DOC Hosts Nasty Bathroom

The Huntsville Times reports that a woman was denied a clean environment to breast feed her baby at the Limestone Correctional Facility. The woman complained because the restroom she was directed to use was "nasty". 

During her most recent visit, July 14, when the guard told her to go into the restroom, [mother Latosha] McKenzie said she asked the guard if he would eat his lunch in the bathroom.

She said the guard told her that he would not eat in there, but that it was her only choice.

"The guard said, 'You wouldn't go into Hardee's or McDonald's to nurse your child, would you?' And I told him, 'Yes, I'll go anywhere and nurse my child,' " McKenzie said. "I was really humiliated and devastated."

Prison officials indicated that breast feeding outside of a restroom may be a public safety issue, although they had allegedly provided the woman involved an empty room on previous visits.

 

I'm wondering why the prison bathroom was "nasty" in the first place. And why, if it was "nasty", prison officials were being hardheaded about the mother's request.  If nothing else, why didn't they just clean the restroom?

 

Maybe when the Department of Corrections sells off some of its unneeded land, they can use the proceeds to buy some Pine Sol... and a conscience.

Is this really a crime?

I don't know if the news article has provided the complete context, but I wonder if this should really be a crime.

Now This is Interesting

Check out this article about strange things found in passenger luggage - items that could arguably resemble improvised explosive devices.

Name that Speaker

Who said this?

"We're not trying to get anything that we don't got."

Joe Reed, the supposedly esteemed Alabama State University educator and leader in the Alabama Education Association.

 

From the Montgomery Advertiser.

Montgomery's Most Wanted

I found out tonight that the Montgomery Police Department has a posting on its web site of Montgomery's "most wanted" perps .

 

I was surprised to see that in a city of Montgomery's size that there are only 4 "most wanted" on the loose. (The report shows six, but two have been captured.) Given all the hype about Hispanics moving into Montgomery - and given the hype about racial politics in this city - I was surprised to see that all the most wanted perps are black.

Alabama State: Let them Stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

Alabama State University is having a hard time getting some dorms renovated, according this article in the Montgomery Advertiser.  It seems the school has spent $1.6 million dollars and in return all they have to show is two gutted buildings and paychecks to architects and consultants.

 

The dorms in question were slated to open for the upcoming fall semester. The completion date has been moved back about a year. Strangely, though, the winning bidder to do the actual renovation work hasn't even been selected.

 

In the meantime, the school reports that students who were supposed to live in the dorms this fall will be put up in hotel rooms, although the article doesn't mention what hotels.

 

My question:  Is Nancy Worley on the ASU Board of Trustees. Oh, wait. Joe Reed is.

What's in Your Wallet?

I wonder about the logic of Capitol One when they have a black man - a cop no less - asking that in a commercial.

 

First, there are the standard stereotypes of blacks being muggers. Then, each day, it seems we hear more and more about cops gone bad.  Do we need a black cop in a commercial mouthing a shakedown line?

 

I know, I know. Capitol One isn't portraying a mugging or a police shakedown.  Just seems like a bad choice of imagery to make their point.

 

 

Is It Uncommon for Business to Screw Government?

Okay. I know the argument is that privatization is good. A business supposedly can deliver a service or product much more efficiently and effectively than a governmental agency.

 

Does it count against that theory when a business screws up delivering the one governmental program that everyone allegedly hates?

 

Alatax/RDS, a collection service for county and city taxes, screwed the Elmore County Board of Education out of $1.2 million dollars. Instead of delivering the tax receipts to the Board, Alatax gave the money to the City of Prattville and the Elmore County Commission.

 

Now Prattville and Elmore County are trying to work out a way to get the money back to the Elmore County Board of Education.

 

And what will happen to Alatax?  From the article in the Prattville Progress:

Asked if Alatax would be cen­sured or its services terminated for the error, Medders said she was not sure what would hap­pen.

"The law reads that the tax is to be collected by Elmore Coun­ty, so I don't know if we'll take over that duty when the con­tract is up with Alatax or not," she said.

Let the Man Talk!

It seems ironic to me that in response to claims that she won't address women's issues, Hillary Clinton's husband is out front defending her in this article - with no comments from Hillary herself!

The Cottonmouth Strikes

Gita over at Cottonmouth Press has this take on Trey Granger's 32-hour work day.

Necessity (or Desire!) is the Mother of Invention

Some inmates cooked up this scheme for getting out of jail. Copyright their names, then demand large sums of money from prison officials who used their names.  When the prison officials don't pay, file liens against the property of the prison Warden and have the property siezed. Refuse to release the property until the officials let them out of prison.

 

From the article:

The four men and William Michael Roberson, 50, of Baton Rouge, La., were indicted on accusations of conspiring to impede the duties of federal prison officials, Richter said. Roberson is accused of assisting the four inmates in the scheme, which allegedly took place in late 2003 and early 2004.

All five were also indicted on charges of mailing threatening communications with the intent to extort.

Maybe this a strategy that should be presented to those concerned about being in jail for marijuana use or possession?

 

In fact, why don't we copyright our names and prohibit their use on any government document we don't like, like tax notices or arrest warrants?

 

Give those guys some credit for ingenuity, although they can't be too smart since they got caught for the crime that got them in jail in the first place - and it looks like they may get some additional time for this.

Hasta La Vista (maybe)

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has shut down his campaign operation in Alabama. McCain once led in the polls in Alabama but his support is slipping because of his support for President Bush's strategy in Iraq and the recent immigration proposal in the U.S. Senate.

 

I draw two possible conclusions from his actions. Maybe McCain feels that he is so weakened politically that he cannot regain even the high level of supports he had one time in Alabama. Or, maybe  McCain is not convinced that a win in Alabama next Feburary will help bolster his campaign and make it more viable further into the nomination season.

 

Either way, it seems like McCain has is placing a "no confidence" vote on Alabama.

