entire community and its history.

From the Vikings to the Cowboys to Packers to the Fighting Irish, local communities often select powerful images connected to their communities. These tribes are idolized in American culture and inspire people with their strength and dignity. They are selected for those positive elements and the schools often make students playing roles like Chief Illiniwek study the culture and adopt authentic elements to their outfits and dance. Critics of the use of the image make some very good points. It is also true, as some advocates have argued, that “In the time when the mascots were created — the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s — the United States populace did not have a positive view of people of color.” However, that does not mean that they are used today in negative way or cannot be used in a positive, even educational, way.

Some Native Americans do support the use of the symbols though many do not. These views should be given great weight but they are not determinative in my view. I felt the NCAA should have left this matter to the individual communities to hash out whether the use of such images are disrespectful or abusive. I might support the elimination of some images or practices, but it should be done on a case-by-case basis. If a tribe opposes such use of its name, that would weigh heavily in my own judgment. The makes the use of Sioux a close question for me, but I do not believe that the decision to eliminate Chief Illiniwek was warranted.

UND President Robert Kelley noted that the issue will be placed on a state referendum and that the school should wait to see the results of that legal and political process. A law requiring the school to use the nickname was repealed eight months after it was enacted to avoid NCAA sanctions. However, there has been a demand to put the issue to a statewide vote. The State Board of Education has suggested that it may fight the move to reinstate the law.

Of course, I come from a city that roots for the Blackhawks. Putting aside the legal questions of North Dakota state law, what do you think about the ban on any use of Native American names or images?

Source: ESPN

Robinson’s potential liability raises some interesting questions. He was cited with failure to have his dog on a leash, allowing a dog to bite and failure to have a vaccinated dog. The dog ran into the lake because he was not on a leash in the first place and Robinson allowed him to chase the coyote.

Under the common law, Robinson is protected by the “one free bite rule.” The rule is a bit of a misnomer, as reaffirmed recently in Georgia. It does not take one bite to put a pet owner on notice to attach strict liability. It is sufficient if a person knew or had reason to know the vicious propensity of the animals. If there were prior incidents or complaints, the case could resemble the case of lawyers Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel who were both sued civilly and convicted criminally in a horrific dog attack case.

There may be suggestions about a vicious propensity in the breed, though I have never seen such presumptions with mastiffs as opposed to breeds like pit bulls.

Chasing a coyote is not necessary evidence of a vicious propensity since most dogs chase animals. However, there may be other prior evidence of the propensity. If not, a case would be handled in negligence. Yet, there could be a plaintiffs’ conduct question in how the television lights and set would affect an animal and the failure of the studio to have better animal control precautions.

Source: Herald

Majumder was caught by the judge who looked down from the bench only to see pornographic images on his computer screen. Majumder viewed about 30 images during the two days and later said that he watched a great deal of porn and was only finding sites to watch later at home. He said that it helped with boredom in the job.

His lawyer argued that a stroke suffered months ago may have affected his judgment.

Source: NBC

I am fascinated by the choice of the faux grade. Rather than showing restraint and changing the grade to a B, Kim decided he deserved an A, but not a full A.

The first change was discovered in an accounting course. Later, two other professors found that their grades (in financial management and law and American society) had mysteriously moved from Fs that he had received from them also were upgraded to As. It appears that he relied entirely on hacking in seeking a higher GPA. It was remarkably stupid since, even without the access problem of the professor, most academics look closely at Fs in their class and there was a fair chance of detection in the regular course of business.

Kim had to work hard not to work on his studies. He used a “key logger” device that captures key strokes on a computer. After installing the device in a university computer, he was able to withdraw the device a few days later with the identification numbers and passwords of his professors. That is a pretty premeditated and outrageous act. He is fortunate to get only probation since his actions violated privacy protections for all of the students as well as the faculty.

Source: Philly Burbs

Harvard notes that the country is still listing its building as an official embassy site and says that the problem is clearly the result of renovations at its large embassy building going on longer than expected.

Harvard filed papers stating that “[t]he Court (should) issue a Writ of Restitution directing the U.S. Marshals Service to execute the eviction.” This came after Harvard offered a three-month extension but did not hear back from its tenants. Thus, “[b]ecause the Embassy has improperly held over after the end of the Lease Term, (Harvard) is entitled to a judgment for possession of the Premises.”

Just wait until Harvard finds out about Cameroon having cats under the no-pets lease.

The country may wish to be careful on challenges. The Supreme Court has six justices who either graduated or attended Harvard. The three Yale graduates (Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor) do not even have enough to grant cert.

So if you are a country looking for a cool crib near Dupont Circle, this property may soon be available though it has limited storage and excess Cameroonians.

Source: Fox

The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission panel gave an account of the underlying facts:

After the Respondent arrived home from work on the evening of March 18, 2008, someone came to the front door, but the Respondent did not go to the door. (Tr. 25-26). The Respondent saw a dark green over gray van parked in his driveway, behind the Respondent’s truck. (Tr. 123-24). He called the Anna Police Department and spoke with the dispatcher, Danny Holdman. The Respondent identified himself and stated that he knew the police were busy because of heavy rain and flooding. He asked that, if “somebody has time,” could an officer asked the driver to move the van in the driveway because the Respondent was going to be leaving. He also mentioned to the dispatcher that the person parked in his driveway was the process server who had gone to his office earlier. The Respondent acknowledged that he did not want to cooperate with the process server. The Respondent never saw the process server that evening. (Tr. 27, 124-25).

