Louisiana Doubles Down on Dumb

Who Dat

The headline from Reuters read “Louisiana's bold bid to privatize schools” but it could have as easily read “We plan on becoming dumber than a bag of hammers” 

Via Reuters

Louisiana is embarking on the nation's boldest experiment in privatizing public education, with the state preparing to shift tens of millions in tax dollars out of the public schools to pay private industry, businesses owners and church pastors to educate children.

Like Louisiana didn’t have enough problems.  Shiteeeeeee. 

What has happened to our country that we know do not trust the government to run our public education but we are more than happy to pack them off to a one room school house like we did their great-great grandfathers.  "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and we will educate them like we did one hundred and fifty years ago.  So much for progress.

Via Reuters

"We are changing the way we deliver education," said Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican who muscled the plan through the legislature this spring over fierce objections from Democrats and teachers unions. "We are letting parents decide what's best for their children, not government."

Hey Gov. Bobby Joe Billy Bob – I have a suggestion for you.  Why don’t you change Louisiana’s infant mortality rate (highest in the nation –edgamakation kant buy you dose numbers! )

Here’s some other numbers y’all might want to work on.

The fifth-highest maternal mortality rate, the fourth-worst life expectancy rate, the fifth-highest violent

crime rate, the second-highest poverty rate, and the fifth-highest obesity rate in the country.

 (Research courtesy of wonkette.com). 

The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

So Louisiana is going to teach the three R's - Republican, Regression and the Dismantling of the American Public Education System (I know that doesn't start with R but it won't matter soon)

People from all over the world come here so their kids can get a public education (with any luck they will have read this blog and will skip Louisiana  - waste of timeeeeee) and yet Bobby Jindal knows better than the government that instituted that system.  Are there problems with the current system.  Of course but do you things that are going to happen like detailed below are any better????

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.

I wish I could end on that quote but I have just two more things to say.

Under full disclosure - I sleep with a teacher and my son is in school to become one.  Do you think that really had anything to do with my response.  Come on man.

PS. Can we sell Louisiana back to France???? Retourner la vente de la Louisiane

J.P.Morgan Chase & Co and the Gong Show

I must admit to having a soft spot for J.P. Morgan.  Not JPMorgan Chase & Co., the largest bank in the United States with assets of $2 trillion.

Jaye P. Morgan

I am talking about Jaye P. Morgan who served during the 1970's as a celebrity judge on “The Gong Show”.

The Gong Show was an amateur talent contest that was similar to today’s "America’s Got Talent" but it was a whole lot weirder.   

After an act that consisted of two teenage girls consuming popsicles in a sexually suggestive manner Jaye P. Morgan famously quipped.
"Do you know that's how I started?"

Jaye P. was sexy, funny and crazy.   

the other J.P. Morgan

Unfortunately this blog is about the other JPMorgan who are none of those things but who may be up to a sexual act with the U.S. taxpayers. 

 In a stunning flashback to the 2008, another “too big to fail” bank lost a gazillion dollars while engaging in highly risky suspect derivative trading.  The left hand (the CEO whose 2012 compensation totaled $41.99 million dollars) didn’t know what the right hand (his company) was doing. 

Recently after lawmakers finished work on the new financial regulatory law, a team of JPMorgan Chase lobbyists rushed in. They tried to obtain special breaks that would allow banks to make big bets in their portfolios, including some of the types of trading that led to the $2 gazillion dollar loss.

I don't know. I couldn't see the back of the shirt

It has also since been learned that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was lobbying regulators to create a loophole in the law, known as the Volcker Rule.  The Volcker rule was designed to limit the very kind of proprietary trading that JPMorgan was seeking.  Even after the Volcker rule was enacted  JPMorgan and other banks continued their efforts to avoid limits.

Banks that are too big to fail are much more of a threat to our national security than AL-Qaeda is.

In fact while writing this I referenced the Financial Times and found out  that a Morgan Stanley research team estimated that Dimon’s crap-shoot will cost 5 billion by years end more than doubling the initial disclosure.  Hence the gazillion dollar estimate.

 

Since this has all happened I have heard some financial talking heads complaining about possible regulatory backlash and bad legislation.  Complaining that Democrats are going to run to the bank with this….

How can any sane person argue against instituting financial regulations to prevent a recurrence of 2008 you say...  well funny you asked.
Rep Spencer Bachus (R-AL) Chair of the Financial Services Committee recently said.

“We are again hearing um from some of our colleagues that we need a law that will essentially prevent a company losing money or taking risks and no such law can do that, nor should a law attempt to prohibit a company from taking risks.”

