The Disappeared-In-America Immigration System

You can read this article and you can not believe it, or not believe it, you can call it a generalization, or call it an abomination. Yet, dear reader, your opinion about this story and the people in it does not matter. Many others will be treated like the individual in this story, no matter who you share this story with or how much you might not want to even believe it or protest against it. 

That's because right now, a loud chunk of the voting public and the elected leaders hate immigrants. Voters don't actively hate them, they do it passively . Elected leaders are, however, very actively drafting and enforcing policies which are beyond cruel and abusive. Everyone, of course, can just call this system inadvertently harsh and brutal. And do nothing about it.

So why am I posting this? As with so very many posts here - it is something I do for myself. I post this because I do not want to be part of such a system. I have many friends who are terrified to be even near the edges of our current war on immigrants. I post it because I have this awareness, this slim bit of knowledge added to what is already known.

Anyone (typically not white) can be taken by ICE agents, and as a their detainee, you have no right to call anyone, no visitors, nor right to counsel though the detainee can hire one if he/she fills out the proper paperwork, that is if they can read and write English, and in the meantime ICE can move you from prison to prison, no outside contact, no hearings, no pleas, no time limit on how long you can be held so they just wait for the detainee to wear down and sign a voluntary deportation order.

"Locking up accused criminals indefinitely is a tried-and-true way of getting them to plead guilty, whether they actually committed a crime or not. The same principle applies to immigration detainees. And criminal defendants, even those accused of the worst crimes imaginable, don’t get sent to three different states in a two-month period as part of their pretrial detention."

Smartphones Can't Be Searched Without Warrants, Except When They Are

I suppose I'm a Debbie Downer today, but the Supreme Court ruling yesterday giving privacy protections to smartphones and requiring warrants to search them ... seems just a little hollow and a whole lot of ironic.

Despite the ruling's support for privacy protections, there's a telling phrase in Justice Roberts majority opinion:

" These cases do not implicate the question of whether the collection or inspection of aggregated digital information amounts to a search under other circumstances."

Well. With reports that computer and mobile devices can be delivered with components which provide agencies access to every action, warrants may be moot. Then there's the commercial agencies which have provided spying tools worldwide:

"The new components target Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry users and are part of Hacking Team’s larger suite of tools used for targeting desktop computers and laptops. But the iOS and Android modules provide cops and spooks with a robust menu of features to give them complete dominion over targeted phones.

They allow, for example, for covert collection of emails, text messages, call history and address books, and they can be used to log keystrokes and obtain search history data. They can take screenshots, record audio from the phones to monitor calls or ambient conversations, hijack the phone’s camera to snap pictures or piggyback on the phone’s GPS system to monitor the user’s location. The Android version can also enable the phone’s Wi-Fi function to siphon data from the phone wirelessly instead of using the cell network to transmit it. The latter would incur data charges and raise the phone owner’s suspicion."

The court seemed to indicate the larger issue of warrantless data collection will have to be taken up by Congress and policymakers rather than decided by lawsuits.

Still, the court's ruling is welcome - but enormous questions about privacy and security, for the individual and the nation, remain unanswered.

10,000 Innocent Americans In Jail

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." --- Desmond Tutu

Federal Judge Jed Rakoff has been crunching the numbers and says our judicial system is broken - plea deals may reduce the number of cases in courts but the reality is that thousands and thousands of innocent Americans are in jail. A recent interview with the Judge is here. Some excerpts:

"Nationwide, 97% of federal defendants plead guilty instead of taking their chances at trial.

How many innocent or partly innocently people are locked up on false plea agreements? Rakoff says estimates have ranged from 1% to 8% of the prison population. Even 0.5% would total more than 10,000 people, Rakoff said."

Judge Rakoff presented his perspective and how to improve the judicial system in a recent speech.

In a related note, writer Nell Bernstein warns the nation's juvvenile justice system is also broken, in her new book "Burning Down The House." After years of research and study, she says:

"One in three American schoolchildren will be arrested by the time they are twenty-three and many will spend time locked inside horrific detention centers that fly in the face of everything we know about how to rehabilitate young offenders. In a clear-eyed indictment of the juvenile justice system run amok, award-winning journalist Nell Bernstein shows that there is no right way to lock up a child. The very act of isolation denies delinquent children the thing that is most essential to their growth and rehabilitation: positive relationships with caring adults."

Tennessee Lawmakers OK Drones

"As approved by the Senate, the bill (SB796) says that drones can only be used to search for a fugitive or a missing person, in monitoring a hostage situation or when a judge issues a search warrant authorizing them. Any information gathered otherwise by a drone cannot be used in court and must be destroyed within 24 hours, the bill says.