On the following day, March 19, 2008, the Respondent left for work at 7:25 a.m., and drove to the courthouse parking lot. (Tr. 28, 128). He parked at the “lower end” of the lot. It was raining “pretty good” and, when he got out of his truck, he opened a golf umbrella. He walked up the hill toward the side door of the courthouse, which was between 120 and 150 feet away. (Tr. 129-30, 254). While he was walking, he had his head down and was thinking about his upcoming murder trial. (Tr. 131). He heard a noise behind him, turned, and saw a van come into the parking lot. The van “came speeding up the parking lot,” went past the Respondent, and pulled into a parking space ahead of him. (Tr. 132). He said this was not the same van that was parked in his driveway the night before. (Tr. 123-24). The Respondent saw a man get out of the van and “come running” or “trotting” toward the Respondent “fairly quickly.” (Tr. 133, 254). At first, the Respondent thought the man was a “meth cook” named Rusty Smith. But, when the man got closer, Respondent knew it was not Smith. (Tr. 133, 136). The man had his left hand under a fleece he was wearing. (Tr. 133). The Respondent’s hand was in a pocket where his gun was located. He pulled the gun out, and said “stay back, I don’t know who are.” (Tr. 134-35). The Respondent denied that he pointed his gun at the man, but said the gun was “pointed in his direction.” (Tr. 137, 156-57). The man kept coming toward the Respondent, and pulled out something that looked like a wallet. He flung open the wallet, showed the Respondent a “white card with red across the top,” and said he was a process server. (Tr. 134-35, 137, 154). The Respondent did not see a badge. (Tr. 254). At that point, the Respondent thought the man was “probably the process server.” (Tr. 154). The Respondent, while still holding his gun in his hand, again said “stay back, I don’t know who you are.” (Tr. 135, 154-55). The man came closer to the Respondent, said “I’m serving these papers” and tossed them down at the Respondent’s feet. (Tr. 135, 255). The Respondent said “get back,” and the man turned and went back to his vehicle. (Tr. 135). As the Respondent was walking up the steps to the side door of the courthouse the same man came near the handrail and said “I’m a process server, you can’t pull a gun on me, I’m going to go to the sheriff’s department.” The Respondent replied “go ahead.” (Tr. 135).

So James admitted to dodging service of process and knew that the van that he saw previously was probably the same server. He was being sued by Billie Henderson as his former secretary over her termination.

James ran for reelection while charged with felonies but was defeated. James is now in private practice in Anna, Illinois.

Notably, when he was elected in 2004, James insisted “I think it’s time that the state’s attorney’s office quits being the talk of the county. I don’t desire the office to be the focal point of the community, and I don’t desire to be the focal point of the community. I think people are ready for that – a calm state’s attorney’s office.” Well, that did not quite work out.

Source: ABA Journal

The allegations surfaced in litigation in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed in 2008 by former NYDH doctor, Suarna Mehulic.

Dr. Lana Boter answered affirmatively when asked whether there was “a C-section was performed on a patient at the hospital who was not pregnant?”

The patient in the 2007 incident was reportedly 16 years old. Dr. Anca Rosca also confirmed the procedure. She said that she did a sonogram but handed it over to an attending physician. She refuted the characterization of a botched C-section with a distinction that would likely not move a jury: “Nobody cut into the uterus to do a C-section. That’s what a cesarean section is, to cut into the uterus.” Yet, she confirmed that a surgery was performed on the girl.

The hospital may be making the same precious distinction when warning “no C-section has ever been performed in our hospital on a woman who was not pregnant, and if you were to suggest otherwise it would be an egregious and inflammatory error.”

The hospital however is not very credible in some quarters. Last year it had to pay $13.4 million in settlements for fraud claims from 2002 to 2006.

What I find interesting is the absence of any reference to a lawsuit or settlement with the girl. If a surgery was performed, I would be interested in understanding what the girl was told after it was discovered that she was not pregnant. As discussed in Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905), even successful surgeries can be battery without knowing consent. If she did sign a waiver covering the procedure, there remains the question of gross negligence. Was she fully informed after the surgery of the alleged mistake?

Source: NBC

I found this video on YouTube while trying to prove to Madie that our Goldendoodle comes from wild herds in forests outside of Paris.

The ruling can now be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it is likely to be first appealed to the full en banc court of appeals.

The three-judge panel is composed of Reinhardt, an appointee of former President Carter; Michael Daly Hawkins, an appointee of former President Clinton; and N. Randy Smith, appointed by former President George W. Bush. During oral argument, the questions appeared to favor those challenging Proposition 8. The panel, however, did raise procedural concerns.

Walker’s status as a gay man in a same-sex relationship became part of the appeal with Proposition 8 backers arguing that he had a potential conflict-of-interest. They insist that he did not properly reveal his relationship before declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional in August 2010. On April 6, 2011, Walker disclosed that he is gay and has been in a relationship with a male doctor for about ten years.

The panel held “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

The court notably found standing for the parties to sue — a major question in the case. Even in his partial dissent, Smith still agrees with the majority that the parties had standing and that the motion to vacate should be denied. However, he believes the law satisfied the rational basis test and should have been upheld.

I expect an en banc challenge in the case, particularly with a divided panel decision.

Both opinions are well-reasoned, though I agree with the majority. Reinhardt is viewed as one of the most liberal judges in the country and he seems an attractive foil for some of the conservative justices. Many have said that in the past these justices appeared to be gunning for the Ninth Circuit and particularly Reinhardt. Justices like Scalia are likely to favor cert in the case. However, it is to the advantage of the challengers to try their hand at the en banc first. There is always the danger that one of the four most reliable conservative justices might not want to take the risk of granting cert. As it stands, this is precedent controlling only in the Ninth Circuit.

The matter could not be more central to a nation built on both the rule of law and pluralistic values. If discriminatory views are enough to satisfy the rational basis test, a host of insular minorities would face majoritarian harassment and abuse. Quoting an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Moreno, the court ruled that “[j]ust as a ‘desire to harm . . . cannot While race and religion trigger strict scrutiny, sexual preference is not treated as a suspect classification for the purposes of the constitute a legitimate governmental interest,’ . . . neither can a more basic disapproval of a class of people.”

Here is the opinion: Prop 8 ruling

Source: LA Times

Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.

What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions. Yet, principles seem to be the first to go in this Administration when it is not politically convenient. What they have lost (beyond credibility) is a campaign issue. They could have run on the corporate influence on our political process. What is left is the cult of personality surrounding the President: it is not the principle, just the person.

Source: CNN

DeSantis also wanted factual references to Gingrich’s ethics charges removed. It seems that DeSantis does not believe Gingrich’s prior ethical violations would be relevant to people wanting to learn more about his background as he seeks the highest office in the land.

DeSantis made 60 adjustments to entries as well as the page of Gingrich’s wife, Callista. For example, DeSantis removed from Callista’s site that “She met her husband met while he was in the House, and had an affair while he was conducting the impeachment investigation for President Bill Clinton.”

One editor noted “I’ll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk.” Ironically, the elimination of references to things like Gingrich’s ethical violations is viewed as violating the site’s conflict of interest guideline that individuals should not edit “on behalf of clients,” or on subjects to which they have “close relationships” or “financial interest.”

They better be careful or the latest ethics controversy may be added to the Wikipedia page for Gingrich.