Staredown Smackdown

Read here, courtesy of the Toledo Blade.

Readership Map

The map is showing a broad geographical reach for this blog. I hope to keep adding new towns!

 

If you enjoy reading Mama's Applie Pie, please pass the address along to family and friends!

My Heart Weeps for You

In the "my heart weeps for you category", the Atlanta Journal Constitution has a report on how a new law in Georgia is disrupting the ability of illegal immigrants to register the cars they buy in Georgia. (Hat tip to reader D.S.) It seems the car dealers and insurance agents are a bit concerned about the business they are losing.

 

Money quote from Georgia state Senator Chip Rogers, sponsor of the legislation:

"If [car dealers and tag services] have built their business on people who are here illegally, I'm sorry, but at some point they had to realize that was not going to continue."

Working Worley's Legacy

During her re-election campaign, Nancy Worley identified herself as "Working Worley" and claimed she worked until all hours of the night doing the public's business.  It now looks like one of her attorneys was taking lessons.  The Mobile Press-Register reports today that Trey Granger, a one-time legal counsel to Worley , was paid for working 32 hours in one day. Documents also show he supposedly worked 24 hours on another day and 22 hours each on nine other days.

 

Ken Wallis, the Governor's legal adviser, says the Governor's office is responsible for the "errors" on the invoice.  They just wanted to get Granger paid for hours he worked.

 

Read the article. I'm still not sure why there is not a straight forward accounting of the hours worked or why the Governor's office went through the gyrations to create invoices that would make it look like Granger worked 91% of some days and even 133% of another day.

Government Propaganda

I guess the state election law isn't as clear as Attorney General Troy King would have us think. At least not the part that prohibits state officials from trying to influence the political activity of Alabamians.

 

In the trial of Nancy Worley, King's office sought and obtained an indictment against Worley saying she had violated that law. The law states:

Any person who attempts to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.

King's argument against Worley is that she solicited her employees to support her campaign by asking them to place a bumper sticker on their car, or by putting a sign in their yard, or by even donating money. She obviously was asking them to vote for her in her re-election bid. King said this activity violates the law quote above. I agree with him.

 

However, King issued an opinion earlier this year to Governor Riley saying it was okay for a Governor Riley to ask for the people's support for the Capital Improvement Trust Fund amendment that was on the ballot June 5.  The conclusion of the opinion states:

The Governor is not prohibited by subsections 17-1-7(b) and 17-1-7(c) of the Code or by 17-17-4 or 17-17-5, as recodified, from educating the voters of this state on issues of public importance and from using public funds to promote the passage of a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters at a referendum election when the Governor determines that a public service is served by that expenditure .

I know the point King was apparently trying to make. He was distinguishing situations like the amendment election from candidate elections, like Worley's, by saying that if the amendment does not something to promote the public good, then it's okay for a publc official to speak in favor of the amendment and encourage others to vote for it, even if the official uses public funds to spread the message.

 

It turns out that the permissibility of public officials to use public funds to support a proposed amendment has been discussed before. Then Attorney General Bill Pryor in 2003 wrote an opinion to then-state Superintendent of Education Ed Richardson and Representative Jim Carns saying it was okay for them use public funds to promote Governor Riley's tax and accountabilty package (Amendment 1) that was on the ballot that year.

 

Under the first amendment, I have no problems with public officials speaking in favor of amendment on their own time or without using state funds to promote their position. However, King's opinion has two problems. First, it ignores the plain language of the law. The law doesn't provide any exceptions. The law doesn't say "hey, this really only applies in candidate elections, because we don't want public officials using taxpayer money for candidate advertising, but an amendment is really different from a candidate so use taxpayer money to your heart's content to promote that!"

 

Second, I do not think it's good public policy for the governor or legislators - or other public officials - to craft some policy or program and then use taxpayer money to convince the taxpayers to support it.  The men and women who staff our government as elected officials or as administrators should not be in the business of convincing us with our tax money to support what they want to do.  That type of activity really falls into the arena of government propaganda, no matter how well-intentioned it is.

 

And here's the kicker:  since every proposed constitutional amendment is designed to place a policy option or choice before the voters, then every amendment involves a public interest. And since we do not have the power of initiative in Alabama, these amendments come from elected officials who were defining a solution to a perceived problem. So, they can easily claim that in any constitutional amendment election, they should have the right to spend public dollars to convince you and me to support their plans.

 

How many Alabamians would have wanted legislators using their taxpayer dollars to promote the amendment that removed language that prohibited interracial marriage? How many of those same Alabamians would want their tax dollars supporting an amendment to recognize gay marriages?

 

Call me a contrarian, but I just don't think that government officials should be using my own tax dollars to convince me to support their ideas and vote accordingly.

Siegelman's Legacy, One Part Anyway

Dana Beyerle at The Tuscaloosa News writes that the judge, Truman Hobbs, that threw out the felony charges against Nancy Worley was appointed by Don Siegelman at the end of Siegelman's term in office. I had seen some talk of this on various forums but had not researched it to see if that were true.

 

Is there any significance to his being appointed by Don?

 

I don't know. You decide.

Fun with Old Video Tapes and Vid Caps

I found some old tapes with episodes of In Living Color. For you J-Lo fans, I was able to pull some vid caps of Jennifer Lopez dancing as one of the Fly Girls.

Instant Messaging

I had an idea today that I thought I would try out. I figured I would create an AOL Instant Messager account for the blog. I don't know if any would ever want to chat live, but what the heck.

You can reach me on AIM here: mamasapplepie

Of course, you can still e-mail me: mamasapplepie@gmail.com

Or, if you prefer, I always welcome your comments here on the blog.

Where, oh where, are you tonight?