The House added an amendment saying they can also be used "to protect life and property during crowd monitoring situations." In debate, crowds and traffic during University of Tennessee football games was cited as an example of where drone monitoring might be desirable."

The bill's sponsors project the use of "thousands" of drones over Tennessee.

Gun Myths Present And Past

I watched in amazement a C-Span coverage of a public hearing on gun violence aired this weekend recorded in Santa Rosa, CA.

For about 2 and a half hours a large number of half-truths and bizarre claims of impending doom and conspiracy were expressed by average folks - claims about secret CIA projects using laser mind control devices to create deranged killers who are used to promote gun restrictions was one such theory, and more were also offered.

Not all claims were so bizarre but often the comments were based on errors and emotions rather than reality.

A Tennessee man who claimed to be a "tactical security expert" got his gun permits revoked after posting a video online warning he'll kill folks who might seek ownership restrictions. Oh, his "training" isn't actually certified by anyone. Just another maniacal mythmaker.

Gun myths are common though the anger aimed at any who might challenge the myths uncommonly powerful.

Southern Beale points out a few of them, including the nature of some "training" classes:

"The classes I took taught me almost nothing about how to defend myself with a gun. One, taught by a man who said he refuses to get a carry permit because “I don’t think I have to get the government’s permission to exercise my right to bear arms,” packed about twenty minutes of useful instruction into four long evenings of platitudes, Obama jokes, and belligerent posturing. “The way crime is simply out of control, you can’t afford not to wear a gun all the time,” he told us on several occasions."

More mythical history pointed out here.

It will be ridiculously tough to enact common sense gun laws since it appears there is a stunning lack of reality among all the myths.

Today's Court Ruling on Heath Care and What It Means

UPDATE: Much surprise that the Supreme Court has upheld that the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice Roberts and the majority of the court agrees that the law is indeed constitutional - much to the surprise of many court followers and those who have opposed President Obama, it's a clear win for his policies -- from the SCOTUS blog:
"In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."
 
 original post follows below ...
---

Today, some people are hoping the Supreme Court effectively ends the presidency of Barack Obama by ruling his health care law unconstitutional and thus rejecting a centerpiece of his first term in office. It's the culmination of a fierce and dedicated attempt to discredit and dismiss Obama from the political world, and this effort really has no concern about that status of health care in America.

Some have framed the entire discussion about reforming the way we pay for and receive health care as a debate over President Obama's worth as the nation's leader. They have worked so very, very hard to disguise the decades-old problems of affordable health care as some horrible governmental monster.

Court watchers all claim there are four key issues on which the court today will issue it's decision - the media meanwhile has bought into the narrative that this is a do-or-die game akin to a run for the final playoffs in the upcoming presidential election.

What I deeply dislike is the eagerness to ignore the realities of a for-profit health care system, a fatally flawed system where so many simply cannot afford basic medical care. There is little interest in providing such care to those who need it, even though we claim to have the finest medical care in the world ... if you can pay for it. Indeed, such folks who oppose reform laws embrace the notion that if you cannot afford it, that also proves something about your worth (or lack of it) as a citizen.

I don't expect the court will back the president today - Conservatives would knock anything and anyone down in their blind ambition to prevent any change to the status quo and to marginalize any idea from this president. In the eyes of some, the issue is not that our nation has citizens who can't receive medical care - and the cure for that delusion remains elusive.

Governor Haslam OKs Dress Code for Pants In Schools Which Already Have Dress Codes For Pants

Our state will now police your pants - and pretty much all clothes worn by students in Tennessee thanks to a new law our governor has signed.

See, even though every school in the state has dress code policies, now the state is ordering them to have - you guessed it - dress code policies.

Our ever-watchful state officials this year have decided junk science must be allowed in schools and that hand-holding leads to making babies, not to mention that boys and girls making eye contact might need to be banned as well.

Judicial System Shattered in Knox County

The Knox County judicial system was pretty much demolished yesterday by the details of the lengthy drug addiction of Judge Richard Baumgartner, details which led to the inevitable decision that new trials are necessary for four previously convicted killers in the grisly Christian-Newsom murder case. That case already is marked as one of the more heinous criminal acts in recent Knox history, but Judge Baumgartner's intense level of intoxication - which he experienced for years on the bench according to the TBI investigation - should rattle everyone in the county to their core.

The information revealed yesterday indicates so many levels in law enforcement and in the judicial system knew about this travesty and yet years passed before the judge was removed from the bench with the most minor of consequences.

WATE-TV has a blistering report on how bad Judge Baumgartner's behavior truly was:

"... Judge Baumgartner was taking up to 30 hydrocodone pills a day.