Source: CNN

Memphis police officer David Jensen, 34, was writing Donovan a ticket when he said the lawyer came out insisting that he had paid his past tickets. It then got ugly. The officer informed Donovan of a new policy to tow cars with unpaid tickets. While Donovan admitted that he had multiple tickets, he insisted that he paid the tickets. When Jensen checked on the tickets, he found that they were on a different vehicle. (Sounds like Donovan racks up tickets with astonishing regularity). When Jensen arranged for Donovan’s gray, 2008 Dodge Charger to be towed, he says that Donovan jumped in the Charger, refusing to get out. The officer says that Donovan was told not to leave. Donovan however started the car and drove off “hitting the officer in his left arm with the driver’s side door.”

The facts seem quite bad for Donovan. However, the endangerment claim sounds like it is based on a pretty minor touching. It is a close question depending on where the officer was. It could place the officer in danger.

The Tennessee law (TCA 39-13-103) on reckless endangerment requires a recklessly act that places someone in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. It can be punishable by up to one year in jail and fines.

However, if the reckless endangerment occurs with a deadly weapon, the charge is elevated to a Class E felony which carries a potential sentence of 1-6 years. Below the elements suggests more than a touching or brushing of an individual.

However, while Donovan should not have driven away, more facts are needed to make the endangerment claim credible in my view.

Here is the statute:

T.P.I.– CRIM. 6.03

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

Any person who commits the offense of reckless endangerment is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant engaged in conduct which placed or might have placed another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; and

(2) that the defendant acted recklessly; [and]

[(3) that the offense was committed with a deadly weapon.]

“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death; protracted unconsciousness; extreme physical pain; protracted or obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.

“Recklessly” means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

The requirement of “recklessly” is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly.

“Intentionally” means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is the person’s conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.5

“Knowingly” means that a person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person’s conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.6

["Deadly weapon" means a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.]

Source: Commercial Appeal as first seen on ABA Journal

The Post notes one U.S. Senator pushed through more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building while a Georgia congressman grabbed $6.3 million in taxpayer funds “to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage.”

I have previously written (here and here) about the sordid ethical rules and procedures in Congress, including the lack of serious conflict of interest rules. This is due to how the ethics rules are written by the members themselves to allow for such self-advancing bills.

Source: Washington Post

In an interview with the ABC affiliate in Harrisburg, McFadden was objecting to the lack of school vouchers in Pennsylvania and the lack of choice for many parents: “In the totalitarian government, they would love our system,” McFadden said. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.” The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the statement and said “he should not be making his point at the expense of the memory of six million Jews and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust.”

I understand the sensitivity to such a comparison, but I do not think that the Bishop was referring to the Holocaust. People should be able to make comparisons to aspects of prior totalitarian regimes without fear of being call insensitive to the Holocaust. The Nazi regime was a worldwide tragedy with many aspects and precursors that are the subject of historical and political discourse.

Where McFadden is wrong is that the comparison is wildly misplaced. First, Hitler was raised by a devout Catholic mother and many Nazis were taught in religious schools. Indeed, the Vatican was criticized by some for not doing more to confront the Nazi regime. Second, the fascists sought to use schools to indoctrinate children to accept narrow values to the exclusion of other values and the objectification of other people. American public schools do the opposite. They are motivated by pluralistic principles to help shape citizens who are tolerant and well-rounded. They are the antithesis of what fascists want from education.

Finally, this is about vouchers and whether the people of Pennsylvania should subsidize alternative schools, such as Catholic schools. With the church experiencing severe shortfalls in attendance and donations, they need more from the state more than ever. However, there are very good reasons for opposition to vouchers. I attended Catholic schools for part of my earlier education and I am very thankful for the education that I received in those schools. However, Leslie and I are committed to the model of public education. While we can afford a private education, we have kept our children in public schools where they are taught in a more diverse class. I have long been an advocate for public education, particularly in the elementary and middle school levels, as a critical part of shaping good citizens. While I have often been critical of the curriculum particularly on civics, I believe that the public schools have always been the key to maintaining a citizenry that is educated and tolerant.

The comparison to Hitler and Mussolini reflects less disrespect on the part of Bishop McFadden than it does a lack of understanding of the fascistic agenda on education: dogma and exclusionary learning. While I believe Catholic schools are excellent choices for learning, it is outrageous to compare fascistic systems to our public schools. Hitler and Mussolini would find our current curriculum in public schools to be a threat to their type of indoctrination model for children.

Source: ABC

Rove lashed out at the commercial yesterday: “I was, frankly, offended by it. I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

I can hardly improve on that statement, so I won’t.

Rove however may have gotten lost in the excitement. I suggest he watch this clip before giving another interview:

There are many good-faith reasons for such measures to be criticized, including the encroachment of federal authority on state rights. For many years, there have been objections over the practice of Congress collecting taxes with the sole purposes of returning the money to the states with federal mandates or conditions. The Supreme Court has upheld the practice while preserving a very limited (and unused) exception in extreme cases. I have previously testified against the expansion of these federal bills with conditional funds. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act contains $493 million for federal highway safety grants.

However, this law does not deny highway or transportation funds to states unwilling to pass the laws. It simply offers $25 million per year to states that require the devices to be installed for anyone convicted of driving under the influence — even first-time offenders.

This should be the last group to be arguing against drunk driving provisions. The group representing more than 8,000 U.S. restaurants insists that these laws do not distinguish between cases of high and low alcohol levels. As such, they argue, the law denies judges to make tailored sentences.

Fifteen states require all convicted drunk drivers to use ignition interlocks and studies show a sharp decline in drunk driving deaths, with Oregon and Arizona experiencing a fall of 52 and 51 percent, respectively. I am not sure of the cause and effect but it would seem that such laws would have an obvious impact on drunk driving. I actually do favor giving judges more discretion in such matters. However, the ABI shows little judgment in ignoring its obvious conflict of interest in such matters while publicly campaigning against the measures. It leaves the impression of bars and restaurants working to ensure that drunk drivers will be able to return to their establishments. The optics are perfectly horrible and it is hard to see why these 8000 businesses pay to create such a public relations disaster.

Yet, the ABI has previously fought these measures despite the bad press. Like many industry groups, there is little fear that customers will blame individual members for the actions of their lobbyists or think tanks — particularly when there are over 8000 of them.