You may or may not have noticed, but I use SiteMeter to track the number of hits this blog gets. I don't pay for an "upgraded" account with all the bells and whistles, but I do get a listing showing from where people are connecting to the blog. Presumably, this listing is based on the city of each person's Internet Service Provider. It doesn't actually pull your address in some magical way. (You more cautious ones have no need to fear Big Brother on my account.)

 

Here's a map of the cities represented by my readership so far . I'm not recording how many hits come from the each city though.

Nursing Home Voter Fraud

The Mobile Press-Register reports this morning that a former candidate for the Alabama House of Representatives have been arrested for alleged voter fraud:

Darren Lee Flott, a one-time candidate for Alabama House District 98, and Angie Corine Green, an activities director for a nursing home, were both arrested and charged with voter fraud Thursday, Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. announced.

The pair exploited a host of nursing-home patients, Tyson alleged in a news conference held in his offices at Mobile Government Plaza.

Those taken advantage of were elderly and infirm men and women, who, at the time the ballots were cast in their names, were either "comatose" or "otherwise unable to communicate" their voting preferences, Tyson said.

Allegations such as these are not new in Alabama. However, it's not often that charges get filed and suspects get prosecuted.

 

If you have any tales of this kind of voter fraud or other abuses you've seen at nursing homes, please share in the comments or by e-mailing me. E-mails will be kept confidential unless you agree otherwise.

Jury Should Hear Worley's Felony Charges

After reading about the Attorney General's reasons for filing the felony charges against Nancy Worley, I have changed my previous opinion. I now think that jury should get the opportunity to hear the evidence on those charges and render a verdict.

The statute in question is 17-1-7(c), which says:

(b) No person shall attempt to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person. Any person who violates this subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony and punishable by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period not to exceed two years, or both.
 

Judge Truman Hobbs indicated that this section was being applied only to Worley's solicitation that included not only a request for money but also asked employees to place a bumper sticker on their car or a campaign sign in their yard.  Without any further information, I agreed with Hobbs. These activities are standard for campaigns and do not generally reflect a misuse of public office, although the request for money apparently violates a separate statute that prevents state employees from being solicited for campaign contributions by supervisors.

The Attorney General's filing though shows more is at play than just the letter that Worley sent employees.  According to WSFA, the Attorney General's filing include this:
 

"The State also expects to introduce evidence that the mailing did in fact include the referenced bumper sticker as well as a donation envelope.  Further, the State expects to present evidence that Defendant Worley obtained the home addresses of some of the respective employees by virtue of her position as the chief executive in the Office of Secretary of State.  Additionally, the State expects witnesses to testify that Worley, in her capacity of Secretary of State told employees that she could find out if they voted and for whom they voted."
 

If Worley utilized the employees' personnel files to get their addresses for her mailing, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy. 

Similarly, if Worley told her employees that by virtue of her position as Secretary of State she could determine how they voted and used that as a tool of intimidation, that would appear to be use of her official position to further her candidacy.

Now, maybe Worley didn't do either of these things. Maybe the employees are lying or misunderstood something Worley said. Maybe Worley didn't get the addresses out of the personnel files. Those, however, seem to be questions of fact for the jury to decide.

Without further information, it doesn't appear to me that the statute is overly-broad, in theory or in the way it is being applied here.

Chertoff and Terror Threat Levels

The Chicago Tribune reports that Michael Chertoff, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, is concerned about Americans being complacent about terrorist threats:

Fearing complacency among the American people over possible terror threats, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.

But then Chertoff assesses the summer threat level this way:

"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaeda. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."

Still, Chertoff said there are not enough indications of an imminent plot to raise the current threat levels nationwide. And he indicated that his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaeda statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.

I wonder why Americans would be complacent about terror warnings when the highest-level domestic security official bases his concerns on a "gut feeling"?

 

He admitted to the Chicago paper that his comment address concerns "not of a specific threat, but of increased vulnerability". I say he should tell us where we are vulnerable so we can get to work on fixing that rather than making us watch him wringing his hands about his gut feelings.

 

Worley Trial Delayed Again

WSFA reports that Judge Truman Hobbs has thrown out the felony charges against Worley. So, the Attorney General's office has asked for, and been granted, a delay in the trial starting while it appeals the judge's action.

Potential Juror: Racist, Homophobe - and Liar

The Boston Globe has this entertaining story about a man trying to avoid jury duty.

 

This exchange is great, although it and the answers on his juror questionnaire may get him charged with perjury:

After excusing the other prospective jurors, Nickerson, concerned about Ellis's questionnaire, called him back.

"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals?" Nickerson asked Ellis, according to the preliminary transcript.

"That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted, according to the transcript. "I'm frequently found to be a liar, too."

"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.

"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.

"So, are you lying to me now?" asked Nickerson.

"Well, I don't know. I might be," said Ellis.

Ballot Access Visited Again

Representate Cam Ward continues to discuss ballot access over at Doc's Political Parlor in the comments to this entry. Despite the many words he has spoken on this topic, Ward has yet to offer any idea about what he would consider a fair ballot access law, other than to say he wants to "strike a balance between a ballot that is too restrictive and one that is the size of a phone book".  I am amused when folks like Ward talk about preventing a "phone book"-size ballot in Alabama. Exaggeration on his part aside, Alabama could easily loosen up the ballot access law without fear of a extremely lengthy ballot. 

 

But speaking of too many names on a ballot, I wonder what Ward thinks about the Republican and Democratic Parties being able to hold their election for their state and county executive committees on the primary ballot. Just looking at the Secretary of State's ballot certification for the 2004 Republican (see pages 7-10) and Democratic (see pages 13-20) primaries, the parties were able to add a slew of candidates to the ballot.  I doubt that more lax ballot access laws would lead to anything as out of hand as allowing the political parties to place this large number candidates for party offices on the ballot. (As an aside, just remember that this is basically a taxpayer-funded subsidy for choosing internal political party offices.  It's not like the primary election for regular offices where there is a public interest in the state and counties paying for and conducting the election.)