"Baumgartner's physician, Dr. Dean Conley, with Knoxville Gastroenterology, tried to wean Baumgartner off his addiction, referred him to another doctor and urged him to retire in 2008. Baumgartner admitted his addiction, but said he needed another three years on the bench.

Dr. Conley described Baumgartner's appearance at that time as "ghastly."

The TBI found Baumgartner was doctor shopping. Eight doctors were eventually prescribing hydrocodone, oxycodone and other pills to him. This was going on from 2006 through 2010.

"There is no other conclusion but that Baumgartner was operating on the bench as incapable since 2008, Judge Blackwood said.

Baumgartner "shouldn't have been on the bench in 2008," Judge Blackwood said. "Everything he's done since then, we're going to have to fight that battle."

 And we've just barely touched the edges of how extensive this judicial disaster will reach.

Glenn Reynolds and Aunt B. note that decisions were apparently made in the Knox Co. Sheriff's Department to ignore Baumgartner's connection to other crimes. Some more questions which need to be answered via Katie Granju.

As for Baumgartner - he was removed from the bench, but the court at that time also ruled that his record would be wiped clean after 2 years and he'll still get his pension.

100% Confidence For One Government Policy: Execution

"So, sadly, I don't think the execution of Troy Davis will have much effect on the national "conversation" about the morality of capital punishment or the glaring flaws in America's system of justice. Because while it's very reasonable to argue that "we" should only kill someone if we're really, really, really sure they did it, the modern American conservative is really, really, really sure about everything." (via Salon)


Despite doubts raised prior to the execution last night of Troy Davis in Georgia, despite the enormous evidence of wrongful convictions, it just is not 'popular' to oppose the death penalty in the U.S.

People say to me - "Some crimes and criminals are so terrible, what else can we do but rid the world of such awful people?"

Last night in Texas, Lawrence Brewer was executed for a grisly crime, dragging a man to death by chaining him to his pickup until the body fell apart. It was a horrifying crime. The victim, James Byrd Jr.'s son, Ross Byrd, though, says execution is not justice:

"You can't fight murder with murder," Ross Byrd, 32, told Reuters late Tuesday, the night before Wednesday's scheduled execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer for one of the most notorious hate crimes in modern times.

"Life in prison would have been fine. I know he can't hurt my daddy anymore. I wish the state would take in mind that this isn't what we want."

"Byrd says the execution of Brewer is simply another expression of the hate shown toward his father on that dark night in 1998. Everybody, he said, including the government, should choose not to continue that cycle.

"Everybody's in that position," he said. "And I hope they will stand back and look at it before they go down that road of hate. Like Ghandi said, an eye for an eye, and the whole world will go blind."

SEE ALSO: Former prison wardens appeal for an end to the death penalty.

Justice Absent In Georgia?

It's grisly nightmare scenario - being held in prison for a crime you did not commit. If that cell is on Death Row, the nightmare is likely beyond description.

Unless there is a momentous change in Georgia, inmate Troy Davis will be executed today, despite his efforts which show the prosecutor's case against him has crumbled. Given that the victim of the murder Davis is accused of is a police officer, the legal system could be seeking an execution regardless of any doubts about the conviction.

There is no physical evidence in the case linking Davis to the crime, most of the prosecution hinged on eyewitness testimony - but seven of the nine eyewitnesses have recanted their testimony. One witness allegedly confessed that he was the killer.

Efforts to bring that accuser now turned confessor into court failed as Davis' defense attorneys were not given the authority to force a subpoena on him.

Tragically, our society has steadily become one in which we mistakenly think that the rules of our justice system are created to punish the guilty and not protect the innocent. Too often the public thinks the defense must prove innocence, which is not the reality - it is the prosecution which must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And once such proof has turned upside down or contradictory then - the very least which should follow is that an execution be halted.

Some years back, Davis was withing 2 hours of execution and received a stay. Living on that kind of edge is more than I can imagine. For the families of the murder victim, I doubt Time has healed or will heal their loss. I cannot imagine their suffering either. Like most everyone else in the world, we're seeing the events in Georgia and in those lives from enormously safe vantage points.

A few days ago, a former Republican prosecutor in California, Don Heller, who wrote the legislation re-instating the death penalty, issued an editorial calling for an end to the death penalty. Though somewhat crudely citing costs as a motivator, he also adds that the loss of life for one innocent person amid a broken system demands that changes be made.

But it appears no appeal, no petition, no calls for clemency will help Troy Davis. The real killer may never be punished. For Davis and for murder victim Mark MacPhail, and for the rest of America, the decisions in Georgia are expanding a tragedy.

Supreme Court Says Corporations Can Do No Wrong

A trio of decisions this summer from the Supreme Court makes it crystal clear: the judicial system offers nothing to workers or consumers and exists to only protect corporations.