In 2008, Bachus traded in options at least forty times, making money from betting against the market as it collapsed that year.

Rep Bachus is either missing the point or intentionally protecting financial institutions to the detriment of the American taxpayer (his boss).  This is not a purely capitalist system where the only people who stand to lose are the people who knowingly engage in the speculative financial shell games.  These shell games involve deposits backed by the federal government.  The last time this meltdown occurred the cost were staggering.  Should it fail this type of risk could pull down the whole economy.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=58695

The financial crisis cost the U.S. an estimated $648 billion due to slower economic growth.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will result in a net cost to taxpayers of $73 billion

The U.S. lost $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth from July 2008 to March 2009

The U.S. lost $7.4 trillion in stock wealth from July 2008 to March 2009

5.5 million more American jobs were lost due to slower economic growth during the financial crisis than what was predicted by the September 2008 CBO forecast.

Other estimates totaled losses as high as 8.5 trillion.

As Paul Krugman pointed out in

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/opinion/dimons-deja-vu-debacle.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The point, again, is that an institution like JPMorgan — a too-big-to-fail bank, not to mention a bank whose deposits are already guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers — shouldn’t be engaged in this kind of speculative investment at all. And that’s why we need a return to much stronger financial regulation, stronger even than the Dodd-Frank regulations passed back in 2010.

 

How I wish Chuck Barris and the crew would come back just one more time and bang the gong sending JPMorgan and their tired old act packing.

VAWA, Republican and Ducks

You know the saying “if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck”? I have written about the Republican Party recent efforts to proactively undermine or outright attack existing women’s rights.  There is a long list of recent Republican efforts; trying to redefine rape, defunding planned parenthood and transvaginal ultrasounds to name a few.

With the list of detailed proposed legislation and public stances it is clear that the Republican Party has adapted a platform that is anti-women.  It will be argued by those on the right who support those positions that there are various reasons or we misunderstand but you can now add another item to that list.

The “Violence Against Women Act “(VAWA) was passed with bipartisan support in 1994.  It is a federal law that provides funding toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.

The VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005.  According to the ACLU in their July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

 

This year’s version which was written by the Democrats includes 3 new provisions that Republicans don't like. One, it gives Indian tribal governments new powers to prosecute crimes against women. Two, it increases the ability of undocumented immigrants to report violence against themselves without fear of deportation. And three, for shelters and programs that receive this money, it bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims experience domestic violence at roughly the same rate as the general population,” but they are less likely to receive help, said Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado.

The Republican House has proposed their own version of the bill that women and religious advocacy groups oppose.  31 religious groups, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals and the Episcopal Church, opposed immigration provisions of the House bill.

These provisions “would actually roll back protections in current law for battered noncitizens, making them more vulnerable and, in some cases, endangering their lives,” the groups said in a letter to House leaders.

How can one find fault with strengthening a bill that protects  groups that are more vulnerable?  The bill was passed with Republican support in the Senate; it is supported by hundreds of advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies. 

Advocacy groups active on domestic violence warned that the House bill would mark a "low point" in the drive to eliminate violence against women.

"With rollbacks of immigration provisions, the absence of strong protections for Native women, much less any protections or services for the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community, this bill is a travesty," said Lisalyn Jacobs, vice president for government relations at Legal Momentum, a women's legal advocacy group.

Total 2012 VAWA Budget Request – $455 Million

In fiscal year 2010, the U.S. government allocated the $52.7 billion for foreign aid:

Democrats in Congress and others have been accusing Republicans for months for waging a war on women," said Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the bill. "We've been called anti-victim, elitist, homophobic and racist. These ridiculous attacks stop now. Right here, right now."

Okay – then vote for a bill that is improved and its coverage expanded to those who need it the most. The argument against it is that the previous bill covered everyone equally. 

But we all know not everyone is treated equally.
And we can't improve legislation because it is a political ploy........

BTW in 2010 The US Fish & Wildlife service wanted to designate 12 million acres in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana as the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area and then spend well over 500 million dollars preserving ducks there by paying land owners to use their land only for grazing.  Just saying.

Job Creators and Gay Marriage - why not?

I was in the middle of writing this blog when President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.  I was a little bummed at the timing as I had hoped that this post would be the thing that convinced him.
I suspect he heard that I was writing it and that was probably enough for him......
The right re-branded rich people as "job creators". We should re-brand gay marriage. I suggest we refer to gay marriage as “How about granting basic human and civil rights to two people who are earnest and want to spend their lives together and are willing to legally bind that commitment union”. 
Like??? Kind of rolls off your tongue right?  So from now on I will refer to the re-branded term.