 

And how about the number of candidates the two parties place on the primary ballot in a presidential year to decide who will get to their big shindigs - their national nominating conventions? In 2004, the Republicans had 4 pages of convention delegate nominees; the Democrats had 9 pages. (Again, this a taxpayer-funded subsidy - this time to figure out who can go to a big party somewhere and have a good time drinking, waving the American flag, and demonizing the other party.)

 

Since I have pointed out that Ward has not offered up any solution to the ballot access issue, let me throw out some ideas. 

 

If the Legislature doesn't want to reduce the number of signatures required on a petition, why not set a fee that minor parties or independent candidates can pay for ballot access? If the idea is to prevent frivolous candidacies and ballot crowding, a fee can be set high enough that people won't waste their money on a bogus candidacy; however, it could be low enough to not be an undue burden on the parties or candidates.

 

Further, the statewide ballot access requirement for a independent should be lower than the statewide ballot access requirement for a minor party.  Currently, they must get the same number of signatures. However, when an independent gets ballot access, that access places only one more name on the ballot. When a minor party gets statewide ballot access, it can nominate candidates for all offices on the ballot - federal (not presidential) to state to county.  Where is the equity in that? Why place the burden carried by a whole political party on a single individual who wants to run for office?

 

There's another serious issue about the ballot access laws that gets little, if any exposure in the media. An independent candidate who wins election to office does not get automatic ballot access in the next election. He or she must petition for ballot access again.  The "20%" rule applies only to the political parties. This is no hypothetical concern. Independent William Hightower won election to a Pike County district court judgeship in 2006.  In 2004, Ashley McKathan was elected to a circuit court judgeship as an independent. 

 

Even if the Legislature chooses to not ease up the number of signatures required to get a name on the ballot in the first place, it should pass a law that permits an incumbent who was elected as an independent to have automatic ballot access to run for re-election.

 

 

Update 5: Worley's Trial

Helen Hammonds of WSFA has this report on the Attorney General's response to Judge Truman Hobbs' concerns about the felony charges against Worley.

 

Worley's trial is set to being this afternoon. More news and analysis as the day goes by.

Breaking News: Siegelman

WSFA reports that Don Siegelman is being moved to a permanent in the federal prison system.

 

No word on what's happening to his cell mate and buddy Richard Scrushy.

... and made them cry.

Well, he didn't kiss her, but President Bush made this little girl cry.

 

 

Debate for Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgendered

Ben Smith's blog over at politico.com has a report that several top contenders for the Democratic nomination for president will participate in a debate that will be "devoted solely to LGBT [lesbian, gay, bixsexual and transgendered] issues."

So far, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Chris Dodd have confirmed their participation.

Money quote from a commenter on the blog piece (it's just a joke people):

"Since Billary is known for changing her dialect/accent based on audience I guess she can now use the lisp."

Update 5: Worley's Trial

WSFA is reporting that Worley's trial is set to start Wednesday at 1:00pm.

Update: The Montgomery Advertiser op-ed page carried an editorial today arguing that no charges, including the felony charges, should be dropped, that she should be tried by a jury and let the chips fall where they may.

Barkley for Gov!

At a fundraiser yesterday's for Barack Obama, Charles Barkley spoke on behalf of Obama. According to The Birmingham News:

At one point, someone in the crowded shouted at Barkley urging him to run for governor, something he has said for years he wants to do.

"Let me tell you something," Barkley told the shouter. "You don't have to worry about that. You've got my word on that."

P.S. War Eagle, Charles!

Thermometers and Thermostats

Last night on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes", former Arkansas governor and presidential aspirant Mike Huckabee joined the bandwagon of politicians who claim they do not slavishly follow polls.

He said polls are a thermometer of public opinion. He said he wanted to be a thermostat and provide leadership to affect public opinion in a positive way.

I guess he didn't think about his analogy enough. For a thermostat to work properly, it must read the temperature of the air around it and then activate the processes to adjust the air temperature. It doesn't operate in a vacuum all willy nilly.

(Don't you love the phrase "willy nilly"?)

Even You, Obama!

View full size

I commented on this photo here. Looks like Obama beat me to the punch. He commented on the scene in Huntsville:

[The crowd] included two men holding signs that read: "Anybody but Hillary Even You," a reference to Obama's main rival for the Democratic Party nomination for the White House, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. As Obama shook hands with the small crowd, he pointed at the two men, chuckled and said, "That's kind of a backhanded compliment."

Your assignment: Compare and contrast, 100 words or less, Obama's response to the response you might expect from Al Sharption or Jesse Jackson.

Just a thought

Nancy Worley and her attorneys are making a big deal of their argument that Ed Packard was politically motivated in filing the complaint that led to felony and misdemeanor charges being filed against her.  Putting the dots together, they are apparently trying to make the case that since Packard ran against Worley in last year's primary election, he was merely seeking an advantage in the election. If my memory serves me well, I remember Worley saying that Packard was just looking for free press.

 

Let's look at this from another angle. Maybe Worley decided to send the fundraising letter to employees because she figured if Packard said anything, she could label him as a political opportunist. (If other employees said anything, she could say they were just disgruntled and trying to stir up trouble for her. Look for this argument in the trial too.)

 

Many think Worley is dumb given the way she ran the Secretary of State's office. However, I don't think she was dumb at all. I think she was conniving and crafty and I have no doubt she schemed in many ways to see out what she could get away with. And for the most part, she got away with quite a lot.

 

But I think she miscalculated on this one.

Update 4: Worley's Trial

WSFA, Montgomery's NBC affiliate, has this coverage of yesterday's hearing in the Worley trial. The reporter has written the coverage like a blog entry, as if she had been live-blogging the event.

 

Also, if you haven't seen it yourself, a PDF copy of the complaint that Ed Packard filed with the Attorney General - that got this case started - is available here. (Hat tip to Dan at Between the Links.)

