prioritizing spending, the forgotten Al Gore, and great leaders...

as the bills keep piling up in connection with the ongoing attempt to subjugate the nation which we know as Iraq (thanks to those kind-hearted british imperialists who drew some lines in the sand and handed over power to an outsider) the presidential front-runners (a position that should be accompanied by deep shame) don't inspire much confidence. there is not a single candidate anywhere near the top of the major parties' lists which cannot be placed in this category: militaristic capitalist. even those that question the war in Iraq are doing so, not on the grounds that war is immoral and that slaughtering a hundred thousand cannot be justified, but because it is a mess that wasn't done right. not one of them is questioning the logic of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the machinery of death and destruction, when that same amount could alleviate starvation worldwide if it were not sent to the pockets of those that learned that killing is big business in America. is it really too much to ask that we have one legitimate candidate willing to declare that a standing army in a purportedly democratic nation is a pretty bad idea, especially one that manages to suck so much time, energy and resources out of the wealth that could do so much good for so many? is it too much to ask that someone simply point out that we, as a people, are doing the worst prioritizing possible?

which brings me to Al Gore - one of my least favorite politicians of modern times. word on the street says that if gore decided to run, he would jump to the top of the democratic ticket...Exhibit A as to the reality that the democratic is not now, nor will it ever be, the answer. everyone seems to love gore now, holding him up as a bastian of environmentalism. it seems everyone has a short memory. it was not too long ago that gore was cheerleading for NAFTA, helping clinton shove it down the throats of an unwanting public, assuring us all that the environment would be taken care of...only when it came down to pressure from Big Business or the wants of the common man...Big Business won big, and the environment and the common man got screwed. it was not long ago that the god of globalization whispered in gore's ear and he sold out everything he claims to stand for. so mr. gore...exactly why would we trust you this time?

in the end, as I have been repeatedly reminded as of late, what has made this nation great, the steady climb towards greater equality, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, has not been the result of great individual leaders. rather, it has occurred despite those leaders. the revolution and its ideals - the common man asserting popular sovereignty on an unwanting monarch. the fall of slavery - untold numbers of john and jane does upholding the spirit of that revolution. the civil rights legislation - millions forcing action. afterall...what is possibly more american than telling leaders to fuck themselves and forcing change by sheer force of popular will? my only question now...is just how fucked do you and I have to be before we stand shoulder to shoulder and demand recognition? how many militaristic, faux-free market loving hacks do we need to "choose" until we simply stop picking them? just how large of a breach of the social contract will justify our pulling out and re-writing it?

just a lie you tell yourself to help you get by...

wish I’d shut you up inside my head - we fuckin won a big one...

I am desperately trying to leave the cynicism to the elderly and refind the piss and vinegar that pushed me to speak out and urge others to act. unfortunately, the more time goes on, the more disconnected I feel to the events signalling impending doom (dramatic, I know). maybe I have finally convinced myself that it is not real, that I am just an observer to history and allowed myself to accept (or ignore) the inevitable. maybe I've just accepted my role and gone about doing what I do best, fixing it one case at a time. but I've always been more of a grand dreamer, I've always had that arrogant streak that believes and desires little ol' me can have a much bigger and far reaching impact.

regardless, I cannot get worked up about things anymore. I still feel that twitch of anger and empathy and disgust anytime I catch any bit of the news, but it doesn't spark the same flame it used to. this frightens me, because now more than ever, this nation and this world needs those sparks in all of us to spill over into wildfires. but for whatever reason, my generation just doesn't have it in us...and history will look upon us with shame for it.

I honestly have no idea what the point of this rambling is...guess I'm just hoping that something will work, that this might help get the drive going again...that I can still believe in a system that no longer exists, and that never fully materialized anyhow.

in the meantime...this weekend I will be celebrating. after countless hours researching, writing, rewriting...after so many nights watching today become tomorrow, swallowed by the flood of papers strewn about the office...the New Mexico Supreme Court issued an opinion in State of New Mexico v. Robert Young and Reis Lopez that takes a gigantic step forward in constitutional rights. Young and Lopez were prisoners in a ridiculously poorly run state prison when a riot broke out. a guard was killed and these two gentlement were charged with capital murder. but the state only paid their lawyers about $30,000 per team.