Slate tracks the cases in this article, noting:

"Slowly but surely, the Supreme Court is giving corporate America a handbook on how to engage in misconduct. ... When you obliterate the very possibility of civil litigation, you are, by definition, helping big business screw over the little guy. But when you teach big business precisely how to screw over the little guy, and how to do it faster, cheaper, and without detection … well, that's not even an illusion of justice anymore. It's enabling."

The Court backed the rights of a company - any company - to bypass all due process in favor of arbitration (usually held in secret, in a forum where a company's arbitrator has total control). A worker or consumer must sign agreements offered by a company which holds that a worker or consumer has no legal rights to challenge a company. Ever.

The Court backed the bizarre claim that a company can set up a subsidiary PR firm yet never, ever can the parent company be held accountable for any false or illegal claim their PR firms make.

The Court also ruled that if a corporation insures that if decisions to discriminate are spread widely enough, employees have no rights to file class action suits.

In other words, shut up and be happy for whatever a corporation offers you. Their rights trump yours.

Meanwhile, a growing legal challenge is being made to totally reverse the "corporate personhood" status.

'Hot Coffee' Shatters Myths of Judicial System

HBO aired the documentary "Hot Coffee" last night, which takes aim at the myths of tort reform, 'frivolous lawsuits', mandatory arbitration clauses and the multi-million dollar battles to manipulates courts and voters.

Filmmaker Susan Saladoff was formerly an attorney and this is her first film and she makes sure it packs a powerful punch. She starts with the myths surrounding the "hot coffee" case where a 79-year-old woman's effort to be compensated for horrendous physical damages from a spilled cup of McDonald's coffee. She has been touted as the poster child of a frivolous lawsuit - but the facts of her near-crippling wounds demolish the myths most Americans believe to be the facts of the case.

Also featured is the brutal attack on a KBR employee in Iraq, Jamie Leigh Jones, whose savage rape by fellow employees was deemed safe from prosecution due to a mandatory arbitration clause in her employment contract - the case led to a change in federal laws, but she is still attempting to find justice as her case finally hit the courts on June 12th of this year.

I've written previously about Jones' tragic attack and the dubious constitutional legalities of 'mandatory arbitration'.

Money and the rising primacy of corporations above individuals are detailed in 'Hot Coffee' in ways likely to make a viewer's head explode.

Of course, those whose tactics are under attack from the film cry and moan that it is soooo unfair.

They are furious - because having a 'fair review' of your complaint is considered a fundamental American right.

So perhaps the question which should be best considered is simple - how can it be legal for a company to demand that as part of your employment, or as part of your decision to buy a product, you must waive your right to due process in court?

The movie also highlights the state-by-state attack on laws to protect consumers and hold companies accountable, and when those laws were upheld, a state-by-state attack to install judges who would favor business above the rights of the individual. And of course, this maze of mirrors has been sold to the general public as 'reform'.

American Passports Set For Massive Changes

It's about to become next to impossible for an American to get a passport - unless you get it today, or by some fluke, if the so-far-seldom-reported-time for public comment on this idea is not extended.

And I mean it's gonna be tough -

"The U.S. Department of State is proposing a new Biographical Questionnaire for some passport applicants: The proposed new Form DS-5513 asks for all addresses since birth; lifetime employment history including employers’ and supervisors names, addresses, and telephone numbers; personal details of all siblings; mother’s address one year prior to your birth; any “religious ceremony” around the time of birth; and a variety of other information. According to the proposed form, “failure to provide the information requested may result in … the denial of your U.S. passport application.”

The State Department estimated that the average respondent would be able to compile all this information in just 45 minutes, which is obviously absurd given the amount of research that is likely to be required to even attempt to complete the form."

---

"It seems likely that only some, not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new questionnaire, but no criteria have been made public for determining who will be subjected to these additional new written interrogatories. So if the passport examiner wants to deny your application, all they will have to do is give you the impossible new form to complete. (NOTE: This requirement will likely be used if there is "questionable authenticity" to someone's birth records ... so, maybe this is a Birther Bill?)


It’s not clear from the supporting statement, statement of legal authorities, or regulatory assessment submitted by the State Department to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) why declining to discuss one’s siblings or to provide the phone number of your first supervisor when you were a teenager working at McDonalds would be a legitimate basis for denial of a passport to a U.S. citizen.

---

"Extra points to the person who gives the best answer in the comments to the question on the proposed form, “Please describe the circumstances of your birth including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth.”

Policing For Profit - A Practice In Need of Many Changes

In the first-of-a-kind report, law enforcement agencies across the country are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars by seizing property - even though quite often an individual is not even charged with a crime. The report from the Institute For Justice is here. And on a grading scale from A to D, Tennessee gets a D.