Child Molester Walks

The AP reports that a Huntsville man, after pleading guilty to sex crimes against his adopted sons, will serve no time in jail, despite the plea agreement include 15 years jail time for each of three first-degree sodomy charges. The abused children are now 13, 14 and 16.  According to the news report, the judge, Karen Hall, was following the prosecutor's recommendation:

Circuit Judge Karen Hall sentenced Jerry Wayne Love, 51, to 15 years on each of three first-degree sodomy charges Monday. But she followed the prosecutors' recommendation, ordering Love to spend five years on probation and undergo treatment in a sex offender program.

Assistant District Attorney Allison Palmer said the prosecution made a recommendation of 5 years probation on each count and treatment in a sex offender program for Jerry Wayne Love , the defendent. She claims they wanted to protect the children from having to testify in court against Love.

 

I know that plea bargains can be offered for a variety of reasons. For example, if the prosecutor thinks he has a weak case, he might accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge. Or, as in this case, there may be an interest in not taking the case to trial, such as the protection of children. But do any of these reasons mean the prosecutor or judge should give a sex offender a "get out of jail free" card?

 

I can't imagine why the prosecution came up with this plea agreement.  They should be protecting the public interest, not capitulating. But I'm even more disgusted with the judge, if the news article correctly represents the situation.  Note that the article says the judge accepted the prosecutors' "recommendation". It doesn't appear that defendent demanded no jail time in order to plea guilty.

 

The article states that Love could have been given as much as a life sentence if he been found guilty at trial. I don't know all the facts and circumstances of the trial, but I do know that discounting a life sentence down to essentially no sentence is not a shining example of justice.

 

I hope the people who are upset about Scooter Libby let Judge Hall know what they think of her brand of justice at the next election.

 

[Note: Loretta Nall is more vocal than me (read her comments here), although I'm just as mad as she is.]

More Ammo for the Foot Please!

View full size

This photo is from al.com's home page. I'm not sure this image really puts the best foot forward for Alabamians. But I can guess that many would see the "even you" on that white guy's sign as being a race-based comment.

And they may well be right.

Update: I was talking to a friend about this photo. She didn't take it as a racial remark. I know the guy probably didn't mean it to be racial. I guess I'm just trying to channel Rev. Al for some reason.

Update 3: Worley's Trial

The trial of Nancy Worley has been postponed until at least Wednesday or Thursday, according to today's Birmingham News. A postponement is not really a surprise, since the trial was set to start last month and was postponed until July 9. Plus, Worley has a history of putting things off and trying to get things postponed.

The real news - or at least the "new" news - was that the judge in the case, Truman Hobbs, has said he has concerns about trying Worley on the felony counts, saying the underlying statute used for the charges is "vague" and "overbroad". Hobbs said:

"I'm real worried that this statute ... potentially criminalizes a lot of everyday conduct that happens all over the country."

I read over the statute and I have to agree with Hobbs. Interestingly, if you've seen Ed Packard's complaint that set all this in motion, he never mentioned the statute that Hobbs has concerns about. Packard referred to another section that Hobbs did not have problems with.

The misdemeanor charges stem from a section of state law that says a state officer or employee may not solicit a campaign contribution "from other employees who work for the state officer or employee in a subordinate capacity." A violation is punishable by a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. Hobbs said he had no problem with Worley being prosecuted under that part of the law.

Take note that the national political environment seems to be bleeding into this case. From the Montgomery Advertiser:

During Monday's hearing, Worley's attorney, James Anderson, told the judge he wanted to be able to talk about political motivation for the prosecution during the trial.

"The complaint was made by Ed Packard, a political opponent. We have every right to question Mr. Packard about political motivation," Anderson said.

Hobbs said he would not stop defense attorneys from questioning Packard's political motivation, but did not want them implying that the prosecution by the Alabama Attorney General's office is politically motivated.

(About the photo: The photo shows Nancy Worley with her campaign manager and boyfriend, Wade Lipscomb. From the Montgomery Advertiser.)

That Persistent N-Word

Interestingly, the NAACP today held a funeral today for the word racially-charged "n-word". According to the AP:

Hundreds of onlookers cheered Monday afternoon as the NAACP put to rest a long-standing expression of racism by holding a public burial for the N-word during its annual convention.

If it were only so easy. No matter how well-intentioned this symbolic event was, it most assuredly will not put that expression of racism to rest.

 

Ironically, part of the reason it won't is because many blacks - rappers, gang members and others - have adopted the word as a term of endearment or comaraderie. As long as blacks use the term, no matter the context, bigoted whites will feel liberated to continue their use of the terms as well.

 

If the word is so vile it needs buried, perhaps black entertainers and others who use the term will listen to Kurtis Blow:

Minister and rap icon Kurtis Blow called for people, especially young people, to stop buying music by artists who use offensive language.

"They wouldn't make rap songs if you didn't buy them. Stop supporting the stuff you don't want to hear," said Blow, who is credited with helping create the genre's popularity in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

"I've never used the N-word and I've recorded over 150 rap songs. I've never used profanity. It's possible you can use hip-hop and not offend anyone."

Tiffany Twilley, a resident of Detroit, said about the burial ceremony:

"This is a great start. `We need to continue to change the mentality of our people. It may take a generation, but it's definitely the movement we have to take."

I think the real challenge that will lead to positive change is to neuter terms like the "n-word". Only then will those words not have the potency that makes racially-charged terms powerful. Insulating one's self from the realities in society - such as the reality that the n-word will never go away - is a fool's errand.

 

Update 2: Worley Trial

WBRC in Birmingham, carrying one AP story, finally has information on their web site about the Worley trial being delayed. You can read it here. The AP has another, separate story here.  The trial is expected to begin Wednesday, according to WBRC.