Source: Fox News

Malekpour was reportedly tortured into signing a series of statements, but the evidence against him is laughable. What is not laughable is the campaign against free speech being waged by Islamic systems — a battle where the Western nations appear absent without leave (here and here).

Source: Globe and Mail

The flier states “Communism stands for equal sharing of the work according to the benefits and the ability, but in capitalism an individual is responsible for his works and if he wants to raise the ladder. While the profit of any enterprise is equally shared by all in Communism, the profit in the capitalist structure belongs to the owner only.” That is clearly a distorted view and would be a serious problem if offered as a true account in the history class. Travis for example was shocked by the depiction on a personal level: “I took great offense. I don’t smoke big stogies. I don’t have a big gut. My employees are not shackled. If this was a fair representation, where is the fence around the workers on the communist side? Where is the guy holding a gun to their heads saying either comply or die? Where are the bodies that Stalin and Mao put in the graves.”

However, in a posted statement, the school is saying that the flier is indeed propaganda and was distributed as an example of such historical depictions:

“[T]he class, 20th Century History, was studying the Cold War and propaganda, looking at some of the arguments both sides made about why their system was best on a range of topics, including their economies. The handout simply highlights the differences between capitalism and communism, and some of the arguments made during the period of the Cold War.”

Here is the actual lesson plan and material that encourages students to think critically of such material. Yet various conservative sites are not accepting that rational for the distribution of such material.

Academic freedom is more often discussed in college and graduate schools but it is also necessary in high schools. Teachers must be given some sense of freedom in challenging the preconceptions and perceptions of students. The materials discuss how capitalism is based on a concept of individual rights transcending society and government. While I would have modified the material to point out other sharp differences, including the political aspects of the economic system in Communist countries, such issues may also have been addressed more fully in class. My concern is over a lesson plan and material that is being attacked in such a public way without greater consideration of the intent of the teacher and actual class discussion.

What do you think?

Source: Examiner as first seen on Reddit.

When she made partner, Kreindler & Kreindler proclaimed:

Dr. Friery is one of only an estimated 2,500 medical doctor/attorneys in the nation, of which less than 100 are representing the rights of victims and their families at plaintiff law firms. Over the last 17 years Dr. Friery has brought her combined legal and medical expertise and skills to bear on hundreds of death and injury cases handled by Kreindler, the nation’s preeminent aviation law firm.

The opinion notes that Friery repeatedly used her claim of a medical license in a variety of professional contexts:

During her tenure at the firm, the respondent made or countenanced false representations as to her credentials, including but not limited to the following particulars:
a) The respondent’s name appeared as “M.D.” or “Dr.” on the firm’s letterhead, business cards, notices of appearance, legal memorandum and other documents filed in numerous courts;
b) On divers times, the respondent was professionally addressed, introduced as, and introduced herself, both orally and in writing, to clients, colleagues, stenographers, firm employees, opposing counsel, medical providers and others as, “Dr. Friery” or as a medical doctor or as a physician;
c) The respondent held herself out to bar associations, bar association committees, and other professional groups as a doctor or physician; and
d) The respondent presented at and attended CLE trial lawyer association seminars and meetings in which she falsely represented that she had graduated from medical school and was a medical doctor.

That claims gave her heightened credibility in her practice and her public work. She was even later selected as Massachusetts’ most beautiful lawyer, which included this description (and a picture that shows that she is as flexible as her résumé):

Susan, a medical consultant and senior associate for Kreindler & Kreindler, handles a variety of mass disaster, personal injury, and medical malpractice litigation. She has worked on hundreds of 9/11 World Trade Center cases, as well as on the settlement for the Pan Am Lockerbie terrorist plan bombing.

Susan loves yoga and volunteers at charities such as Habitat for Humanity.

Friery did take courses in pathology at SUNY Buffalo School of Medicine and worked as a morgue technician, but never graduated from the program. Yet, she claimed to have finished in the top 1 percent of her class at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. She started work as a paralegal at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, which paid 75% of her tuition to go to New York Law School. She was then hired as an associate and later a partner. It would be interesting to see if she claimed the medical degree with the law school.

What is fascinating is that it is a crime to practice medicine without a license. However, this is not a form of practicing medicine so there appears no criminal charge. Yet, there could be a claim of fraud in holding oneself out to clients as a doctor — a claim that could be viewed as implied as justification for the higher partner rates. Yet, the Massachusetts panel helped her a great deal legally with the following finding:

There is no indication that the respondent’s misrepresentations had any adverse effect on the quality of the respondent’s work on behalf of the firm and its clients, or that such misrepresentations caused any harm to the firm or its clients. Many of the misrepresentations made or repeated by colleagues or staff as to respondent’s credentials were made without the respondent’s direct participation, although she was generally aware that they were being made. In addition, many of the misrepresentations were made in a context in which they were not material to any specific pending decision or action by a client, adversary or tribunal.

This is truly sad case for everyone involved.

However, there were some very strong contenders. I particularly liked the Chevy Mayan Apocalypse commercial. It appears however that the Ford people were not laughing, particularly their legal staff.

My kids and I also loved the Vampires commercial from Audi (which would round out our top three):

Update:  I missed the halftime commercial Eastwood (Yes, I went to participate in the halftime “Big Flush”).  I just saw it and really liked it:

What do you think?

So, let’s hear the predictions before 6:30.

I will return to the preparation of the Superbowl snacks while Leslie is making Sliders.

Have fun everyone and good luck to both teams . . . and their fans.

Possible nuclear weapons capability, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, a threat to Israel, economic sanctions, fears of links to al Qaeda, and a compliant news media. Sounds like the hype leading up to war with Iraq, but this time it’s Iran.

Israel has been threatening to strike Iran’s nuclear enrichment plants unilaterally. Obama dispatched General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to tell the Israelis that the US wouldn’t participate in a war against Iran begun by Israel unless Washington had given its prior agreement.

On the map on the left, each star indicates the location of a US airbase.

The fear mongering about Iran building nuclear weapons may not work this time. From McClatchy, “The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Iran’s covert nuclear weapons work remains suspended for now, but could be restarted if the Iranian regime decides to do so.” Bloomberg is reporting that Gill Tudor, spokesman for the IAEA, said “All nuclear material in the [Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plant] remains under the agency’s containment and surveillance.” According to the AP, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran “is not yet building a bomb.”