From their report:


"And considering law enforcement officials in most states don’t report the value of what they collect or how that bounty is spent, the issue raises serious questions about both government transparency and accountability.

Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home or other property."
---
"Federal forfeiture law makes the problem worse with so-called “equitable sharing.” Under these arrangements, state and local officials can hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law bans or limits the profit incentive. Equitable sharing payments to states have nearly doubled from 2000 to 2008, from a little more than $200 million to $400 million."
---
"For example, in 2008, for the first time in its history, the Department of Justice’s forfeiture fund topped $1 billion in assets taken from property owners and now available to law enforcement. State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in just nine states totaled more than $70 million. Considering this measure excludes cars and other forfeited property as well as forfeiture estimates from many states for which data were unreliable or that did not make data available for those years, this already-large figure represents just the tip of the forfeiture iceberg.

The report from the Institute offers some common sense guidelines for change:

"The Institute for Justice recommends that, first, law enforcement should be required to convict people before taking their property. Law enforcement agencies could still prosecute criminals and forfeit their ill-gotten possessions—but the rights of innocent property owners would be protected. Second, police and prosecutors shouldn’t be paid on commission. To end the perverse profit incentive, forfeiture revenue must be placed in a neutral fund, like a state’s general fund. It should also be tracked and reported so law enforcement is held publicly accountable. Finally, equitable sharing must be abolished to ensure that when states act to limit forfeiture abuse, law enforcement cannot evade the new rules and continue pocketing forfeiture money."

Shoot-Out Or Opt Out?

Thanks to the short-sighted, political goofballery of the Tennessee State Legislature, any community in the state which has a public park has been forced to formulate a policy on whether or not folks can tote their guns with them when they head out to the park. It's the great Opt-Out Debate of '09.

Thanks, state legislature, really. THANKS.

Meanwhile, some good writing and thinking on this issue for the city of Rogersville comes from DeMarCaTionVille:

"Folks, I’m a gun owner. Hell, I’m a gun lover. I am also a strong defender of Second Amendment rights – yep, another one of those “pry it out of my cold, dead hands” types. But before all else, I am a mother, a volunteer and an advocate for the children of this community.

While I’d like to believe that only the most responsible gun owners would be packing heat at the T-ball games – you know to pick off the zombies, I sincerely doubt it would happen this way.

My husband and I are very involved with the local AYSO region. We have also participated or volunteered in most programs offered by the city. Over the years, we’ve dealt with our share of negative sideline behaviors, angry spectators, verbal disputes that have escalated to shoving matches or fist fights, and the occasional group teen vandals. We know firsthand that even the most responsible, level-headed person can become completely irrational if they feel their child has been attacked or treated unfairly by another adult.

I can also tell you that approaching these people to discuss a behavior they need to curtail, particularly when they’re already angry, is scary enough without adding firearms to the mix.

Therefore, I fully support the proposal to opt out. I’d also remind Pop and his cronies that their grandchildren play baseball, softball, soccer, tag and pin the tail on the donkey in that park. So, for me, this isn’t a battle against the conservatives and the others or government versus the common man.

It’s about common sense, the safety and welfare of children and making sure that my ass doesn’t take a bullet when I have to calmly approach the Dad, who just threw his chair across the field and threatened to assault the opposing coach, or the opposing coach, who yelled back: “Yeah, Bring It Fatass!”… right before she flipped him the middle finger.

Since the logic seems to be that if more folks have guns to protect themselves, why not just require every resident in the state to tote a gun with them wherever they go - that way, we will all be equal ... except of course for the ones who have the best quick draw and dead aim.

Yeehaw.

UPDATE:

"JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. - Patrons headed to a Johnson City sports bar will be handed water pistols on the first day when state law allows guns in bars.

Dan Numan said the gimmick is a facetious protest of the new statute, which he called "ignorant."

The first 100 people who visit Numan's Cafe and Sports Bar today will be offered the water pistols. A massive water gun fight was anticipated.

Numan said he and several other restaurant owners in the city intend to post signs, as allowed by the legislation, that lets them opt out of permitting real handguns in their establishments."

Via the Knoxville News Sentinel

What is a 'Pringle'? A Chip or Not A Chip?

The Supreme Court of Judicature in Britain has ruled on the legal question of "Is a Pringle a potato chip?

"With citations ranging from Baroness Hale of Richmond to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Lord Justice Robin Jacob concluded that, legally, it is a potato chip.

The decision is bad news for Procter & Gamble U.K., which now owes $160 million in taxes. It is good news for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions. It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.