 

The AP says Truman Hobbs, the judge presiding over the case, has expressed doubt that Worley's behavior supports charges for the felony counts against her. It will be interesting to see if those charges get thrown out, or if all the charges get thrown out. Or if the case procedes with all charges intact.

 

In the WBRC story, James Anderson, Worley's attorney, is reported to have said this:

Defense attorney James Anderson said the attorney general's office has a weak case.

"They are pushing it. The only thing that mentioned money was the envelope that was enclosed," he said.

Chris Bence, spokesman for Attorney General Troy King, said Worley's letters to her employees "are pretty powerful" evidence and a Montgomery County grand jury agreed when it indicted her.

"Had Ms. Worley not sent the letters, she would not be where she is today," he said.

So, Worley's attorney admits Worley sent the letter and the envelope and that if she hadn't sent the letter in the first place, she wouldn't be indicted. Isn't that pretty close, if not right on the money, a guilty plea?

 

Update: Worley's Trial

I'm waiting for confirmation, but it appears that the trial of Nancy Worley has been postponed "indefinitely" until Wednesday according to my source WBRC Fox 6 in Birmingham.

 

More to come.

 

Update: The newsroom at WBRC confirmed the reports of the postponement for me.

Sigelman and Libby

And so the Siegelman defense teams has directly commented on how their client should benefit from  Bush's commutation of  Scooter Libby's prison sentence:

Susan James, one of Siegelman's attorneys, put the prosecution demands in contest. She said the government should be embarrassed to ask for additional time under any scenario, "particularly in light of the president's commutation of the Libby sentence."

Thanks to the Tuscaloosa News.

Prison IDs of the Week

The Tuscaloosa News' Dana Beyerle shares with us last week's "Prison IDs of the Week":

Don Siegelman, 24775-001; Richard Scrushy, 24463-01.

Money not where Mouth Is

State Representative Cam Ward has replied to my question. I reposted the question from this blog to him at Doc's Political Parlor here and you can see his response here.

Ward, in a quick reply, said he hasn't introduced legislation "yet" that would ease up ballot access restrictions, suggesting he will do so in the future.

Although it won't make or break my opinion of him, I find this unconvincing. Ward was elected in 2002 and he claims he saw the problem with ballot access when he worked for then-Secretary of State Jim Bennett in 1998. His blog post at Doc's Political Parlor emphatically states that the law needs changed.

He claims he was "just talking about some issues", but he is a legislator that saw a problem as early as 9 years ago and has indicated something should be done. However, for the record, he has chosen to not doing anything in the five legislative sessions he has under his belt.

Maybe Ward's answer to my question is indeed "neither": he hasn't introduced legislation and maybe he isn't courting the growing number of independent voters. Perhaps his third way is that he likes to talk the talk but doesn't follow up by walking the walk. He shouldn't be surprised (or feign surprise) when someone notices and asks him about it.

I love the part of his reply where he says: "Sorry no grand conspiracy!!!! " I was only asking about his actions on this issue. How can he have a conspiracy with himself?

I wish Ward the best in the next legislative session. Hopefully, he'll take up the ballot access issue next time out and will provide a serious reform bill and the leadership to get it passed.

Is the Money where His Mouth Is?

State Representative Cam Ward, over at Doc's Political Parlor, has written in support of making ballot access easier for independent and minor political parties. He even cites his short term as political appointee under then-Secretary of State Jim Bennett as proof he knows of what he speaks.

I wonder if Ward has ever introduced legislation to ease up the ballot access requirements?

Or is he just trying to court the ever-growing independent voting bloc that might view him favorably if he appears open-minded on this issue?

I'll have to do some research on ALISON, unless Ward beats me to it and provides the answer himself.

Truth and Justice

Regardless of what's reported in The Birmingham News today, if Don Siegelman is guilty (which a jury said he is), then I don't care what, if any, role Karl Rove had in prodding the Justice Department to investigate Siegelman.

Is it a violation of any constitutional right to use some kind of political calculus to allocate resources to investigate alleged criminal activity?

 

Everything government does is based on a set of policy priorities. Priorities must be set in one way or another since our government does not have unlimited funds to pursue every alleged violation of law.

 

In our system of government, priorities are established through political decisions - regardless of whom the Justice Department or the state Attorney General or the District Attorney decides to pursue: drug runners, illegal aliens, corrupt business leaders, corrupt public officials.

 

All I can tell from these protestations is that Democrats want Siegelman to walk if it is shown that Karl Rove had a hand in the decision to investigate him. If that's so, I guess even Democrats would rather have law enforcement pursuing blacks and hispanics, illegal aliens and drug runners, instead of wealthy white people - especially white, wealthy politicians.

 

(See also: Nancy Worley.)

Cullman: Scam Alert

Continuing my read through The Cullman Times on-line edition, I see that the Cullman police are warning of a scam where a couple presents themselves as vacuum cleaner salespeople. In at least one case, while on member of the team gave a demonstration of the vacuum cleaner they were selling, the other other person stole money from the homeowners purse.

 

I post this not because I know I have a vast following in Cullman, but rather because you never know when the scam may pop up elsewhere too.

 

If you know of any other scams making the rounds, help us out and post information in the comments. Thanks.

Don't Go Pointing Fingers

The Cullman Times carried this quote yesterday from John Ross, the Executive Director of the Alabama Republican Party. Referring to Don Siegelman's recent trial and Nancy Worley's upcoming trial, he said:

"I think it's sad that we've been in a position in this state where we've had elected officials that can't be trusted. They've done some things to benefit themselves while they have been in office."

I'm not sure why politicians on trial are the only examples of politicians who can't be trusted. However, I don't think the leadership of the Republican Party has any moral high ground to go pointing at only Democrats.

 

If you remember your Alabama history, Guy Hunt was a long-time Republican - he was Republican when it wasn't cool - who was booted from office due to his felony ethics conviction.

