Slight Return...

...to one of the themes in my Something Bad entry of a few days ago. (Bonus Smartypants Points, by the way, if you know to what I was referring in the title and first line of that post)

A source familiar with the Times' editorial decisions informs us that the article about the Supreme Court decision regarding the Exclusionary Rule written by Adam Liptak is considered by the Times to be an update of the story written by David Stout - i.e. a later version of the same story - so it replaced the earlier one rather than appearing in addition to it. Since to the best of my knowledge the Stout story never appeared in the print edition of the Times, it is now lost in the folds of the internets.

One might say 'good riddance to bad garbage;' one might surmise as to the thinking behind that unusually sweeping editorial choice, or the immediate feedback that led to it; one might marvel at something being removed from the record in our so-called 'Newspaper of Record.' But there it is: just one of the innumerable quirky publishing details that happen every day, perhaps remarkable only in that it was noticed by a handful of alert citizens.

Something Bad Is Happening

Something very Bad is happening.

Maybe there is something lunar going on. Just too much is too weird for this all to be ok.

The Zipper Factory Theater closed suddenly, and without warning. Such a good space with good adventurous shows. Very sad.

For Round Two: the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a dirty blow to due process, by cutting off the Exclusionary Rule, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, at the knees. An odd addendum here is that the first article I saw on this in the Times was by David Stout and had a very glib tone - making it seem that this ruling was a-ok if you prefer not to see the bad guys get off on technicalities. But then on Thursday the Times had this article, by Adam Liptak, which is much better and more circumspect, and looks into the ramifications more. And - this is the weird part - that first article is now nowhere to be found. I'll print it at the bottom of this entry, because I think it's important to acknowledge these sorts of media events, especially in publications as influential as the Times. Not to be all conspiracy theory about it, but - what do you suppose is going on there?

No matter how you slice it, the ruling is bad news. And the fact that it's not being treated as BIG news is a little scary.

Next, we have the Metropolitan Opera facing huge cuts. Check out some of the specifics there: their endowment has dropped by a third, to the tune of $100 million dollars. That's 100 million dollars less than they had a couple years ago. This kind of detail is what causes me to go nuts at the notion of it being some big 'victory' when NEA funding increases by 20 or 50 million bucks. It's just not to scale with the problems, and shows that the arts are literally devalued. Or, if you prefer, undervalued. In any case, it seems to me that our policy-makers are missing the point in a fundamental, not incremental, way.

It's an old and well-worn point, but by way of comparison, bear in mind that NEA budget was $144.4 million in 2008 (and the Bush administration even tried to cut that); and the budget for U.S. Military Bands was $168 million - in 1997. They stopped releasing those numbers (as people started noticing things like this?), but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they haven't gone down.

And then - why should those things be enough? - a plane crashes in the Hudson River.

What the heck is going on, people?

But there was a seriously sunny side in the fact that no one died or was even too badly hurt in that crash. SO - soon I'll be posting an entry with some things that feel more like good news.

Meanwhile, here's that first article I saw about Wednesday's Supreme Court Ruling, which appears to have been pulled by the Times.

By DAVID STOUT

Published: January 14, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of an Alabama man on drug and weapons charges, emphasizing that the exclusionary rule, which generally bars prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police through improper searches, is far from absolute.

In a 5-to-4 opinion, the court upheld the federal conviction of Bennie Dean Herring, who from the court records appears to have been very unlucky as well as felonious in his conduct. In upholding the conviction, the court’s majority came to a conclusion that will most likely please those who complain about criminals going free on “technicalities” and alarm those who fear that the high court is looking for ways to narrow the reach of the exclusionary rule.

Mr. Herring had gone to the Coffee County, Ala., sheriff’s department on July 7, 2004, to retrieve something from his truck, which had been impounded. “Herring was no stranger to law enforcement,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. observed dryly in his opinion for the court.

And he was no stranger to Mark Anderson, an investigator for the sheriff’s department, who asked a Coffee County clerk if there were any outstanding warrants for Mr. Herring.

No, Mr. Anderson was told. So he asked the clerk to check with her counterpart in neighboring Dale County, who turned up a warrant against Mr. Herring for failing to appear in court on a felony charge.

Mr. Anderson and a deputy following Mr. Herring as he left the impound lot pulled him over and arrested him. A search turned up methamphetamine in his pocket and a pistol, which Mr. Herring could not legally possess because of an earlier felony conviction, in his truck.

Within minutes, however, the Dale County clerk discovered that the warrant against Mr. Herring had been withdrawn five months earlier and had been left in the computer system by mistake. The clerk immediately called Mr. Anderson, but Mr. Herring had already been taken into custody.

Was Mr. Herring entitled to go free because the officers lacked probable cause and there was no dispute that both the arrest and subsequent search were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment? No, the Supreme Court ruled.