Recently North Carolina held a vote on amending their state constitution to banning “How about granting basic human and civ....Wait - that's going to be tough to type over and over.  We need an acronym - North Carolina passed the amendment banning HAGBHCRTTPWAEAWTSTLTAAWTLBTCU by a 60 – 40 margin.

Tami Fitzgerald, who heads the pro-amendment group Vote FOR Marriage NC, said "I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."

I wonder if it ever occurred to people like Tami that gay people are part of God’s design.

According to Wikipedia  - In August 2010 a CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, with numerous polls after it showing majority support.

Marriage is no longer a social convention nor a religious one.  It may have started that way but it has evolved.  There are civil right, tax implications.  It has serious implications for two people who are in love and wish to be together. You should take a moment and view the video link below.  It’s a story that needs to be shared – it’s a terrible illustration of what happens when you don’t have protection under the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pR9gyloyOjM

In case you are wondering exactly what rights you are granted in marriage, you might want to read the following courtesy of     http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family 

As Ferris Bueller once said. "Your still here?"
Congratulations if you made it this far.
 I truly do not understand how granting rights to same sex couples is anything but the celebration of marriage.  How many of the people who voted for the state constitutional ban do not honor the very institution they are so afraid will be destroyed by granting that very same right to the children of God that they worship. His design.  So how about a little love and compassion for HAGBHCRTTPWAEAWTSTLTAAWTLBTCU.  But even the acronym is to long - how about we just call it Job Creator marriage.

I love you Beth Cooper no no I mean Phillip Morris ok ok I really mean Jon Huntsman......

Ryan's budget
The roadmap for America's future

So many things to write about  - like what a scam Paul Ryan's proposed budget is or I would like to comment on a great piece written by Bill Saporito in the April 23rd issue of Time Magazine
 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2111813,00.html 

Amongst other things Saporito points out that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive vice-president complained about the us having the highest corporate tax rate (39%) but he neglected to mention that the effective corporate tax rate is on the order of 12%.  Ask GE that didn't pay anything in 2010. Or Ireland which has one of the lowest rates and is a complete disaster. How about one of Europe's leading economies Germany which has an effective rate of 30%.  Yesscchhh 12% doesn't seem all that bad but I need to move along.

Or i could write about the Texas Supreme Court who cut damages to a trucker who was fired for refusing to drive an unsafe load.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texas-supreme-court-cuts-damages-to-trucker-who-2317267.html?cxtype=rss_ece_frontpage.
There is plenty to write about regarding the court's logic in that case.

I love you Jon Huntsman

But this blog isn't going to be about that - those other topics can wait for another day.
This blog is about the Republicans and my apparent continuing man-crush on Jon Huntsman.  With all of the other issues to be concerned about I don't now why I feel the need to write about this. i have a family member that is a Republican.
I guess it is because I feel soooooo bad for fiscally conservative Republicans.  I even feel bad for the socially conservative Republicans. 

It's just you haven't had a serious candidate to love in a long time. (please don't give me Herman Cain......ok)
Let's look at the usual suspects.

Newt, Rich. Sarah, Michell and Mitt

Newt is a serial adulterer and wound a wee bit too tight.  Brilliant, certainly but that might be part of his problem.  Some of the smartest people I know are a bit off. 
Mitt - maybe he would be a good president.  No one is really sure what he believes. But then again did we really ever really know what Reagan believed in except for bullshit trickle-down economics. Stop the contras, no give them guns, stop the Iranians, no give them money.


Huntsman criticized his party on Sunday evening.  According to
 http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/jon-huntsman-trashes-gop-expresses-campaign-regre#HTWF2

Huntsman comparing the Republican Party to communist China and questioning the strength of this year's presidential field.....Huntsman spoke candidly about his party's flaws, lamenting the Republican National Committee's decision to rescind an invitation to a major fundraising event after Huntsman called for a third-party candidate to enter the race.
"This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script," Huntsman said.

Huntsman also spoke on Sunday about his presidential candidacy, revealing that he was less than impressed by his fellow candidates when he attended his first debate in August.
"Is this the best we could do?" Huntsman said he asked himself.
He also joked that his wife forbade him to pander to the party's far-right contingent ahead of Iowa's caucuses, which likely hurt him with conservative voters in the Hawkeye State.
“She said if you pandered, if you sign any of those damn pledges, I’ll leave you,” Huntsman said. "So I had to say I believe in science -- and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you're ... an oddball."

