Law v. Life

Dear Hillary

Dear Hillary,
Please stop calling me.  I already voted.  And it wasn't for you.  I was never going to vote for you.  Trust me, more phone calls would not have changed my mind.

I find it interesting that although I have never given you money or in any way supported your campaign, you just keep calling me.  My cell phone, no less.  I bought campaign merchandise from John.  But he hasn't bugged me early in the morning and during work and during dinner and when I'm getting ready for bed.  Maybe that is because he loves me back.

I donated money to Barack and hosted a fundraiser for him, but he hasn't called me either.  I get the emails I signed up for from him, but not a single phone call.  I expected to get phone calls from Barack, because I listed my number on countless forms, but, yet, he was considerate enough not to bother me. 

Maybe if I had given you money, you would be satisfied and would leave me alone, but I doubt it since I know supporters of yours who are getting calls too. 

I would be more understanding if you had only called once, or even twice.  I wouldn't mind so much if your automated calling program at least waited for my voicemail to answer before it started talking about the weather, so that when I listened to it I would know right away that it was you.  And it's not cute for you to joke about the weather.  My socks are wet; I know it's raining.  Please, just stop calling me.  Considering the polls close soon, maybe my plea is too late.  But you just called me 15 minutes ago, and you called me an hour and twenty-five minutes ago, and you called me at 9am today, so you might not have gotten it completely out of your system yet.  And you called me twice yesterday, and twice the day before, and just once the day before that, but twice the day before that.  Please stop.  If you do get the nomination somehow, this behavior in the fall is highly discouraged.

Very truly yours,

LvL

P.S. Could you please ask Ted to stop calling me, too?

Obama all the way

Well, I've made my choice, and now I think it's time for John to follow my lead and endorse Barack Obama.

Nearly a celebrity

Today I was interviewed by Fox News.  There is just something inherently wrong with that, but I can't say no to a microphone.  So, although I was already late for a meeting and it was cold and windy, when the guy asked if he could talk to me about my thoughts on the primaries, I couldn't very well say no.  I probably sounded like an idiot, but I don't think I said anything too truly stupid.  I was just glad that I was able to answer his questions rather than being some person who isn't even aware that the primaries are going on.

Basically the concept was that "experts" are saying that Ohio's primary might actually matter - and what did I think of that.  I think it would be cool if our votes matter, and I think it's highly unlikely they will.  I don't think I bought into the premise enough for the news guy, and he seemed very disappointed that I didn't say I was an independent who would figure out who to vote for on election day, but he still asked me lots of questions.

I hope I get on the news and don't sound or look stupid.  Next time I'm walking down 3rd street, I will need to have some prepared talking points.

Who needs real political correspondents?

I hope all of the presidential candidates appear on The Colbert Report, because that is totally how I am going to decide who to vote for.  I just watched an episode with Mike Huckabee and it made me totally adore him.  Obviously, I disagree with Huckabee on virtually every issue and wouldn't really vote for him, but I do like him better than some of the republicans, and the Colbert bump does't hurt.  I do appreciate the irony of him being the one to cross the picket lines by appearing on The Tonight Show...  The strike needs to hurry up and end, so I can see Edwards and Colbert together...  I am so going to marry Stephen Colbert.

You can make a statement - Wrong -

With a gun - Even if you fail.

Sara Jane Moore was paroled from prison yesterday after trying to assassinate Gerald Ford on September 22, 1975.  I never understood why someone would have cared enough to try to kill Ford.  At least Squeaky Fromme had the whole Manson thing, so it didn't make sense, but there was an "explanation."

It's weird to think about presidents being assassinated.  To me that's something of other generations.  It's material for a musical.  But less than a week after the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and with constant news of murdered journalists and peace workers around the world, today it seems real.  There is so much killing around the world, and in the United States, that I usually just think of the special headline stories as just another part of that.  In some ways the death of one individual is nothing compared to all the rest, and in other ways it can have so much greater of an impact and even lead to far more deaths.

Okay, that's enough depressing talk for the new year.  Maybe this will be the year that we move a little closer to world peace...  Or maybe we will at least get another great Sondheim musical soon.