 

I remember being told as a kid, "When you point your finger, you got three more pointing back at you."

Worley Discussed

Worley's day in court this coming week is the final product of a complaint filed by Ed Packard, an employee in the Secretary of State's office and Worley's opponent in last year's Democratic primary for Secretary of State.

Worley claims she's a victim of a political witchhunt. Packard claims that Worley violated state campaign finance law and should be held accountable. Others say that even if Worley is guilty, her crime is not all that important. For a discussion of this from last year, check out this clip from Alabama Public Television's program "For the Record".



And if you just want some good old fashioned campaign fun, check out these two clips. The first is from the Worley campaign. The second is from Beth Chapman, Worley's opponent in the general election. (Bonus tidbit: In Worley's ad, that is Worley herself doing the voice over and talking about herself in the third person!)

Worley Nears the Plate

The AP has a report today about Nancy Worley's trial, which is set to start to Monday.  Money quote from the article:

Packard said what Worley did goes against the candidate handbook she published as secretary of state.

That handbook says: "It is unlawful for any state officer or employee to solicit any type of political campaign contribution from employees under his or her supervision. Such supervisors are also not allowed to coerce any subordinate employees into working in any political campaign or cause."

Packard said Worley should have known better than to send the letters. "She was the chief election official," he said.

You never know what will happen when a case goes in front of a jury but this one sounds like it will easily go against Worley. 

 

Just what are they reaching for?

Who says that federalism can't work in our lives?

 

From WHNT in Huntsville:

Police say Brandon Scrushy, son of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, was arrested last night on drug charges.

From NPR news in Washington:

Former Vice President Al Gore's son was getting treatment Thursday after he was arrested for illegal possession of marijuana and prescription drugs.

Text of Ballot Access

You can read the court's opinion in the ballot access case here if you so desire.

 

Hat-tip to Stephen Gordon.

5000

In addition to these thoughts, let me mention something else that is assinine about the number of signatures that an independent candidate must get on a petition for ballot access.

 

According to Secretary of State, independent candidates must submit a petition with about 37,000 signatures if they want ballot access in 2008 for any office that runs statewide except for president (for example, U.S. Senate,  supreme court justice, state court of appeals). However, if an independent candidates is running for president of the United States in Alabama, he or she needs only 5,000 signatures for ballot access.

 

I've talked with some people and cannot figure any legitimate reason why an independent running for U.S. Senate needs nearly eight (8) times as many signatures to get on the ballot than someone running for U.S. President.  Candidates for both offices run statewide. Both offices are in the federal government.

 

Applying Occam's Razor, I can only guess that Alabama's legislature makes it easier for indy candidates for president so that Alabama does not stifle a viable, national independent candidacy for the country's highest office. (Okay, I'm snickering as I write that.)

 

I suppose I can also guess this: Alabama's legislature figures that an independent candidate for president is less a threat to the major parties than an independent candidate for statewide office.  Indy candidates for president must be able to mount a strong enough national campaign to collect half of the electoral college votes. Indy candidates for, say, U.S. Senate, need to mount only a strong statewide campaign and get a plurality of the votes cast (assuming only three candidates:  Dem, Repub, and Indy).

 

With a 5,000 signature petition requirement for president, the Alabama Legislature is conceding to a point that this number of signatures is sufficient for ensuring that a candidate has a "modicum of support" in our state.  It also suggests that the Legislature readily concedes that this lower number is sufficient for preventing ballot clutter and voter confusion.

The Tide is Back!?

After Alabama hired Nick Saban, Tide fans were proudly declaring that the Tide is back. I'm sure this isn't what they mean!

Ballot Access

Independent candidates were dealt a blow in their efforts to get relief from Alabama's oppressive ballot access laws. The Associated Press has posted a report on its news wire saying that on June 29 the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against independent candidates in their challenge to Alabama's ballot access laws.

 

The court offered the standard language from such cases:

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 3-0 ruling saying the state's ballot access laws are reasonable and do not violate the constitutional rights of independent candidates.

The court also threw in the tired language that the independent candidates needed to show "a significant modicum of support" before having their names printed on the ballot.

 

All this kind of ruling does is preserve the entrenched position of the major parties' (read: Democratic and Republican) candidates.

 

Ballot access laws were always intended to serve a gatekeeper role and keep challengers off the ballot. Every incumbent official wants to limit the number of opponents he or she has to fend off.  However, defenders of ballot access laws have argued that these requirements also serve important administrative purposes:  limiting the number of names on the ballot so that the number of names on does not overwhelm a voting machine's physical capacity to display those names.  Also, ballot access requirements work to ensure that ballots aren't cluttered with frivolous candidacies.

 

Ever since Alabama has moved away from the old lever voting machines, there really hasn't been a reason to worry about the number of names on the ballot. Paper ballots have always been able to accomodate a larger number of names and optical scan paper ballots are no different.  Even touch-screen voting devices are able to handle more candidates per office.

 

I agree that we need some kind of ballot access requirement to ensure that our ballots are not filled with a multitude of names of people who aren't all that serious about running for office.  Obviously, there is a need to prevent an excessively long ballot ( e.g., costs of printing, voter fatigue from going through a lot of names). If the gate to the ballot was wide open (i.e., no ballot access requirement, all comers can participate), there's no telling how many names would end up on the ballot. If you look at the write-in votes tabulated in the last general election in Alabama, you'll see a lot of names, which shows that some voters are not shy about making a frivolous point with their ballot.

 

There is, however, ground that can be found between the oppressive requirements in our current law and leaving the gates wide open. Unfortunately, the people elected under the system as it currently stands are quite naturally happy with the current system and do not want it to change - unless they can find a way to make it even harder to get on the ballot.

 

The court argues that independent candidates must show a "modicum of support" to get on the ballot. What this really means is that the ballot will be on the trailing edge of changes in our politics and political culture.  By preventing a diversity of views to be reflected on the ballot, ballot access laws serve to preserve the political status quo - a duopoly between Republicans and Democrats. 