Rocky was a heavyweight

"Gone are the days when the Republican Party used to put forward big, bold, visionary stuff," Huntsman said during the February interview with MSNBC that got him disinvited from the RNC fundraiser. "I think we're going to have problems politically until we get some sort of third-party movement or some alternative voice out there that can put forward new ideas."

Compared to Newt this was mild

What happened to great Republicans like Abe Lincoln, Ike, Norm MacDonald imitating Bob Dole, George Bush Sr., for God's sake.  Even Rockefeller was a Republican.  Jack Kemp Goddammit.............
Giving this some thought - maybe Newt has something to do with this.  Since his arrival on the political scene there hasn't been a Republican candidate of any ilk.  Santorum, Paul, Palin, Bachmann???- how does that list of names compare to the guys mentioned above. Geez give us credit we (Democrats) have moved on from guys like Lester Maddox and things like Howard Dean's scream.

Now I knew Jack Kemp (or at least cheered for him when he played for the Bills) and Jon Huntsman is no Jack Kemp but at least he is one of the few to have the guts to call out his own party.  The Republicans need more people like him (or at least somebody on that side to tell Rush to shut his big piehole.)

You've heard of J.Lo and J.Woww - well prepare yourself for RWoW

J.Lo

RWoW- Republican War on Woman 

- the latest hot political trend (RWoW - patent pending CoD). 

Now I would like to take a certain political party at their word when they say there are not waging a “War on Woman”. Just because some Misogynist (and I do not use that term lightly) Republican state senator¹said in support of a bill to repeal his state’s equal pay law that the reason women make less is because ‘Money is more important for men’. Nor would a comment from some woman hating Georgia Republican state representative² comparing woman to pregnant cows and pigs in support of a bill that that would make it illegal for women who are carrying stillborns to abort the baby. And certainly not the Republican governor³ who championed the repeal of his state’s equal pay law or the staff of a certain Republican presidential candidate⁴ who could not answer a simple question about whether he supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first federal law signed by President Obama, in 2009, which makes it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination.  Nor legislation⁵ so extreme as to declare a woman pregnant two weeks before she conceives.

Now here's the facts..............

I am just another Old White Guy

¹                  State Sen. Glenn Grothman made the remarks following a recent decision to repeal his state’s equal pay law, a move that makes it more difficult for victims of wage discrimination to file lawsuits for lost earnings and back wages. Senator Grothman said that whatever wage gap exists is because women are more focused on raising children. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers, but the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go, go, go. Now they're 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person. You could argue that money is more important for men,” he said. “I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”. Thank you Senator Caveman.

Yep another old White Guy

²                  Georgia Republican state representative Terry England gave a speech in which he said his experience on farms convinced him that woman should be forced to have their babies after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In debates over Georgia Bill 954 which would ban abortions after 20 weeks even if the baby is not expected to live, England recalled the time he had spent with livestock.

“Life gives us many experiences,” he explained. “I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive — delivering pigs, dead and alive. … It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”

England than continued while discussing dog and hog hunting and chicken fighting.  “You know a few years ago, I had a man come to me in our store, it was when we were debating, talking about dog and hog hunting, I believe, and at that point there was some language inserted in there that dealt with chicken fighting. And the young man called me to the side and he said, ‘I want to tell you one thing.’ And y’all, this is salt of the Earth people I’m talking about, someone I would have never in a hundred years expected to tell me what he told me that day.” Mr. Terry, I want to tell you something. You tell those folks down there when they stop killing babies, they can have every chicken I’ve got.”

So the offer from guy who conducts chickens fights to the guy who wants to force women to carry a dead fetus inside of them is that he will give up his chickens. Brings a tear to my eye.

damn 3 for 3 (okay younger)

³                  The Republican governor (Scott Walker of Wisconsin) signed the repeal of a 2009 law allowing the victims of wage discrimination to pursue damages in state court, which is easier than filing a federal complaint. The principal reason for the original law was to narrow a significant gap in compensation between men and women. . (Note to self Gov. Walker also exempted male-dominated sectors of government employees (police, firefighters) from his no-public-bargaining rule, but applied the rule fully to female-dominated sectors (teachers, social workers, etc.).

booyaah Number 4

⁴           Said Gov. Walker was warmly embraced during the Wisconsin presidential primary last month by Mitt Romney, who won that state. “I applaud your governor,” said Mr. Romney, who also called him a “hero” and a “man of courage.”. On Wednesday morning, his staff could not answer a simple question about whether Mr. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first federal law signed by President Obama, in 2009, which makes it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination. A few hours later, the Romney campaign put out a bland statement saying he supports pay equity and “is not looking to change current law.” Mr. Romney has also said he wants to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood, just as Mr. Walker ended state financing for nine Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin last year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2011, states enacted 135 new reproductive healthcare laws. Personhood amendments, transvaginal ultrasounds, and attacks on contraception actually mean that the war on American women is ongoing. 