“When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search are the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, the exclusionary rule does not apply,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“We do not suggest that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule,” the majority noted. But the justices said the official errors in the Herring case do not compare with the kind of egregious and deliberate police misconduct that gave rise to the exclusionary rule in the first place.

Deciding when to throw out evidence under the exclusionary rule is a balancing act, the majority said. Is the official misconduct serious enough that the evidence should be disallowed to deter future misconduct, even if criminals sometimes go free?

Not in Mr. Herring’s case, the majority ruled, upholding findings by a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. “In my view, the court’s opinion underestimates the need for a forceful exclusionary rule and the gravity of recordkeeping errors in the law enforcement,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

But in the majority opinion, the chief justice wrote that the exclusionary rule “is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty
and possibly dangerous defendants go free.”

At another point, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “the very phrase ‘probable cause’ confirms that the Fourth Amendment does not demand all possible precision.”

The dissenters were unpersuaded, however. “Negligent recordkeeping errors by law enforcement threaten individual liberty, are susceptible to deterrence by the exclusionary rule, and cannot be remedied effectively through other means,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.

In Honor of the Rally Against Prop 8

There's a big rally at the Latter Day Saints' Temple in New York today opposing California's horrifically bigoted Proposition 8, which revoked Gay Marriage in that state, along with the other anti-equality ballot initiatives that passed last week. The good news is that it would seem a foregone conclusion that these laws (and all like it) will be struck down by the courts. It seems likely to me that eventually (soon?) the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down a ruling covering the whole nation - similar to the one that revoked all laws banning interracial marriages in 1967.

For now, we have to contend with "religious" groups acting out their sexist fears in appalling ways. Well, I guess we appall each other. Don't mean to offend any Mormons who have seen the light (or what I call the light - you know, that thing that clarifies sight). As for any of the closed-minded ones who happen to be reading this, I'd recommend that you let go of your fear, if you're in the mood to listen to my recommendations.

November 4, 2008

It's kind of worn territory to say that this is an historic election. Kind of really well worn. What can I add to the discussion? Report that the lines were longer in Hoboken than they've ever been, in my experience? Old news.

That the people in those lines were friendlier and more cheerful to be waiting than people on almost any line I can remember? (other than maybe the lunatics - including me - who stayed out all night for R.E.M. tickets freshman year, but I think there was vodka involved.) It's all over the radio and the internets.

That I'm happy that my polling place was moved from the firehouse to the retirement home a few years ago, because the line at the firehouse was MUCH longer - like, out the door and around the corner long? [Ok, that one may actually be original - though I should add that the people in that line looked pretty happy too.]

That a friend in Brooklyn reported things like being 33rd in line at a quarter to 6 this morning, and another referred to the crowd at the polls being "a bit of a Bed Stuy street party"? This stuff has been ALL OVER THE MEDIA. Oh, and a Bed Stuy blogger whose work I like a lot had a good post on that scene too. Really like his tag line: "Let's make some goddamned history."

So while the Supreme Court listens to arguements over just what constitutes a dirty word on TV, let's do that, shall we? Let's make history. Go to the polls; cast your vote; listen to 'Yes We Can,' or 'Give Peace a Chance,' or 'Fanfare for the Common Man,' or 'Stars and Stripes Forever' or 'I'm Proud to be an American' or whatever, on your way home; do some door-to-door or make some calls if you can spare the time; then gather with friends and lovers to watch the returns over some patriotic food.

But take it from a Red Sox fan: take it vote by vote. Please consider leaving the Champagne in the fridge until you hear a concession speech.

summer's over

We know this because it's October. One game playoff will determine if Colorado or San Diego go to the official postseason. The Mets blew it, impossibly. The D-backs have the best record in the National league without a standout star. Let the games begin again.

The Supreme Court goes back into relatively neutral session, or so mass media would have us think. No major decisions expected on abortion rights or gay marriage. But don't go to sleep just yet - we've got a big habeas corpus question on the agenda, and a death penalty case. And then, apropos the prison-industrial complex, a possible wedge issue having to do with sentencing guidelines for cocaine and crack (you've got to have 100 times as much coke to get the same 'recommended' sentence as that for crack - of course, this has nothing whatever to do with race).

Meanwhile, back to the summer, here's a photo for your amusement:



Yep, that's more evidence of the Fire Island debauchery. We're just about to leave the island in the rain (and you thought we were wearing garbage bags for style reasons!) at this point.

Now, I'm not saying you should ignore the sight of those dorks in the pathetic ponchos, but the foreground actually tells a nice mini-story: the colored pencils and magic markers with the journal, the leftover tennis balls, the bottles of wine (one left unopened for the next set of revelers, one partially enjoyed) and gin, the ferry and train schedules standing up next to the jar with pens and pencils. And you even get a sense of the cabin.

Plus there's, you know, the flimsy garbage bags (wastebasket size, at that) and ridiculous facial expressions. Hehehe.