The Wall Street Journal is playing up some new freedoms given to five “top” al Qaeda operative who have been under house arrest in Iran. The trouble is that al Qaeda just doesn’t generate the same fear it once did. The Washington Post is pushing the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by a used-car salesman with a conviction of passing bad checks as an indication that Iranian terrorists are operating inside the US. Of course the Washington Post would not consider the assassination of Iranian scientists, by either Israeli or US operatives, as an act of terrorism.

It also appears that intelligence analysts are not going to be pushed around this time. A retired senior intelligence officer said “the guys working on this are good analysts, and their bosses are backing them up.” A Defense Intelligence Agency analyst summed it up by saying “if Iran is not a nuclear threat, then the Israelis have no reason to threaten imminent military action.”

The logic of using economic sanctions to force Iran to stop a nuclear-weapons program that does not exist eludes me. The real reason for sanctions appears to cause, illegally, the collapse of the current Iranian regime. Such was the initial report from the Washington Post before a sharp sequence of phone calls compelled a “revision” to the article.

I’m the last person who wants to see anyone live under religious tyrants, but these wars seldom help those who need it the most.

H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Juan Cole, IPS News, Seymour M. Hersh, Hamid Serri, Juan Cole.

Today we present Barry McGuire in glorious STEREO!

Last Sunday, most U.S. Catholics heard a letter read from the pulpit imploring them to oppose the Obamacare provision requiring most healthcare plans to cover contraceptive services for women. The reason given was that Catholic hospitals and universities would have to “shutter their doors”  in order to avoid heresy and be true to the faith. As part of the concerted effort, the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty announced that the Obama administration’s requirement goes against “the mandate of Jesus Christ.”  Even though the earthly mandate contains an exemption for purely religious organizations, the all-male U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is clearly on the offensive in this politically charged debate about women, privacy, and the right of families to decide for themselves the number of children they can support.

Since the 1930s, most denominations have left the issue of contraception up to the conscience of the parishioners. The Catholic Church has stood virtually alone since 1951 by requiring its adherents to use only the “rhythm method” as a means to prevent pregnancy.  All other forms of contraception were deemed an interference in God’s Plan and hence heretical.  In the early 1960s with the reforms of Vatican II in full swing, the Pope appointed a 90 person committee to evaluate the Church’s position on contraception. 75 of the 90 recommended the Church allow contraception by means other than the rhythm method.

Disregarding the recommendation, Pope Paul VI issued his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s solitary position. The Pope reasoned that, “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”  The Pope then waxed philosophic about the danger of government mandated contraception akin to that seen in China:

Careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.

That textual cudgel has now been taken up against Obamacare.  Catholic apologists like Jennifer Brinker in the St. Louis Review have argued that the Pope was right and the government is now in the business of  pushing contraception for political reasons. Brinker even argues ironically that the mandate is a “dissolution of freedom.” Brinker reminds Catholics that disapproved contraception is a “sin” and that most Catholics don’t understand the reason for the ban.

What do Catholic women think about the Church’s unyielding stand on artificial birth control? In April of  last year, Reuters reported that a Guttmacher Institute poll showed that 98% of sexually active U.S. Catholic women used contraception methods outside of the Church’s teachings.  The numbers held up for women who regularly attended Catholic services as well as those who didn’t. In fact, the findings showed American Catholic women were just as likely to use artificial contraception as those in other denominations.

“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” said the report’s lead author Rachel Jones.  Catholics overwhelmingly rely on the most common methods of birth control. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.

What then are we to make of the schism between Church’s dogma and the reality of its followers?  Are 98% of the Church’s women sinners and heretics? Can a religion be viable if one of its fundamental tenets is  ignored on a daily basis by almost all of its “faithful”?  Can a male dominated authority maintain credibility in the modern world when it dictates to women on issues that are overwhelmingly that gender’s concern?

These questions do not seem to be troubling Church fathers.  In fact, they appear to be looking for a testosterone fueled showdown. As one recently said, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” They may do well to look over their shoulders as they climb up that political hill, theological banners flying. A cursory view of their ranks will likely find few honest Americans and almost no honest women.

Source: CNN

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger

Last September, the EPA released a statement about its plan to ban the sale of “the most toxic rat and mouse poisons and “rodenticide products that use loose bait and pellets.” Its reason for doing so was “to better protect children, pets, and wildlife.” The EPA had previously announced in 2008 that “rodenticide manufacturers would have three years to adopt limits on the sale of the products” after the agency had gone through “thirteen years of studies, hearings, reports and legal battles.”

According to PRWatch, the EPA became aware that rodenticides “were finding their way into the food chain” by the early 1980s. Poison control centers in this country had been receiving 12,000 to 15,000 calls annually regarding the exposure of children under the age of six to rat poison.

From PRWatch:

In 1998, the Clinton administration’s EPA deemed that rodenticides had to taste bitter, so kids wouldn’t eat the products, and be colored with a bright dye, so it would be obvious if they did. The EPA backed down from these requirements in 2001 after George W. Bush took office and made the measures “voluntary,” reportedly due to industry pressure.

After seeing no drop in the number of children being poisoned by rodenticides, in 2004 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit to force the EPA to take action, and a New York district court criticized the agency for reversing itself and caving to pesticide manufacturers. The court wrote, “the EPA lacked even the proverbial ‘scintilla’ of evidence justifying its reversal of the requirement it had imposed, after extensive study, only a few years before.” In response, the EPA took steps to regulate the products. Those rules were intended to go into effect this year, but were delayed by the resistance of Reckitt Benckiser and two other rodenticide manufacturers, Liphatech and Spectrum Group.

The EPA estimates that the unreported child exposure rate may be four times as high as the 12,000-15,000 calls to poison control centers each year, and some believe the number to be ten times as high. Poisoned young children can experience internal bleeding, bloody urine, bleeding gums, and blood coming from their ears. African-American and Hispanic children living below the poverty line have been disproportionately affected. A New York study found that 57 percent of children hospitalized for eating rat poison between 1990 and 1997 were African-American and 26 percent were Latino.

Known as anti-coagulants, the chemicals in the rodenticides prevent blood from clotting or coagulating. In addition to the ill-effects of rodenticides on young children mentioned above, poisoned children can suffer coma, anemia, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, and bloody stools. For decades, many thousands of young children have become ill “after touching or ingesting rat poison that was applied ‘loose,’ in pellet form.” According to MSNBC, the EPA reported that rat poisons “are, by far, the leading cause of (pesticide-related) visits to health care facilities in children under the age of 6 and the second leading cause of hospitalization.”