Nifong on Trial... Edit: Nifong case being heard by NC Discliplinary Hearing Commission

If there is anyone who is concerned about prosecutorial misconduct and the risk of wrongful convictions, it's me.  I firmly believe that all attorneys should be held to very high ethical and professional standards, and that those standards should be even higher for state actors.  But something really troubles me about the headlines about Mike Nifong, the prosecutor from the Duke lacrosse case.  USA Today exclaims, "Trial this week for prosecutor in Duke case," Fox News declares, "District Attorney Mike Nifong on trial as Much as Lacrosse Players in Rape Case, Duke President Says," and CBS News begins its story by saying, "More than a year after shocking allegations emerged about Duke University's lacrosse team, prosecutor Mike Nifong was back in court Tuesday — this time as the defendant."

My complaint is with the way every single story makes it sound like criminal charges have been filed against Nifong.  The stories talk about how he will take the stand, that he will supposedly say he regrets his actions, that he is "on trial," he is "the defendant," etc.  ABC News says, "for the first time in his professional life, Duke lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong will enter a North Carolina courtroom and sit at the defense table."  The story talks about  the "charges he faces" and what will happen if he is "found guilty."

None of the stories appears to actually misstate anything, but I think the stories are very misleading to the general public that does not understand disciplinary proceedings.  This is a civil action.  There is no prosecutor.  There is a plaintiff and a defendant, just like in every civil case.  The only "charges" filed against Nifong as the "defendant" are the allegations pled in the disciplinary complaint against him.  The North Carolina State Bar filed an ethics complaint against Nifong alleging that he engaged in a variety of unethical behavior.  The prayer for relief asks that disciplinary action be taken as the evidence may warrant.  This could very well include disbarment, if the allegations are found to be true.  But first, before he is convicted faces sanctions, a panel of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission will hear the evidence, order the sanctions it feels are appropriate, and Nifong will have the right to appeal the decision.  In order to find a violation, the burden of proof is that the violation must be shown by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.  No, this isn't as sexy as "Nifong on trial!  Nifong faces charges!"   But attorney discipline is a serious matter, especially if there really was serious prosecutorial misconduct as alleged.  And I just think there is something distasteful about all these stories that almost echo the behavior of which Nifong is "accused."

An unfamiliar feeling

I am a little confused.  I am actually happy about most of the election results.  I've never felt this way before.  The first year I was able to vote was 1996, and although I got to vote for Clinton, the republicans already had control of Congress and of Ohio by then.  That happened to also be one of the years Ohio previously rejected gambling.  I would have gotten to vote for Strickland for Congres that year, but I voted absentee, probably because of school board races in Columbus.  Anyway, it really is confusing to feel like some candidates were elected who I'm not scared to see what they are going to do in office.  In particular, Marc Dann's win was a welcome surprise.  It should be interesting to see what changes come from having a decent person with real conviction serve as Ohio's Attorney General.  And I am also thrilled that the statewide smoking ban passed.  The results can always be more favorable, but this was a great election.

We Believe Ohio: A good mix of religion and politics

We are called as people of faith and loyal Americans to be united in dialogue and action to say:

YES to justice for all

            NO to prosperity for only a few;

YES to diverse religious expression

            NO to self-righteous certainty;

YES to the common good

            NO to discrimination against any of God’s people;

YES to the voice of religious traditions informing public policy

            NO to crossing the lines that separate the institutions of Religion and Government

This is the mission statement of We Believe Ohio.

As usual, I was reading my Friday Daily Reporter a few days late, and I was pleased to see that the top story was about We Believe Ohio, a non-partisan faith-based group encouraging religious leaders and their congregations to know the issues and vote according to their beliefs.  What is exciting about this organization is that it is not driven by any specific political agenda.  Far too often, when religion and politics mix, it is all about politics and not remotely about religion.

To an extent, I think the article in the Daily Reporter was slightly misleading because it quotes Eric McFadden, the spokesperson for Catholics in Alliance, at length, making it seem like We Believe Ohio is advocating specifically Catholic values.  I don’t disagree with anything Mr. McFadden is quoted as saying in the article, but what makes We Believe Ohio so unique is that it is a group of religiously diverse pastors, priests, rabbis, cantors, and lay leaders.  What binds this group together is “a deep and abiding love of the God whom we serve” and a “strong belief that we must act and speak in public ways to support the poor, the children, and those who are voiceless and unrepresented in our times.”