In Britain, most foods are exempt from the value-added tax, but potato chips — known as crisps — and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour,” are taxable. Procter & Gamble, in what could be considered a plea for strict construction, argued that Pringles — which are about 40 percent potato flour, but also contain corn, rice and wheat — should not be considered potato chips or “similar products.” Rather, they are “savory snacks.”

---

"The Supreme Court of Judicature had little patience with Procter & Gamble’s lawyerly attempts to break out of the potato chip category. The company argued that to be “made of potato” Pringles would have to be all potato, or nearly so. If so, Lord Justice Jacob noted, “a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.” He was even more dismissive of Procter & Gamble’s argument that to be taxable a product must contain enough potato to have the quality of “potatoness.” This “Aristotelian question” of whether a product has the “essence of potato,” he insisted, simply cannot be answered."

This is what courts are for, I suppose.

But no Pringle I have ever munched upon ever reached the level of potato chip, according to my taste buds.

SEE ALSO: The patent on Pringles.

Federal Law Needed to Repair Your Own Car?

Does our nation need a new federal law so individuals can repair their own car?

Yes, say advocates of the Right To Repair Act of 2009 (HR 2057). Increasingly computerized engine components make it almost impossible for a car owner or a non-dealer-controlled repair shop to work on a car. In years past, anyone could purchase a book on almost all models and makes of cars and trucks, use their own tools and make repairs, or mechanics with independent shops could be selected to do the repairs. Not so with late-model cars.

The legislation was first introduced in 2001, but heavy lobbying from auto makers has killed the proposal. Once again, the bill has been filed and supporters are organizing online, via Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to spread their message.

Former congressman Bob Barr, along with Ralph Nader called for support of the bill last week:

"The most important thing the right-to-repair legislation does would be to require that car manufacturers make the tools and diagnostic information needed to repair their vehicles available to independent repair shops, on the same basis as to their dealer-operated shops. (The legislation expressly protects manufacturer trade secrets from public disclosure.) Its enactment would be a win for small business and for consumers at a time when both need a boost.

Why, then, has the bill failed earlier to win enactment, even though a more limited version of the legislation - relating to emissions-related systems - was passed nearly 20 years ago as part of the Clean Air Act amendments? Clearly, it's not because a significant majority of Americans do not prefer the freedom to have their car repaired at a business of their choice, including independent repair shops. More than 80 percent of younger drivers (those ages 18 to 34) favor such legislation, while older drivers favor it by a better than 70 percent margin, according to research by the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners."

Another group which first organized in 2000, the National Automotive Service Task Force, has been working with independent repair shops, car owners and some auto manufacturers to collect and share information and tools needed for repairs:

"The National Automotive Service Task Force is a not-for-profit, no-dues task force established to facilitate the identification and correction of gaps in the availability and accessibility of automotive service information, service training, diagnostic tools and equipment, and communications for the benefit of automotive service professionals. NASTF is a voluntary, cooperative effort among the automotive service industry, the equipment and tool industry, and automotive manufacturers."

The NASTF also offers a directory of info on how much information and what tools auto makers are making available and which independent repair shops are likewise supported.

Since auto makers have begged for taxpayer support of their floundering industry, we should also require such aid to ensure a long-held right of vehicle owners: to repair our own cars.

Packing Heat In The Pews

Arkansas lawmakers have approved a bill which would allow for concealed weapons to be carried into church. The measure now moves to their state Senate for a vote, and the governor has already said he'd sign it into law if it lands on his desk.

Currently, only churches and bars are exempt in that state from conceal and carry laws. Under this new law, churches would have the option of allowing or not allowing concealed weapons as long as they posted a visible sign at their church as to their stance. About 20 states already have similar laws.

The bill was pushed before and failed, but this time Republican Rep. Beverly Pyle got the vote thru on a 57 to 42 vote.

During committee hearings on the bill prior to the vote, one representative, who is also a pastor, John Phillips Jr. said:

"As a group of lawmakers, are we really wanting to send the message that we are raising the white flag of surrender to the anarchy that's in the streets and that the only way that our citizens can feel safe in their houses of worship and churches is that we come packing heat in the pews?"

Phillips, now a minister at the Central Church of Christ in Little Rock, testified that a "deranged individual" shot him in 1986 while Phillips was working at another Little Rock church. Phillips said his life was saved by a member of the congregation, who came to his defense.

"I don't know that having a concealed weapons individual designated to bear arms in the church that day would have made any difference in that situation," he said.

Another minister spoke to the press in favor of the bill:

"To me, being in church is probably one of the most vulnerable places anyone can be as far as an attack happening," said Pastor Mark Thorton of the Big Creek Missionary Baptist Church in Malvern. "And if there's no one there who can legally carry a handgun, we're going to be on the 6 o'clock news."

