Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 29 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USFight the urge to fund what we don’t need
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
One of the great struggles for fiscal conservatives governing Georgia will be to make a difference before they get co-opted.
The pattern in the past has been to create new spending programs, often with little funding and big promises, and then to watch them grow over the next decade and demand sums far beyond what was ever projected. The Georgia Public Defender Standards Council is an example. This headline from budget hearings held earlier this month tell the story: “Budget shackles indigent defense: Lawmakers to consider funding request” (Metro, Jan. 17.)
The state is at the point with indigent defense funding where we were in the 1970s and ’80s on double-digit health care inflation. That is: Every physician was an unchecked cost generator. To combat it, the federal government, through states, developed the so-called “certificate of need” to regulate medical equipment and construction. And employers began to get serious about managed care. Neither was ideal nor wholly effective, but they were useful interim cost-containment tools.
On indigent defense, judges are the potentially unchecked cost generators that physicians once were. The Brian Nichols murder case in Fulton County is an example. Even before jury selection started, legal fees had topped $500,000. Taxpayers provide four lawyers, one a state employee and three others who are paid fees that judges can set, in this case ranging from $125 to $175 per hour. The Capital Defenders’ Office has a $5 million budget for the Nichols case and about 60 others.
If my client is one of those 60, or if I’m the judge presiding over one, I’m not settling for anything less than the fees and defense services provided in the Nichols case. Otherwise, the finding of guilt and the sentence are immediate grounds for appeal.
The Legislature in 2004 created a system whose costs it can’t control. And in her State of the Judiciary speech delivered last week to the General Assembly, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears hinted at the need for a state program to provide lawyers to “middle- and lower-income citizens” in civil cases. “In any given year nearly 40 percent of our middle- and lower-income citizens has at least one civil legal need,” she said, “but only one in every 10 is able too secure legal representation.
“This means that 90 percent of our most vulnerable citizens have no one to represent them while they are trying to handle some of the most important issues of their lives, such as access to affordable housing and medical benefits.” Federal funds and volunteer lawyers serve the poor now, so the real question is how such a proposal might be framed, contained and managed if and when a proposal is made. A Supreme Court-appointed committee is studying the matter now and any decision to ask for funds is at least a year away.
The message to fiscal conservatives, though, is in response to a report that Gov. Sonny Perdue proposes to “kill” a 12-year-old program, intended as a pilot, to experiment with foreign language offerings in some elementary schools. Perdue would redirect to all of the state’s elementary schools the $1.6 million that now goes to a few. To establish the language program in all 1,284 elementary schools statewide would cost taxpayers about $85 million.
Beneficiaries are reacting badly — understandable since the state proposes to withdraw a program many of them value. As Perdue spokesman Dan McLagan noted, the purpose of a pilot is to see if something works. If it does, and the success can be replicated — not always possible — expansion should be considered.
Fiscal conservatives should always create pilots, examine their effectiveness and the validity of cost projections before advancing. The absolute wrong way to go is to lay out an open-ended promise and partially fund it with the expectation that more money will be available next year or the year after. That’s the way prior legislators have put government spending on autopilot. State a promise, underfund it and then wait for a state or federal judge to translate the promise into tax dollars.
Too, as we see on a small scale with the elementary school language programs, every offering creates a constituency. State Rep. Ben Harbin (R-Evans), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is already talking expansion.
Republicans now in control should experiment a great deal — mostly involving the private sector — and be prepared to cut bait when something’s not working, not working as promised, or is too costly. If, indeed, the experience is that a $1.6 million program in a $20 billion budget is not effective and fiscal conservatives lack the political will to redirect the money elsewhere, there’s not much hope that Georgia’s future will be any different than its past.
Permalink | Comments (57) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Services »
Comments
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 08:17 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I think Jim is generous to the state in his analysis. My knee-jerk is to say, “abolish all, and let’s see what we cannot live without after 10 years.” All government spending is, by definition, anti-market, for programs and events for which there is no private market. I have grave doubts that we have a compelling need to feed and house people as a reward for selling psychoactive substances, or for running a brothel in an expensive subdivision. Almost every evil in our society, sought to be addressed by our leaders, arises from another positive action by our overlords. Payment of any amount greater than $250, other than a refund, to any citizen of our state ought to require specific action by our legislature. As our friend Harold is quick to observe, do we really need to criminalize the sale of alcohol on Sundays? Until our legislators realize that there should be no law for which the penalty is anything other than death, they will legislate us to death.
By Screwy Wabbit
January 30, 2007 08:20 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten today built well constructed arguments, from sound premises and logical conclusions.
Have to agree, and just admire the writing.