The poisons have also had deleterious effects on wildlife.  Wild animals—including bald eagles and bobcats— “have been found dead with lethal levels of a super-toxic rodenticide in their systems.”

One would have hoped that the three manufacturers of rodenticides who have delayed implementation of the new EPA regulations, would be terribly concerned about the ill-effects that their products have had on both children and animals…and maybe have felt a responsibility to comply with the new requirements. Reckitt Benckiser, the maker of d-CON®, doesn’t appear concerned at all. The company, a member of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), filed suit in federal court to prevent EPA’s new rules from going into effect. Reckitt Benckiser claims the restrictions on use of rat poisons would probably lead to “potentially significant public health consequences.” Todd M. Wynn, the director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force spoke out in defense of the companies who have not complied. He said, “There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society.”

Aaron Colangelo, who is an attorney for the NRDC, said, “It is outrageous to say it is ‘acceptable’ for tens of thousands of kids to get poisoned each year.” He told the Center for Media and Democracy that “there is not an undue economic burden associated with reformulating these products.”  Colangelo pointed out that the rest of the industry had complied with the new rules without adverse economic impact and that “the health care costs for treating these kids certainly outweigh the economic costs of reformulation.” He added, “Kids find it everywhere. Outside their apartment complex, or in public parks, or in schools, or in public housing. Little kids will put anything in their mouth.”

Colangelo thinks it disgraceful that “a few ‘hold-out bad actors from the chemical industry’ are further delaying EPA regulation of the rodenticides, despite decades of evidence of harm.” Said Colangelo, “It should not take this long to do something simple like protect toddlers from rat poisoning.”

AFTERWARD

From ThinkProgress:

 For years, ALEC has successfully killed these kind of regulations on environmental toxins and pollutants on behalf of corporations. At their annual conference in New Orleans this year, ALEC distributed a pamphlet titled “The Many Benefits Of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment,” complete with pictures depicting happy wildlife and a healthy environment. Companies like Koch Industries, BP, WalMart, and others join forces to fund this little-known organization that works behind the scenes to fight the dirty battles that no corporation would want to be publicly associated with.

SOURCES

Pesticide News Story: EPA Seeks Independent Scientific Review on Banning Certain Mouse and Rat Poisons (EPA)

Cancellation Process for Certain Rodenticide Products (EPA)

Kids Eating Rat Poison Is an “Acceptable Risk” for ALEC (PRWatch/Center for Media and Democracy)

ALEC Deems Kids Eating Rat Poison An ‘Acceptable Risk’ (ThinkProgress)

to ALEC – Your Safety is a Non-Issue (Daily Kos)

Corporate Education Reform and ALEC’s Definition of Acceptable Risk (Huffington Post)

On the News With Thom Hartmann: President Obama Denounces “Trickle-Down Economics,” and More (Truth-Out)

Decades on, EPA on verge of curbing use of rat poisons: Activists hope new rules will slash number of U.S. kids being sickened each year   (MSNBC)

FYI

The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA (Turley Blawg)

Smart ALEC: The Organization That May Be Helping Corporations Write Legislation for Your State (Turley Blawg)

 The bible of psychiatric/psychological diagnosis is the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)” published by the American Psychiatric Association. What it does is provide a standardization of diagnostic criteria, which allows Mental Health professionals to communicate with one another in a clearly defined set of common understandings.

 “It is used in the United States of America and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and policy makers. The DSM is a legitimating document and provides legal, medical, and ethical justification for physicians to diagnose and treat, judges to incarcerate and excuse, insurance companies to pay.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

First published in 1952 the DSM has undergone five revisions since then. The latest revision will be the DSM V, scheduled for a May 2013 publication. The last major revision in 1994 was called naturally the DSM IV. There are many problems with the DSM.  Since this Manual is so important to the treatment for those suffering and recompense for those who profit from psychiatric/psychological needs, this is an issue that needs greater public awareness. I think is most pertinent to look at the underlying issues entailed in the DSM’s new iteration and how it affects us, or those we know. To do so, however, we must look at the problems with the DSM, from a psychological, systemic and economic perspective.

The first critical issue is that no health insurance company, Medicare and/or Medicaid will pay for psychological and/or psychiatric treatment and medication, without a professionally certified diagnostician categorizing the patient with a valid DSM diagnostic code. Thus the DSM’s definitions have critical importance to practitioners, provider agencies, drug companies and health insurance providers. I retired from the Mental Health profession seven years ago and other things have held my interest. However, l I caught a NY Times article, posted at the MSNBC website last week and it brought to mind issues that had bothered me during my career, specifically with the DSM.

The NY Times article titled: “Grief Could Join List of Disorders” was by Benedict Carey. Its title refers to an ongoing controversy about adding grief (in the case of the death of a loved one for instance) as a category of Depressive Disorder. The word has gotten around the psychological community about this change and the result has been a back and forth of angry claims by professionals on both sides of the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/health/depressions-criteria-may-be-changed-to-include-grieving.html

On one hand:

“In a bitter skirmish over the definition of depression, a new report contends that a proposed change to the diagnosis would characterize grieving as a disorder and greatly increase the number of people treated for it. The new report, by psychiatric researchers from Columbia and New York Universities, argues that the current definition of depression — which excludes bereavement, the usual grieving after the loss of a loved one — is far more accurate. If the “bereavement exclusion” is eliminated, they say, “there is the potential for considerable false-positive diagnosis and unnecessary treatment of grief-stricken persons.” Drugs for depression can have side effects, including low sex drive and sleeping problems.”

That represents the side of this issue that believes the definitions of clinical depression should remain the same and feels adding grief to it will have far more negative than positive effects. There is the other side of course which thus far seems to be prevailing and:

“… experts who support the new definition say sometimes grieving people need help. “Depression can and does occur in the wake of bereavement, it can be severe and debilitating, and calling it by any other name is doing a disservice to people who may require more careful attention,” said Dr. Sidney Zisook, a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Diego.”