My father was a Baptist minister and I wonder what his reaction to such a plan might be.

I think perhaps first he would not be happy that government was taking up church operations and regulations as part of legislative activity. He would often talk politics while sharing coffee with folks at the local diner in the mornings, and we'd often have heated debates about politics at home, and he often wrote letters to elected officials to weigh in on all kinds of issues.

But I can't really recall a time when he spoke out on a political issue from the pulpit -- one on one with folks, yes, but not as part of sermon. Of course, you have to realize that as a squirrely young boy I was usually not paying real close attention during all the thousands of sermons I heard as I would sneak in a couple of little toys, Matchbox cars, army men or cowboys or little guys in spacesuits. Or I'd play tic-tac-toe with some nearby fellow ne'er-do-well who, like me, was surely headed to Perdition.

Dad's no longer among us, so I can't ask him directly for a reaction. But all the while he was alive and even after he was not, I always have a sort of talk with him in my head about pretty much everything. I did pay attention often to how he worked as a pastor, as a person, and as a father. We might agree or disagree on many things, but he always seemed pretty smart to me and he did educate me to consider the effects which might follow any and all decisions I made or failed to make. So I ponder about a lot of things and yes, even this humble-but-lovable blog is often my wee little pulpit and sermonette.

I know that in the past both recent and ancient, people have been attacked in churches by folks who bring in a gun or other weapon and inflict much harm on those within. Sometimes those people are stopped and their plans foiled, and sometimes they are not. Both good things and bad things happen in this world - in or out of a church house. I also know that compared to the rest of the world, this country is a mighty safe place. I don't think that more bad than good is happening, I think we just hear and see more due to the speed at which information travels today.

I tend to think my father would be opposed to folks feeling a need or a right to bring a gun into church in our times. Might have been different in centuries past, but as for our times, I think he might see such behavior as a general lack of Faith. He might say that while in church, your thoughts should not be on worldly things but on spiritual ones. I also think he would be far more eloquent addressing this topic than me.

It was a rather shocking day last year when a crazed gunman strolled into a Unitarian church in Knoxville and began shooting, so the reality of what can and does happen looms large in most minds in East Tennessee. I also marvel at the selfless acts of members of that church who took on that killer with nothing more than their hands and their desires to stop the violence. I'd like to think, should some similar event take place where I might be, that I would have the courage to resist an attack. I think I would. I hope I never have to find out.

Oddly, while I may not have always been the keenest listener in my father's churches, I do see that the words 'hope' and 'faith' still have a hefty place in my writing and my thinking. Most of the time anyway, though not always.

Seeing a sign posted at a church saying they allowed for concealed weapons or had armed security guards would not be very inviting to me, though I suppose some might feel comforted by such. For me, it indicates just how a person and a church regard the spiritual realm in many, many ways.

Applebee's And Many Other Companies Have Removed Employee Rights

The story of what happened between one employee at Applebee's exhibits just one way modern companies have dispensed with employee rights and any citizen's rights to address wrongs through the judicial system. Currently, a conservative estimate of 30 million American workers have lost their rights to a trial by jury in a public forum. So the trend in coming years means millions more will soon lose their rights too. The companies which invoke these conditions are at every level of commerce in the country - the following is but one example.

A post at the blog Overruled lays out the details about how the use of "arbitration" circumvents rights to due process and has made it all legal:

"One day, when Dantz arrived at work a paper was shoved into her hands and she was ordered to sign it. The paper contained something called a “binding mandatory arbitration agreement” which said that, if Applebees broke the law, Dantz no longer had the right to hold it accountable in court and instead would be shunted into a privatized, biased justice system. Dantz refused to sign, and was told that until she did, she would be paid nothing but tips—a violation of federal minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, Dantz needed her job, so she didn’t quit.

After nearly three years of harassment, abuse and long hours for little or no pay, Dantz finally decided that she’d had enough. She filed suit against her employer—and the court kicked her to the curb. Even though Dantz refused to sign the binding arbitration agreement, the court said that merely by continuing to work for Applebees, she was bound by its terms. Debbie Dantz’ employer illegally abused her for almost three years, and Dantz was powerless to hold it accountable.[NOTE: She did not receive a paycheck and her only earnings were from tips.However, the wisdom of her decision, or lack of it, is not the point here.]