 

Alabama's ballot access laws should not be used to preserve the political positions of the two major political parties, especially at a time when political beliefs within the culture are shifting and neither party provides 100% effective representation.

On the Road Again

This story, reported by WSFA in Montgomery, makes me wonder if the cops are really on the ball or what.

 

Would the cops have been more likely to check the available databases if the woman had been Muslim or Hispanic? Or maybe even white?

 

It seems that everyday there is some news that indicates that we can't automatically assume that our police officers are doing a good job - or are even worthy of wearing the blue.

We're not in Ottumwa anymore ...

The Huntsville Times tells us today that Gary Burghoff, the adorable Radar O'Reilly on the CBS television show M*A*S*H, is moving to Guntersville. 

 

Money quote:

"Screaming for 'Radar' won't be allowed" by his neighbors, Burghoff joked. "I'm Gary to these people."

Carved Notches

In case you missed the count, the Alabama Constitution is up to 799 amendments after the June 5th election.  All four amendments on that ballot passed - 2 were voted on statewide and 1 each in Mobile and Shelby Counties were voted on locally.

 

We should top 800 amendments after next year's elections, as I wrote here.

Top National College Football Rivalry

rivals.com has announced that visitors to its web site have voted the Iron Bowl the top rivalry in college football.  For those not from the south or completely ignorant of college ball, the match up is between Auburn University and the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.

 

My favorite part of the article is this anecdote from one of the survey respondents:

"I was in college and went to an Iron Bowl. I cheered loudly behind two women in their 60s after a Bama quarterback got hammered. They turned around and one punched me in the face. I couldn't get mad – not because she was 60 – but because I understood her rage. I respected her for punching me."

In the On Deck Circle

The Montgomery Advertiser reports that the judge in Nancy Worley's corruption trial, Truman Hobbs , has canceled a pre-trial hearing for the case that was to be held on Thursday, July 5. The trial will go forward Monday, July 9, with any pre-trial issues expected to be handled that morning.

In case you were too busy following Don Siegelman's trevails, Worley was indicted early this year. An employee of the Secretary of State's office, who also ran against Worley for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State last year, filed a complaint with the Attorney General when Worley allegedly sent a campaign letter and contribution envelope to her employees. Soliciting subordinate state employees for political contributions violates state law.

I use the word "allegedly" above because Worley is presumed innocent until a court finds her guilty, but the evidence I've seen in the case looks like a solicitation for contributions to me. Even if what Worley did is not illegal, the evidence indicates that she once again used bad judgment during her term as Alabama's 50th Secretary of State.

It's a shame for the state that politicians like Siegelman, Guy Hunt, Worley and others do not fully realize the good they can do if they would provide positive, constructive leadership rather than merely stroking their own egos.

Round-Up?

NPR reports that Columbia is giving up on the Bush Administration's program for fumigating coca plants. As reported on NPR:

Coca hasn't been cut back, and cocaine trafficking continues unabated. The punitive approach also has driven poor farmers to grow more coca and to help the guerrillas.

The government says manual eradication is far less venomous, and it is moving in that direction, quietly.

"Manual eradication" means that Columbia has crews going through the countryside pulling up the coca plants using hoes and hands. Columbia says this method is more effective than aerial spraying of herbicides and prevents the herbicides from drifting onto farms and causing damage to crops.

I'm wondering why manual eradication is preferable to spraying herbicides at ground level. It seems a bunch of guys with sprayers strapped to their back would be able to quickly handle the coca plants. We in the south know how well Round-Up works.

New Twist on Economic Development

The state of Maine has a new idea for economic development. Instead of - or in addition to - pumping money into businesses that may come to Maine (I have no clue about other economic development efforts up there), the state plans to offer college students assistance with paying their student loans.  NPR reports that the basic requirement is that the student have attended a college in Maine and then remain in Maine to work after graduation.

 

It's refreshing to see a state invest in people this way, instead of throwing all its money at businesses who probably don't need the cash quite as much.

Justice for All

Well, that's not really what yesterday's turn of events show.  It is unseemly that President Bush would commute the sentence of Scooter Libby.  As you will recall, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing justice during an investigation of who may have released the name of a CIA agent.

 

Here are the problems, as I see them, with what Bush did:

 

Conflict of Interest.  Although Bush has made a high-minded argument that he was acting in the name of justice and fairness, he is too close to the issue to make that call. Libby worked for Bush's vice-president, Dick Cheney. My understanding is that Libby could appeal not only the conviction but also the sentence.  If the sentencing was so egregious that the President of the United States felt compelled to intervene, I imagine an appeals court would make a similar finding. However, due to the conflict of interest, there's no reason to believe that prison sentence was egregious. In fact, many commenters and onlookers see this for what is:  a man in power using his power to help a friend and fellow traverl.

 

Disdain for Judicial Decisions. Whether we go back to the rigged trials of blacks in the south, or more recently to the trial of O.J. Simpson, America has a long history of questioning or even subverting the judicial process.  The judicial process has mechanisms for ensuring a fair trial, namely, the appeal courts. If there are problems that the appeal are not willing or are unwilling to fix, then we should look at judicial reform.  It's a bad situation for our society to have so little respect for the judicial system that even the president believes he can subvert the decision of a jury for no good reason.

 

Presidential Power to Commute and Pardon. No doubt the president has these powers. However, they should be wielded with thoughtfulness and wisdom.  These powers should be exercised only when there is an overwhelming public interest that needs to be served. They should not be a tool for someone who wants to help a friend, political ally, or (loosely speaking) employee. 

 

It really comes as no surprise to me that Bush commuted Libby's sentence.  Bush has consistently done whatever he wanted to do with no concern about his credibility or the well-being of our country.  In his eyes, his every wish is a legitimate command.