With a little research into Dr. Zisook I found this piece of information in a Psychiatrist.com article called “Bupropion Sustained Release for Bereavement: Results of an Open Trial” by Dr. Zisook:

“Financial disclosure: Dr. Zisook is a consultant for Glaxo Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; has received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; has received honoraria from Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and is on the speakers bureau for Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals.”           http://www.psychiatrist.com/abstracts/200104/040101.htm

With my own full disclosure let me state that I know nothing of Dr. Zisook’s work other then what I am quoting above. He may well be a wonderful clinician admired by all and other than these quotes; I have no knowledge of his behavior. However, when I see any researcher, whose research is sponsored by drug companies and is on their speaker’s bureau, I must admit that my suspicions are aroused. The final six years of my career were spent creating and running programs for people with severe mental disorders, who were co-diagnosed as drug addicts. I saw the unnecessary use of psychiatric drugs as much as I saw their benefits. Too often the drugs were palliatives that avoided treatment and hamstrung the patients with noxious side effects from ever changing experimental cocktails. I have also seen wondrous breakthroughs in patients via use of medication, but not enough to convince me that they were completely the salvation of my profession.

To put it bluntly, I am appalled at the attempt to turn grief into a psychiatric disorder, even as I am aware from my own personal experience how devastating grief can be. In my own life I was engaged in a prolonged grieving for my parents, who died when I was on the cusp of manhood. To me, to be human is to have to come to terms with grief in one’s life. We are mortal beings. Illness, disease, violence and accidents strike us all with many dying far before their time. Our organisms have evolved internal mechanisms to deal with grief, simply because it is unavoidable. Turning a normal human experience into a Mental Disorder seems to me to be the work of people who have seen much, but yet understood little. It also can be the development of a new cohort of consumers of psychiatric pharmacology, a profit center if you will. Is it cynical of me to wonder if the estimable Dr. Zisook is perhaps unconsciously motivated by his own self-interest? I don’t doubt that he sincerely believes in the medications he peddles, but I wonder if that belief is unconsciously informed by the need to remain in the good graces of his benefactors. The NY Times article shows that I am not a lone voice howling to the wind, but actually a latecomer to this debate, a minor player only by dint of this blog:

“Many doctors and therapists approve of efforts to eliminate vague, catch-all diagnostic labels like “eating disorder-not otherwise specified” and “pervasive development disorder-not otherwise specified,” which is related to autism. But a swarm of critics, including two psychiatrists who oversaw revisions of earlier editions, has descended on many other proposals.

“What I worry about most is that the revisions will medicalize normality and that millions of people will get psychiatric labels unnecessarily,” said Dr. Allen Frances, who was chairman of the task force that revised the last edition.

Dr. Frances, now an emeritus professor at Duke University, has been criticizing the current process relentlessly in blog posts and e-mails. Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who oversaw revision of the third manual in 1980, has also voiced concerns, as have the American Counseling Association, the British Psychological Society and a division of the American Psychological Association. Some of the concerns have to do with important technical matters, like the statistical reliability of diagnostic questionnaires. Others are focused on proposed changes to the most familiar diagnoses.”

There are those who will say, at times with merit, that pharmaceutical companies act only to provide substantive relief to humans in distress. This is no doubt true in some instances, but then there are drugs like Paxil (Paroxetine) which has been found to increase suicidal tendencies in teens, addiction in the form of dangerous withdrawal symptoms and other problems. Yet at the time I retired it was widely used by my patients, via Psychiatrist’s prescription and I knew of a few instances of very negative consequences. This Wikipedia article may give you a fair idea as to why this widely prescribed medication is highly controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine  Paxil, nevertheless is a highly profitable drug and so its producers are quite hesitant to shut down the “cash cow” even if the results are dubious. It must be understood of course that Paxil cannot be prescribed without a DSM diagnosis code and so its producers have a financial interest in this esteemed manual.

“Paroxetine [Paxil] is used to treat major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety, Posttraumatic stress disorder and generalized anxiety disorder^[1] in adult outpatients. Marketing of the drug began in 1992 by the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline.”

Please note above that Dr. Zisook is a consultant for the Drug Companies that introduced Paxil. Also note that it is no longer used for teens and younger children due to the increased effect it has on suicidal ideation. However, if this new revision of the DSM is issued, with the inclusion of grief folded into depression, perhaps the teen market will be replaced by another market. Also note about Paxil”

“In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration requires this drug to carry a black box warning, its “most serious type of warning in prescription drug labeling,”^[28] due to increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior.”

Now just supposing we have someone grieving for a loved one, finding it hard to cope. The person goes to a Psychotherapist seeking relief from this burden. In order for the Psychotherapist to get paid they need a DSM Diagnostic Code for the patient and with the revised DSM V the psychologist categorizes this person as being in a depressed state. Most Psychotherapists today have a Psychiatrist they work with. The depressed patient is sent to the Psychiatrist for an evaluation  and in order to get paid the Psychiatrist will generally use the diagosis already agreed upon. Seeing the patient in distress and that distress is defined as Depression, the Psychiatrist prescribes Paxil. This patient just happens to be, and there is no way to wean this out, one of those people in which Paxil produces suicidal ideation and in a disastrous confluence the patient kills themself. Since the Jonathan Turley Blog is primarily a legal blog you can follow this link for information about Paxil side effects lawsuits, which seem to have had some litigation success and perhaps ponder the Tort liability issues entailed. http://www.paxillawsuitsinfo.com/paxil-lawsuit-information-and-overview.php

My experience in Mental Health though, has made me rather cynical about the accuracy of many mental health diagnoses. Certain diagnoses, depending on the era, become popular among Mental Health professionals and thus they are given to a higher number of patients. Put another way, many mental health professionals project onto their patient’s symptoms, disorders that are au currant. Many of the diagnostic fads are pushed by Mental Health professionals who have staked a claim on a particular diagnosis. Perhaps they have written a book, or a paper, showing their success with a particular treatment regimen. In many cases their treatments and studies have been underwritten by Drug Companies.  I believe that the pressure that Corporations face to ever increase profits, lest their share price goes down, produces a response to push more and more drugs onto people by finding new problems to treat and/or expanding the amount of patients who have a diagnosis treatable with the drugs they produce. This is true of the huge industry that is Mental Health and the monetary stakes are such that in this case “better living through chemistry” doesn’t apply to plastics.