Lest there be any doubt, when Dantz was thrown out of court and relegated to privatized arbitration, her opportunity for justice ended right there. Let’s explore a few ways that arbitration differs from real courts:

• Most importantly arbitration is biased in favor of corporate interests. According to a study by Public Citizen which examined almost 20,000 arbitration decisions, the corporate party won a massive 94% of the time. In one case, an arbitrator awarded $11,000 to a debt collector against a woman who owed no money whatsoever, but who had the same name as a woman who did.
• Arbitration is often pay to play. If you bring a suit in federal court, you pay a $350 filing fee, and that’s it. Arbitrators, on the other hand, frequently offer an a la carte menu. If you want to file a motion, that’s $500. If you want a live hearing, $1500. If you want a written explanation of the arbitrator’s ruling, $1500 more. In some cases, consumers have been charged $10,000 or more for the privilege of losing their case before a biased arbitrator.
• Arbitration is secret. Except in California, arbitrators are not required to publicly disclose their decisions. Because they can keep their past history from the public, many arbitration companies market their services to corporations by highlighting their pro-business bias, even as they lobby Congress with claims that they are just as fair and balanced as real live judges.

So in summary, arbitration is expensive; it is secretive, and it is fundamentally unfair. Even worse, it is almost always forced on ordinary Americans. If you have a credit card. Or if you have a job. Or if you have a cell phone. Or if you have a loved one in a nursing home. You have probably been forced to sign an arbitration agreement. Virtually all banks, many employers and some nursing homes will even refuse to do business with you unless you sign away your power to hold them accountable for their actions. If you refuse to sign an arbitration agreement you can lose your credit card, lose your phone service, or even be fired.

The reason why these binding mandatory arbitration agreements are legal is a series of wrongly decided Supreme Court decisions that began in the 1980s. Needless to say, business groups like the Chamber of Commerce are very interested in blocking any legislation which might overturn these wrongful decisions, and they have hired a veritable army of lobbyists to block a bill called the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prevent companies from coercing their customers and employees into signing away their rights."

Sen. Russ Feingold sponsored a bill, the Arbitration Fairness Act, which died in committee last year. Perhaps now with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, it's time to bring up that bill again.

In 2007, the National Employment Lawyers Association offered the following testimony before Congress -- their testimony includes documentation on just how many U.S. companies offering just about any type of service have warped the rights of employees nationwide:

"As NELA members can attest from the cases they see in their practices, the use of MA programs as a tool for companies to “stack the deck” in their favor in disputes with their employees has grown exponentially over the last 15 years. Today, 15% to 25% of United States employers use MA programs – covering a conservatively estimated 30 million workers, a greater number than union contracts cover. The attached NELA fact sheet, “Data Points: Increasing Prevalence of Mandatory Arbitration Programs Imposed on Employees,” reviews available statistics showing the dramatic growth of these programs.

"Thousands of American companies use or have used mandatory arbitration, including such household names as Circuit City, Hooter’s, Dillard’s Department Stores, Cisco Systems, Anheuser-Busch, and Halliburton. These companies are in virtually every industry – retail, food services, manufacturing, and financial services, to name a few. The attached list of companies for which the American Arbitration Association (AAA) held at least five employment arbitrations between January 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, but it again shows that the use of mandatory arbitration is alive and well in the United States in the 21st Century."

Court Says White House Agency Exempt From Law

A D.C. judge has ruled that the White House can keep hiding their emails, declaring the group tracking and holding the documents are a "non-agency." Just ignore the previous 30 years of law.

In suit filed by CREW (Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility) against the Office of Administration, the court says millions of "lost emails" don't actually need to follow the laws of the Freedom of Information Act. CREW was quick to respond:

"After initially agreeing to provide records, OA changed course and claimed it was not an agency and, therefore, had no obligation to comply with the FOIA. OA made this claim despite the fact that even the White House’s own website described OA as an agency and included regulations for processing FOIA requests.

While acknowledging the question is a close one, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has found that OA is not an agency on the grounds that it does not exercise substantial independent authority.

OA has admitted that it functioned as an agency and processed FOIA requests until August 2007. Although CREW filed its FOIA request in April 2007 – four months before OA changed its position – the court found that OA had no duty to respond to CREW’s FOIA request because OA was never an agency in the first place.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan said today, “CREW has appealed the decision. The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails. The fact is, until CREW asked for documents pertaining to this problem, the Office of Administration routinely processed FOIA requests. Only because the administration has so much to hide here, has the White House taken the unprecedented position that OA is not subject to the FOIA.”

Writers at Reason Magazine offer this:

"For 30 years, the Office of Administration has been subject to FOIA. But once they discovered that the Office of Administration may have paperwork showing how or why the Bush administration was able to dispose of millions of possibly incriminating emails, the White House conveniently decided the office was no longer subject to FOIA."

The usual laws mean nothing under current White House leadership. Just keep moving the records around until enough delays take place to muddy any investigation.

The Decider is, after all, The Decider.