years later, after extensive litigation, the New Mexico Supreme Court got the case for the second time - the issue being whether or not such grossly inadequate compensation for defense counsel violated the right to adequate representation of counsel. across the country, many states have done away with absurdly low compensation, but typically to the tune of a mere few thousand...we came to the court and asked them to throw out the death penalty, or force the state to compensate the attorneys appropriately. we argued that death raises the stakes to such an extent that the best of the best are required, that any mistake is unforgiveable and irrevocable, and that the constitution is necessarily at its strongest when the government wants to take your life.

in a unanimous decision, the New Mexico Supremes fired a warning shot at the legislature, ordering that unless and until the legislature comes up with an additional $200,000 per team for attorney's fees, payable at $75/hour, the death penalty cannot be sought in this case.

"Defense counsels' compensation is inadequate under the facts of this case, violating defendants' Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Prosecution of the death penalty is stayed unless the State makes adequate funds available for the defense. We have set the hourly rate and maximum compensation..."

it is nearly impossible to explain how huge those few lines are for civil rights at a time when they are crumbling. unless you have been involved with this or similar cases, it is extremely difficult to understand the importance of a state supreme court declaring it can, and will, set the parameters of compensation for indigent defense counsel - especially to declare that $230,000 per defendant for attorney's fees in a capital case is constitutionally required. this case is big...really...really...really big.

here's hoping this is only the beginning...

destroy the old school and the new...

"end this war on drugs", the US don’t torture, and more trickle-up economics...

"shame on my party, the democratic party, because they don't have the courage of their private thoughts, because we don't want to appear weak on this topic." those are the words of the mayor of san francisco, one of the few that apparently has a brain when it comes to crime and drug abuse. in calling for us to end this ridiculous "war on drugs" gavin newsom became one of the few major party politicians to have the stones to speak the truth on the subject, recognizing that the "war on drugs is an abject failure."

he continued on to point out that which is obvious to anyone paying attention that doesn't have a stake in keeping the millenial evangelical sheep in an uproar..."it's laughable that anyone could look at themselves with a straight face and say 'oh,we're really succeeding.' I mean it's comedy." and he is absolutely right. our jails are slammed with people that don't need to be there, they need help overcoming addiction. they aren't violent, they aren't a threat to anyone but themselves. and we are spending obscene amounts of your tax dollars to put them away and turn them into career criminals...and remember that next time you pour a drink when you get home from work...are you really that different? or do you just choose a different chemical?

even the sheriff in san francisco has come to see the light. "the war on drugs is not working. the war on drugs is not working because we are relying on law enforcement instead of on treatment." sheriff hennessey, who has run the jail for decades, recognized that three to four out of every five prisoners at the county jail is there for substance abuse issues. what the fuck are we doing? as a society we should be offering our help to these people to clean themselves up and turn their lives around, give them an outlet that does not require self-medication. instead, we throw them away and ensure that their lives will be destroyed even further, necessitating more drug abuse...and more money on police, jails, and courts. a penny on treatment could save us millions more on punishment.

the boy king seems to have mixed up his job description again...as he now claims his job is to find actionable intelligence (silly me, I always thought the executive's job was to faithfully execute the laws of the United States...but then I didn't actually swear on that, so what do I know). in the process, he wants us to remember that the united states does not torture - just please ignore the alberto gonzales behind the curtain with his how to torture memorandums circulating around the justice department and white house (all while your representatives were banning the practice...how's that for faithful execution?).

remember when the republicans were up in arms over bill clinton (who, for those of you that don't know my feelings as of yet, is one of the biggest disasters of a president in history...and a complete asshole to boot) skirting the law by altering the definition of "is?" seems pretty damn insignificant now that the boy king is skirting the law by effectively claiming "it depends on what your definition of 'torture' is." well boy king...here's the funny thing, the united states code defines torture for you...and those things in your little buddies memorandum...well, they pretty much fit that definition to a T.