BTW RNS spokesperson Sean Spicer stated that using ‘war’ in the description of an assault on women’s reproductive rights “borders on unpatriotic.”  That’s a good one…..  Feel free to google Republican accusations of Obama and his war on (fill in the blank).

I have raised one very strong daughter that I am very proud of and have assisted in the raising of two step-daughters.  I will in no way stand quiet and allow a bunch of old white guys decide what is appropriate or correct in women’s rights. If you have a dick you have no right to impose your rules on woman. You have no idea.

And to think of all those embryos you care so deeply about that is until they come out and you can start to bitch about them for not paying income tax.

Read what someone who has a little more at stake in this than me wrote-
Soraya Chemaly: 10 Reasons the Rest of the World Thinks the U.S. Is Nuts

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1345214

Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are against government intrusion unless it includes a body cavity

10 States don’t do it.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons don't do it.

The U.S. Marshalls don’t do it.

What is it?  It’s what should  happen to Supreme Court Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas if they are ever arrested for walking their dog without a leash,  riding their bikes without a bell or with an inoperable car headlight.  The answer is - a good healthy visual body cavity search or what’s commonly known as a strip search.

Here’s what happened – In 2005  Albert Florence, his wife and little boy were pulled over by a state trooper. Mrs. Florence was at the wheel, but the trooper's roadside state records check showed a seven-year-old outstanding arrest warrant for Albert Florence for failing to pay a fine. Florence said he had paid the fine, and pulled out a receipt, which he kept in the car. But the trooper said there was nothing he could do. Florence was handcuffed and taken to the local county jail. 

What follows is what happened to Albert Florence and thanks to the Supreme Court ruling will happened to any of us lawbreakers should we be caught with our unleashed dogs.

At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, peti­tioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arm­pits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting.  –

(excepted from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf)

The state would later admit it had failed to properly purge the arrest warrant. He was held in jail for seven days and strip-searched twice.

As a result Florence sued contending that automatically strip-searching a person who is arrested for a minor offense violates the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.  The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.  The court ruled 5-4 in the case of ‘FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERSOF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL” that what was not even close to a universal practice has now been given constitutional protection. Strip searches for minor offenses.

Now keep in mind that detainees already have to pass through metal detectors machines before entering.  It's not all that far fetched to end up in jail when you are arrested for a having your headlight out (and that not a euphemism for anything).  If you get picked up at night or on a weekend when judges may not be available off you go.

What was the Supreme Court majorities rational you ask? - Justice Kennedy responded that “people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh 1995 Oklahoma City bomber, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. “One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93,” Justice Kennedy added.  – Now we all know that McVeigh hid 350 pounds of Tovex Blastrite Gel "sausages", nine ammonium nitrate and nitromethane filled drums and the four drums containing a mixture of the fertilizer and about 4-U.S.-gallon (3.3 imp gal; 15 L) of diesel fuel up his ass which would have been detected during the strip search.  And they would have discovered the  Boeing 757–222 embedded in the colon of one of the 9/11 hijackers.  Or maybe they just wanted to humiliate them before they released them after holding them for their minor offenses so they could then go about doing really bad things.



I find it interesting that conservatives rail against activist judges but I don't think there is anything more activist than giving access for viewing my duodenum without probable cause. And if your curious about "probable cause" lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer wrote
"The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred, conducted a study of 23,000 persons admitted to the Orange County correctional facility between 1999 and 2003.These 23,000 persons underwent a strip search of the kind described. Of these 23,000 persons, the court wrote, “the County encountered three incidents of drugs recovered from an inmate’s anal cavity and two incidents of drugs falling from an inmate’s underwear during the course of a strip search.” The court added that in four of these five instances there may have been “reasonable suspicion” to search, leaving only one instance in 23,000 in which the strip search policy “arguably” detected additional contraband."

Strip searches are intrusive and humiliating.

Prior to this ruling a number of lower federal courts had decided that they could not be done routinely to prisoners who presented no risk of violence, contagion or drug possession.
If a college kid is arrested for drunken and disorderly behavior on a Saturday night and taken to jail, that student may be strip searched by jail personnel. Or if a woman is taken into custody because of an outstanding warrant for failure to pay parking fines, that woman can be strip searched by jail personnel.
I would hate to be a good looking drunken female student arrested on a Friday night for walking her unleashed dog .

I don’t know about you but I am going to go check my car headlights.