I was at the Get Out the Vote Rally for Justice last Thursday at which Reverend James Forbes, Sister Simone Campbell, and others spoke about the issues that are important to We Believe Ohio, and which should be important to all people of faith.  They did not tell the room of 200+ people how to vote or how to tell their congregations to vote. 

But they did acknowledge the simple fact that the current minimum wage is not livable.  And they did question whether the United States’ foreign policy and the ongoing war is consistent with religious principles.  And they discussed the demise of the environment and policies that appear to place profit over survival of the planet.  And they did talk about the need to rehabilitate criminal offenders rather than just lock them away.  And they took offense at allowing an unconstitutional school funding scheme to continue while giving lip service to protecting children.  And they urged the return of accountability and responsibility that has been destroyed by politicians who flout common ethics, abuse our trust (and our children), and break the law. And they touched on many other election issues that require people of faith to ask whether the politicians and policies they are voting for really support the common good.

It was awesome to hear religious leaders talk about faith informing politics, but not seek to have it control policy or coerce people into blind support.  I hope that people of faith really do examine their most deeply held values this election year and vote their conscience, on behalf of the common good.

Hartmann: No internet access to public records

I am kind of a privacy freak.  I admit it.  I have very strong opinions about the government having access to personal information and monitoring citizens.  I am troubled by the use that is made of consumer information and how it is tracked and bought and sold.  I refer my friends to the few locations that offer anonymous (not confidential) HIV tests.  I have what I consider to be a very healthy level of paranoia about the amount of our lives that are monitored by various entities that have no business monitoring us.

But I am outraged by Greg Hartmann's political ploy of blocking internet access to all Hamilton County public records.  The latest dispatch poll showed Jennifer Brunner leading Hartmann 36% to 28%, with 32% still undecided in the secretary of state race.  In a state with a corrupt, election-manipulating, GOP puppet current SOS running for governor, apparently Hartmann thinks privacy is a good election issue (especially given Blackwell's miserable record).  I would agree, but shutting down internet access doesn't protect privacy, it just eliminates transparency.  The press release states that "Full public access to court records is still readily available to those who visit the courthouse."  So, as long as you want to make the trip you can get all the social security numbers, "child custody records, bank account numbers, and child victims' names" you want.  But in the mean time, you can't see a return of service online.  And you can't view the answer of a corporation in a civil case.  And you can't view the details of an entry setting an upcoming hearing.  Because rather than implementing a policy consistent with the alleged goals as stated in the press release such as temporarily blocking access to probate and juvenile court records (as is the policy in Franklin County) and reviewing other civil cases as appropriate, Hartmann just made the extreme decision to eliminate access to all records.  Unless of course you go to the courthouse.

Cases filed in Cincinnati involve people and businesses all over the state of Ohio and nationwide.  And until Hartmann's political maneuver, Hamilton County could be proud to have one of the most user-friendly clerk of court websites in the state.  If you were a party to a lawsuit, a reporter, or an interested citizen, you could view public records with a click of the mouse.  But now, in the name of privacy, Hartmann has blocked access to all public records (online only) because he trails in the polls.  Apparently this has been an issue he has struggled with for years, having taken criticism when he first put everything online, and then trying to rectify that by removing first some supposedly sensitive documents, then more...including traffic tickets in 2004. Hey, at least he's got an advisory committee working on it.  But then again, a privacy task force was appointed in January 2004 that was supposedly going to make recommendations during the summer of 2004 about how to hide sensitive records so they would only be available to attorneys via password.  Because only attorneys have a right to public records.  Or maybe because only attorneys can be trusted not to be identity thieves.

I'm not saying I'm a proponent of having social security numbers available to potential identity thieves online or that sensitive juvenile and probate information should all be readily available.  I bet Hartmann has no objection to putting sex offender information online, no matter how much harassment that may cause and how much it may interfere with successful rehabilitation.  But, whatever the subject matter, if something is a public record, it's a public record and should be readily available.  As Ohio has seen all too well, there are agencies and elected officials who will break the law to keep public information from being made available.  Whether it is to protect themselves from prosecution or embarrassment, or as a campaign issue, Ohioans should not stand for it.  Transparency is essential for good government and a free society, and I want Greg Hartmann to make public records available online again, right now.