This is a good start: Governor Commutes Sentence in Texas. But still, it’s embarrassing that the US is right up there with China, Saudia Arabia, and Iran, which collectively account for 94% of all state-sanctioned executions of their own citizens. Why do we prefer punishment over rehabilitation? According to some studies cited in Wikipedia, sending people to prison actually increases their risk of offending, while rehabilitation is the only effective way of reducing repeat offenses. I think that one reason the US government prefers punishment is because punishment helps keep the powerful in their places by keeping the poor politically disenfranchised (they can’t vote when their in jail) and by scapegoating the poor for the problems in this society. If we instead invested the resources into rehabilitating so-called “criminals,” we would have to confront the high costs of rehabilitation, which would then lead us to question whether it might be cheaper to address the deeper problems that condition poor individuals to adopt criminal behaviors, such as educational and economic inequality (poverty and poor education correlate very strongly with likelihood of criminal behavior). But again, such investigations would lead to a critique of the capitalist and anti-democratic institutions that keep the rich and privileged in power. It’s a vicious cycle that we can only pull out of by persistently and collectively criticizing and organizing against capitalists and their lifestyles of excess.

DailyKOS writes that, according to the band’s website, Pearl Jam’s Lollapalooza webcast was censored by sponsor/webcaster AT&T:

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of “Daughter” the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” but were cut from the webcast:

“George Bush, leave this world alone.” (the second time it was sung); and
“George Bush find yourself another home.”

This is precisely the type of politically motivated censorship that big media corporations like AT&T have claimed that they would restrain themselves from doing if net neutrality were to be eliminated. Their inability to restrain themselves shows that they are liars and should not be trusted, and that we need net neutrality. Read more at DailyKos and Pearl Jam’s website. Look out for Pearl Jam’s posting of a video of the uncensored song, but until then, you can check out a fan’s clip of it at youtube.

Two events this week have brought out the strong undercurrents of sexism in America, and both were in relation to university sports.

First, radio host and first-class asshole, Don Imus, made sexist and racist remarks about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team, who made it to the national championship game this season. Media Matters has been covering the story thoroughly all week. Today the NYT announced that the Rutgers women are going to meet with Imus. I hope that they do not accept his apology, but instead call him on his history of racist remarks, and ask him to resign.

Second, at the University of Minnesota, three football players were accused of raping an 18-year old woman. They were jailed for a few days, and released today without being charged, though the case is still under investigation. I withhold judgment on whether or not they are innocent, but the problem I have is that the immediate response of the university’s athletics department was to express complete support for the players, while the victim-survivor received no public support. This is a very similar case to that involving Duke lacrosse players last year. The woman in that case also lacked support from the mainstream media, which subjected her to a chill effect. We should not let this silencing happen again… sign this petition to the University of Minnesota administration and board of regents, calling for them to stand up for women’s rights to be heard.

Let’s raise some questions by drawing connections between these two events. Why are women’s sports teams allowed to be treated like dirt in the MSM, while men’s teams are sanctified? How does this inequality of public concern relate to the “double standard” by which women are judged in the patriarchical aspects of our society? (The “double standard” is, on the one hand, putting women on a pedestal when they conform to a certain fetishized image of how they should behave, while on the other hand, treating women like dirt when they do not conform to this image - raping them, calling them ‘hoes,’ not listening to, let alone amplifying, their voices in the public sphere (’keep yer complaints in the sphere of the home, wifey’), etc.)

Your new SecDef:

[Gates] said it may require a new law to “address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever but that doesn’t get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released,” Gates told the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Ah, yes, isn’t it so annoying that we have to get involved in a judicial system before we incarcerate someone forever? Stupid constitution…

Link from Pandagon.

This is pretty obnoxious:

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.

Aside from the civil liberties, what a fucking waste of tax dollars. Undercover officers all over the country? What the hell did they think was going to happen? What were they going to do with this information? Did they really think that there were going to uncover a secret plan of some kind?

Check out the Times story on Morse v. Frederick, 06-27

A high school senior’s 14-foot banner proclaiming ”Bong Hits 4 Jesus” gave the Supreme Court a provocative prop for a lively argument Monday about the extent of schools’ control over student speech.

If the justices conclude Joseph Frederick’s homemade sign was a pro-drug message, they are likely to side with principal Deborah Morse. She suspended Frederick in 2002 when he unfurled the banner across the street from the school in Juneau, Alaska.

”I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs,” Chief Justice Roberts said Monday.

But the court could rule for Frederick if it determines that he was, as he has contended, conducting a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message that contained no pitch for drug use.

…

This case is ridiculous in many ways. However, I think that the two sides are setting up a false dichotomy between seeing the sign as a pro-drug message or as “a free-speech experiment using a nonsensical message.” Why not see it as a pro-Jesus message? This case calls for some scriptural interpretation, if only Scalia would take his originalism seriously.

I know nobody thought this was going anywhere but the supreme court. But it is still very disturbing that anyone, even if they are Reagan and Bush I appointees, can hold that there is a state prisoners can be in that has no legal recourse.

I am not a legal expert. I can speak to the constitutionality of this law and gitmo in general. But I still believe that this is not in the spirit of the bill of rights. A lot of supporters of detention, torture, extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping will argue that this is expedient…the threat is such that these measures are necessary to make us safe from terror. If even if this were true, which it doesn’t seem to be, efficacy cannot be the standard for what our country considers acceptable or normal behavior. There is no question in my mind that an authoritarian government can be very effective. The decisions made during the founding of our country were not made for effective war fighting, but to protect the truths the founders found to be self evident. If the police could should suspected criminals on sight there is no doubt that crime would fall, as would the number of innocent people shot by the police.

The current administration and its partisan supporters are not conservatives. They are authoritarians. They may at some level have good intentions, but their vision of our country must be opposed.

SCOTUSblog on the administration’s latest attempt to prevent review. Honestly, I don’t understand what the government’s interest is here. It’s really hard to not be cyncical about their motives. Why not give someone reasonable process? The pragmatist in me understands that the administrative costs might be so high and that national security risk sufficient to mandate some streamlining, but this is absurd. I think the government knows they messed up, don’t want to admit, and could use the political capital a few successful prosecutions would generate. Of course, in the process a bunch of innocent people are sacrificed to cover up folly.

I mean, it says safety right there in the name…

I mean, the only way I will feel safe is if my ISP has a nice, discoverable log of all my traffic (I assume they already due, but still). Because if they don’t have a log how will we make sure people aren’t committing thoughtcrimes?