Brian Nichol’s media splashed crime itself makes him unprosecutable? That’s like saying if someone observes the crime in progress, they cant be on the jury? That’s like saying if a cop seeing a holdup in progress, he cant try to stop it?
Bleeding heart liberals have ruined our prosecutorial system. Seinfeld used to talk about the “he needed killing” defense of murder. Surely Brian Nichols needs capital punishment with or without a jury or $500K worth of defense lawyers.
By KP
January 30, 2007 08:21 AM | Link to this
and be prepared to cut bait when something’s not working, not working as promised, or is too costly.
This sounds very similar to “cut and run”.
By DebbieDoRight
January 30, 2007 08:52 AM | Link to this
Good use of an “oxymoron” below:
FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
By DebbieDoRight
January 30, 2007 08:54 AM | Link to this
Jim: I was wondering if you’d speak about the Georgia Legislature’s (Republicans) new bill they’re trying to pass. I think it’s unconstitutional on a federal level — any thoughts from you?
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legis07/stories/2007/01/29/0130metlegdeath.html
By Seriously
January 30, 2007 09:13 AM | Link to this
“and be prepared to cut bait when something’s not working, not working as promised, or is too costly.”
You mean like natural gas deregulation?
I’m wondering, do fiscal conservatives spend 9 million dollars on fishing?
By Jim Wooten
January 30, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this
Morning all. To Philosopher, Janine, Jeff and others with a particular interest in education: I have a chance in early afternoon to spend about half an hour with U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. We’ll talk about No Child Left Behind. Anything you’d like me to ask?
By JK
January 30, 2007 09:27 AM | Link to this
Fruit salad: Mixing apples, oranges, several other ingredients, and giving it one name.
Who doesn’t agree that the prosecution of Brian Nichols is a huge waste of money? They should never brought him in alive; I don’t care what the troubled little blonde girl promised. When you interrupt your fair trial currently in progress to shoot the judge, the court reporter, and go on a murderous spree, you forfeit your right to a fair trial ever again. What’s the price of a bullet and a state-funded cremation?
Segue to an educational initiative to teach foreign language in elementary school. Guess what? Kids learn languages better when they learn them early. Guess what? Learning languages early helps children’s brains become more receptive to complex learning in general. This is one scientifically-based neuro-pathway to SMARTER kids. God knows we need more of that in Georgia! Enjoy the salad.
By Van
January 30, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
Ask why this program is so loathed by the local teaching establishment? Based on some of previous posts in this series, the NCLB act does not have great support at the teacher level.
By Van
January 30, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this
JK,
I think I agree with you on something. Trying to teach high schoolers a foreign language is hard enough. Shift the language lessons from high school to elementary.
“They should never brought him in alive”. This is a question I have been asking myself all along. The Dekalb police tried this without great success.
The trial should not be allowed to drag on so long. it should be real simple once it gets started.
By mo
January 30, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
It’s easier to teach elementary school kids a foreign language than high school kids. I’m for more elementary and less high school, IMO.
Plus, poor people need the best legal advice possible. They are not throw-away, but a lot of people are in jail simply because they are poor and not because they are guilty.
See these things all need to be weighed before we decide to just abolish things.
In short, Republicans, stay in the middle.
By Dennis
January 30, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
By Jim Wooten
January 30, 2007 09:26 AM | Link to this “Morning all. To Philosopher, Janine, Jeff and others with a particular interest in education: I have a chance in early afternoon to spend about half an hour with U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. We’ll talk about No Child Left Behind. Anything you’d like me to ask?”
You might ask her how anyone who has never taught in a classroom and is not a trained educator is qualified to understand the problems teachers put up with.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Redneck Convert
January 30, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
I don’t see why we’re wasting money on lawyers for criminals. If they are arrested, they are guilty. Period.
A roach has a better chance swimming in a tank of Raid than an accused person has in a Georgia court. That’s the way it should be. I say lock them up and give them the juice quick.
Anyway, it’s stupid for the state to pay the lawyer bill of people the state has decided to put away anyway. It’s like paying your enemy to be your enemy. I say we arrest, try, and lock up on the same day. The lawyers just get in the way. Let’s have Law and Order.
That’s the redneck way, and that’s the Georgia way. They are guilty or they never woulda been arrested.
I don’t care about this schooling stuff. Me, I never made it out of the 5th grade and it never hurt me none. My grandson Sonny Zell George will go to school till he’s 16, like the law says, and after that he can go to work to get a trailer and a pickup. I hope Wooten don’t waste a lot of time talking to that pencil-head today. We need to consecrate on Law and Order and stopping the libruls from spending our tax money on lawyers for criminals. This is the south, not some yankee state.