My experiences with the various iterations of DSM’s are that they are not precise diagnostic tools, but only work as a kind of descriptive shorthand between MH professionals. A common thought among those trained to use these manuals is that when you first start to read them, you will think you have every psychiatric condition in the book. This is based firmly in truth. These are imprecise definitions, agreed upon through a quasi-political process, often not grounded in persuasive data, which are influenced by economic and political considerations. Again from the NY Times article:

“Under the current criteria, a depression diagnosis requires that a person have five of nine symptoms — which include sleeping problems, a feeling of worthlessness and a loss of concentration — for two weeks or more. The criteria make an explicit exception for normal grieving, which can look like depression. “

When I talk of imprecise definitions think about the ones iterated in the quote above, which are three of the five needed for a diagnosis of Depression. Having been there, I know that the loss of loved ones would cause someone at least two weeks of sleeping problems, one might well feel worthless because they couldn’t save their loved one and certainly their concentration would be shaky. My training as a Psychotherapist and per the DSM, taught me the period of recovery from grief should normally take about six months in an average human. A normal person never ceases to feel the pain of their loss, but usually after six months they have come to terms with the fact that their loved one will never return, which will nevertheless pain them for the rest of their lives. Redefine grief and then send those with a loss to a Psychiatrist after two weeks and I’m positive that medications will be prescribed in nine out of ten times. To me this redefinition is reeking of increased profits for the Drug Companies and also an increased patient load for the Mental Health Community, increasing their profits as well.

To my mind and in my personal experience, almost every human feeling grief would have at least five of the nine symptoms. The question is does grief need to be treated by a Mental Health professional, or is it a part of life that we all must face? I believe most of us have, or can develop the capabilities within to cope with our loss and move on in our lives. I understand that for some it might be unbearable to the extent that help is needed and I believe when that occurs they should get that help. I contend, however, that by incorporating grief into the diagnostic structure of depression, many people would be pushed into treatment and medication for a problem they can deal with via support of loved ones and their own internal strengths. It is perhaps my cynical nature that thinks the impetus behind this redefinition of grief, is patients and profits. This seems logically true because if you look again at the nine diagnostic criteria for Major Depression, any clinician if necessary, can now use current diagnostic code for Major Depressive Disorder to insure their payment and any medication’s drug coverage. If this is the case, why change it?

The Mental Health System in our country and indeed the world is truly much less scientific than laymen believe. There is excellent knowledge that has already been developed in the study of the human mind and its processes, but like other fields of endeavor our knowledge is incomplete and flawed by the self interest of some in the field. In the area of the human condition we call grief; I can guarantee that every human being will be touched by the chill of its emptiness. As mortal beings this horrible feeling is inescapable and yet for most of us we learn to go on and perhaps grow in some way from the experience. To my mind a battle is being fought over grief, out of sight of the public, to take an intrinsic aspect of the human condition and find a way to profit from it. So what else is new?

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

For your listening enjoyment, we present The Beatles in glorious STEREO!

Judge Waddoups wrote:

“The entirety of actions by the Utah County prosecutors tend to show either an ill-conceived public-relations campaign to showboat their own authority and/or harass the Browns and the polygamist community at large, or to assure the public that they intended to carry out their public obligations and prosecute violations of the law. Without any evidence to the contrary, the court assumes that these are consummate professionals making announcements of criminal investigations to apprise the public that they are doing their duty and seeking to enforce the law.”

The court did grant dismissal of the state governor and attorney general as parties because the Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Buhman is the relevant government official for the purposes of the challenge. We sued all three officials, but the dismissal of the two other parties will not affect the arguments in the case.

Since I am lead counsel in the case, I must remain somewhat circumspect in what I can say publicly. I have informed the Brown family of the decision. They are both deeply thankful to the Court and appreciative of the opportunity to present their case against this statute. The state has long insisted that this law is constitutional and that it may criminalize consensual private conduct between adults. It will now have the opportunity to make that case to the Court. We remain confident that this law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and we are eager to reach merits in the case.

I also want to recognize and thank our esteemed local counsel (and my former student) in this case, Adam Alba.

Here is the decision: Memorandum & Order-Sister Wives

Here is the complaint filed in the case: Brown Complaint

In speaking before the Colorado Christian University, Santorum referred to the sirens of disaster and warned “Go back and read what the sirens did once you arrived on that island. They devour you. They destroy you. They consume you.” In other words, if you want to avoid being devoured, vote Santorum.

The problem is that the description by Homer would appear to give an edge to Gingrich in his experience dealing with three sirens:

“He will not see his lady nor his children
in joy, crowding about him, home from sea;
the Sirens will sing his mind away
on their sweet meadow lolling”

Fortunately, with his other call to “Just Say No To Education,” it is doubtful that anyone would be in a position to challenge the reference. Indeed, Santorum appears to be fashioning himself as Odysseus who notably stuffed his followers ears with beeswax. That fits.

That frees the faithful to act on the warning: “Ladies and gentleman we cannot listen to the siren song. We cannot listen to President Obama and we can’t listen to those in our party who want to be just a little bit less than what the Democrats and the left is doing to our country.”

Source: CBS

Here is her statement:

I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children. I allowed myself a period of civic complacency, for a short time I unplugged myself from media reports from Slovenia, I took a break from Avaaz and its inflation of petitions, quite simply I allowed myself a rest. In my defence, I want to add that I very much needed this rest and that I am still having trouble gaining enough energy for the upcoming dragon year. At the same time, I am tackling a workload that increased, not lessened, with the advent of the current year. All in line with a motto that has become familiar to us all, likely not only diplomats: less for more. Less money and fewer people for more work. And then you overlook the significance of what you are signing. And you wake up the following morning with the weight of the unbearable lightness of some signature.

First I apologised to my children. Then I tried to reply to those acquaintances and strangers who expressed their surprise and horror. Because there are more and more of them, I am responding to them publicly. I want to apologise because I carried out my official duty, but not my civic duty. I don’t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats.

She has called for protests against ACTA and joining the growing number of people demanding action to protect free speech. To her credit, as opposed to most politicians, she had the courage to admit her mistake and call for the protection of Internet free speech.

Source: Boing Boing

Frankly, I am not sure the police officers spotted the image, but it is now being removed from cruisers with about 30 vehicles that have already been changed.

It may be a bit easier to spot on the 16-inch door decals and there is an investigation afoot. I am not sure what would happen to the inmates. While they could allege destruction of property, it would be a rather novel charge since the inmates created the property in the form of the design. They could, however, cite the costs to the vehicles which will now have to be stripped of the decals. The other provisions of the Vermont criminal code do not appear to fit this criminal Rorschach exercise. Of course, the inmates would clearly face correctional charges and loss of privileges.

Answer: look at the spots on the cow.

Source: Boston