OK, it's not even a question anymore, and it's not even protesting

Two more posts from Don't Tase Me, Bro!:

Minneapolis Police Seize Journalists' Notebooks, Cameras, Cell Phones, Money Without Warrant

And in case you read the story and decry "but they're not real journalists," this:

It's Now Ilegal for Journalists To Photograph Politicians and Lobbyists on a Public Street

Yup - ABC News journalists, on a public street, were arrested for photographing politicians.

The first story irks me more personally, but the second is, in some ways, more totalitarian: The sole crime was, it sounds like, annoying people in positions of power.

I can't stop reading that blog, even though all it does is make me stare at my computer screen and my blood pressure go up.

Pro Forma

Hering:

The case reflects an attitude that the length of prison terms should depend on whether the patient is “getting better.” This perpetuates the idea that crime is the result of illness, which, if true, would undermine the very idea of punishment. How can the system punish somebody for being ill?

1. There are many ways to take "getting better;" not all of them assume that crime is the result of illness, and Hering provides no evidence that his explanation fits the incredibly vague two-word phrase. This is just silly. And, of course, it discounts the fact that some people who commit crimes are ill.

2. ..."would undermine the very idea of punishment." Oh noes! Someone won't get hurt badly enough! Quick! We must find new and creative ways of hurting other human beings, or else we'll.... what, exactly? Last time I checked, the death penalty had been in use throughout just about all of recorded human history, and guess what? People still commit crimes!

Give me a break. Punitive/Retributive justice, at its core, is ineffective and incredibly unethical. I'm sure Hering arrived at his position honestly on this one; I just think it's a morally reprehensible position. (And no, the fact that millions of people agree with Hering does not make it less morally reprehensible.)

Better to think about Restorative Justice, both for practical and ethical reasons.

Robert Jensen

On the future:

There is no easy route to a different future. In our laziness and greed we have narrowed the range of our choices and eliminated too many options for us to pretend there are easy solutions. I can’t predict the future, but I am relatively certain that the future will be hard. There is sorrow in coming to terms with all of this, but sorrow is not the same thing as despair. Sorrow need not lead to paralysis; sorrow isn’t the end. Sorrow is simply a part of life, which can help us understand where we’ve been and in what direction we must move.

Uh, what: Politics in the Age of Electric Kettles*

I've shared most of what Lindsey Beyerstein has written recently regarding Spitzer's resignation, but this one is a doozy.

Beyerstein has been following this case with a pretty ferocious level of attention. I won't be surprised if this blows up in DoJ's face because of her persistence.

She notes:

Sources: Lawyers for Spitzer negotiate possible plea deal

5:32 PM EDT, March 11, 2008

Lawyers for Gov. Eliot Spitzer are negotiating a possible plea deal with federal prosectuors stemming from his alleged involvement with a prostitution ring, sources said.

Several sources said that the one serious bargaining chip that Spitzer has to possibly avoid being charged with a serious felony, such as money laundering or avoiding federal currency rules, is to work out a deal in which he would give up the governorship. In return, prosecutors would assure him that he only would have to plead at most to a misdemeanor or even less and be in effect guaranteed that he would not have to go to prison. [Newsday]

If the foregoing is true, you could describe the same scenario another way: Federal law enforcement approached the sitting governor of New York and threatened to charge him with felonies unless he resigned his office.

The spin is that Spitzer used his office as a bargaining chip, but it takes two parties to negotiate. It doesn't matter who made the opening bid. If it's true that the feds offered anything in exchange for Spitzer's resignation, we have proof that this was a political sting all along.

I am a little surprised here. So many people are working under the assumption that the Bush DoJ has been thoroughly corrupted (and with good reason) that I would have expected more lefty bloggers to have pointed this out by now. What's up with that?

.. and in case, it's not obvious, what Beyerstein is suggesting is that a federal agency used its clout to force a sitting governor to resign. That's not how the law is supposed to work (the law should care about innocence and guilt and ignore whether or not a person holds office entirely), and if that's still not clear, I'd suggest that this is an indicator that you've accepted full politicization of federal agencies all the way to a subconscious level.

Slowly boiling frogs and all that.

*Not really a reference to anything, but I couldn't think of anything else.

Politics vs. Justice

Via Americablog, a story in the Washington Post regarding Idaho Senator Larry Craig's decision to try and stay in the Senate.

Craig is the person who initially pled guilty to attempting to solicit sex from an undercover male cop in an airport bathroom. He is now fighting to withdraw his plea and seems to be intent on staying on as a Senator.

Interestingly, the Republican Party - of which Craig is a member - is looking like it's going to be leading the charge to kick him out of the Senate.

This presents Democrats with a choice - or maybe it's an opportunity. The way I see it, the Dems can do one of several things:

1) They can do nothing, stand on the sidelines, and watch to see if Craig emerges victorious or whether or not he gets drummed out. (I'm not sure how true this is since I don't know members of the Minority Party can call a hearing or if they have to have the approval of the Chair of the Ethics Committee - in this case a Democrat.)

2) They can side with the GOP and (presumably) argue that Craig has disgraced the Senate through his actions and his conviction, and pressure him to leave.

3) They can side with Craig and fight the GOP.

In other words, I think the Democrats can side with justice on this one, or they can side with politics and use this issue for political gain. I don't think they can do both.

Siding with justice means, for me, that the Dems actually take Craig's side and argue in the public eye that being gay is OK. This opens up an opportunity to talk about the suffering that LGBT folks who are in the closet have to go through, and also about the silliness and injustice present in lots of anti-sodomy laws. Caveat: The whole prostitution angle needs to be navigated, but I think that's doable. Just talk about how this would never have happened if Craig was free to love whomever he wanted. Overall, a great opportunity for the Dems to take a stand rooted firmly in equality and justice for all, with the added bonus that politically, the Dems will be "above" politics since they would be helping a Republican Senator whose views may change a tiny bit as a result of this (I believe if Craig leaves, his appointed replacement will be a Republican anyway).

However, I think the Dems are more likely to take what I would call the low road on this one and either sit idly by while Craig fights the GOP or even assist in Craig's ouster. There might be some sniping at the GOP regarding hypocrisy, but not too much, since there are plenty of Dems who fear exposure. This route views the battle as primarily about gaining short-term political advantage for the Party by utilizing power-as-a-zero-sum-game rules: Hurt the GOP and the Dems look better. Unfortunately, it does nothing to help the LGBT community as a whole, and nothing to create a better environment for politics to take place in.

Like I said, the Democrats have a choice. They can ally themselves with justice, or they can play at politics. I'm curious to see what they do.