18 USC 2340(1) - "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe phyiscal pain or suffering (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality [*cough* sleep deprivation, stress positions, that damn music] (C) the threat of imminent death [*cough* water-boarding]; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

so there you have it...the united states does not torture...except by its own legal definition of torture...but then the boy king never seemed to be adequately versed in the laws he swore to uphold. yet another showing of why presidents should be required to be under oath whenever they talk to the press - perjury is impeachable, apparently authorizing torture is not (which, by the way, is punishable by death pursuant to 18 USC 2340A).

emminent domain strikes again as the latest example of monied interests having bought your government and turned it against you. years ago in san diego, a family took an old gun store and turned it into a successful boxing gym. now, the city is going to take it so million dollar condos can be built. and it is happening all over the country, hundreds of emminent domain projects are targeting the poor, and the un-cracker in favor of Big Money in the pocket of Big Whitey. for god's sake, even clarence thomas (who never writes if he doesn't have to) wrote against giving this power to local leaders in a dissent recently. emminent domain is in place for projects that should be building more gyms like the barragan's in san diego, should be putting up schools and affordable housing. instead, it is doing the opposite, destroying communities in favor of big developers that don't give two shits about community - although by their definition "community" means houses crammed together behind a gate to keep brown folk out.

your government has turned against you. and let's be serious...the democrats aren't the answer to the republicans...they were, and are, just as in on it as those assholes parading around as elephants. kick them all out...you pick how.

I sat and stared, but only the river stared back...

the drug "war" is unnecessarily destroying lives, but things ain’t so bad...

the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of young Brian Gall, who, god forbid, received a probated sentence in federal court after pleading guilty to selling ecstasy. yes, I know, trafficking in illicit substances is a horrible, evil act that must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, lest we encourage children to dull the pain of watching their elders completely destroy their nation and the world by turning to pills and powders and leaves. here's the thing...this kid did everything right, he should be the posterboy for turning your life around and not letting drugs destroy you. instead, the government wants to make him yet another number in prison.

see, Brian Gall started selling ecstasy when he was in college at Iowa (shudder...attending Iowa may require prison). yup...he was at the always mature age of about 20...when we all know that nobody does anything stupid, especially for a few extra bucks. but he didn't keep it up very long, instead, he graduated after breaking ties with traffickers. with his degree, earned in 2002, Gall moved to Arizona and started a business - a legit business, in construction. well, a couple years ago the DEA finally got around to catching up to Gall (yup, the "war on drugs" is so effective that the DEA is three years behind). they asked him about his dealings, three years prior, and he copped to everything.

well, the Government was apprently not satisfied with Gall's self-rehabilitation and figured it could do it better by putting an orange jumpsuit on him and letting him learn from career criminals. so they indicted him. and Gall, continuing with the theme, pled guilty. our ludicrous sentencing guidelines (those same gems that seem to think 500 grams of cocaine is the equivalent of 5 grams of crack...meaning inner-city - read "black" - dealers get insanely larger sentences while whitey politicians snorting get a break...coincidence?) called for the kid to get about three years in prison. the Honorable (and I actually mean that) Robert W. Pratt recognized that sending Gall to prison did nobody any good since the kid had rehabilitated himself, and so sentenced him to probation.

the United States Attorney (that bastian of fundamental fairness) decided probation was not enough for a kid that got out of the drug business on his own and straightened himself up before admitting to everything he had done upon being questioned and pleading guilty...and so they appealed. (keep in mind, Gall will always be a convicted felon regardless...and this is how your tax dollars are being spent). the 8th Circuit somehow agreed with the Government, claiming to give probation when the guidelines (maybe I am mistaken of the meaning of "guideline") call for prison time...stating that to do so requires "extraordinary circumstances" - and that Gall quitting, cutting ties with traffickers, graduating, and starting a legitimate business before admitting to everything and pleading guilty is not "extraordinary circumstances." (obviously, none of these judges ever practiced criminal law...because there simply are not defendants like Gall...it doesn't happen).

so now we are to the Supremes...and despite their insanely conservative bend...they don't like taking things away from judges and juries...so here is hoping Gall can keep being a productive member of society. (you would think they would want him to keep paying taxes rather than leech through prison).

despite all this...things are pretty damn good for the time being. jason collett was in albuquerque on sunday night...about 25 other people were there. one of the few benefits of albuquerque. in about 10 days I'll be seeing yo la tengo, a dear friend's wedding, family and superdrag in the glorious shadows of the Chicago skyline. ski season is quickly approaching...and the skies are greying with rain and chills in the air. the Cubs are attempting to win a world series, opening the playoffs against a team in a state founded after they won their last...

I miss the city...

sometimes faith just hides what you don't want to see...