By Janine
January 30, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim, Thanks for asking. As I have said so many times, there is only one type of test that is a valid measurement for determining the success of a school, teacher,program, strategy, whatever in education. And it’s absolutely NOT comparing this year’s 7th graders to last year’s 7th graders. This method presently used by NCLB has way too many variables to be valid…..WHat if this year’s 7th grade has 40% more students who speak no English….or 40% more “gifted ” students….*How valid is that comparison ???? NCLB is using this method to label schools “failing” or “not meeting AYP” [annual yearly progress …!]
THe method that almost every teacher advocates is the easiest to interpret and leaves little room for arugument. So… I would like for you to ask Madame Secretary why NCLB doe not recognize this fact and use this method for determining progress. I , of course , speak of the only common sense measurement….Test the students when they enter the class in Aug/Sept….then test THE SAME KIDS in May ….ON THE MATERIAL THAT IS BEING TAUGHT IN THE CLASS…That measurement will give a more accurate picture of what’s happening. It speaks not only to student progress, but to teacher accountability.
By silver
January 30, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this
A CON is simply a government imposed barrier to entry into a health care business, and does not serve to keep prices low. Rather a CON protects the blessed providers with near monopoly power in their area of service, and keeps prices high. The feds who created the con years ago have long since discarded the idea as a method of controlling costs, because a CON does just the opposite. The States have embraced the CON for the political power it gives the states to reward favored business, and to damage those that are not favored.
By Jim Wooten
January 30, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Janine. I’ll let you know her response.
By harold
January 30, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
can you get Tori Spellings’ autograph for harold?
By silver
January 30, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Education exellence is more about selectivity of students than about teaching methods. Put the smart kids who want to learn together in exclusive classes and they will excell. Mix in some disruptive types, and the whold class goes to hell. So lets put the disruptive types elsewhere, you choose, just don’t send me a bloated bill for babysitting the brats. I will pay my fair share for the ones who want to learn, but I damn well resent paying for babysitting, which is what 90% plus of Georgia schools do as their main business.
By Janine
January 30, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
Sorry, this is my soapbox, JIm…..As of today, NCLB calls what they are measuring Progress….but that is not what they are measuring…For example, at my middle school, often the majority of our 6th graders would arrive reading on a 3rd grade level.[For many, English was not their first language].At the end of 6th grade they would be reading on a 5th grade level…still below , of course, but there was progress….ANd often, by the end of 7th grade those same students , if they stay at the same school,would be reading on grade level…THis progress is not measured by NCLB. They are not even measuring the same kids in a transient school, yet are labeling the schools as Failing, with not a shred of evidence that progress is not being made.
By Jim Wooten
January 30, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Silver @ 10:43: Agreed on CON. It’s now used to protect hospitals from competition. I’d do away with it altogether.
Van @ 9:49: I’ll include your question, too, in the interview with Secty. Spellings.
By Brian
January 30, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Good use of an “oxymoron” below: FISCAL CONSERVATIVE
You got that right Debbie. I didn’t know you were such a caring Conservative so worried about how Conservatives acted! Conservatives? What Conservatives? Their rudder was broken, their sails were torn, and their lifeboats were sunk. They were warned about the brewing backlash storm for several years. They didn’t listen to true Conservatives and they didn’t heed the warnings. Bush, by the by, is no Conservative, just like his father. His dismal 28% approval rating? A lot of that comes from the Right, but it sure doesn’t mean the Right is turning Left, as the media often portrays it. Two people may disagree with the way Bush is running things according to the polls, but those disagreements may not be of the same origins like the media would have you believe. One man may be angry at Bush for not being a true Conservative and sucking up to the Left while another man may be angry at Bush for just being a Republican and stealing the elections from Gore & Kerry. That hardly equates to a national shift to the Left based upon Bush’s low approval ratings. But naturally, the sensationalist media won’t tell you that part of the story either.
By Dennis
January 30, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
Janine, the critics aren’t as concerned with educating as they proclaim. If you “educate” then people learn to think, and they become dangerous to the establishment.
So instead of educating people, you devise a test that measures, not how well they can think outside of the box, but how well are they trained to become robots in society.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By silver
January 30, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
One reason the disruptive types don’t learn is because there is no fear of failure, no consequences for failure. They will still get into a college, and some will stil graduate, not because they have learned, but because the degree requirements and class material have been watered down. No child left behind just means give them all a high school diploma and most likely a college degree, just to make the statistics look good. That is all the department of eduction is about, making the statistics look good for the pr people to shout about.
By Janine
January 30, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
You know, Jim, it just occurred to me….Maybe Madame Secretary isn’t even aware of what measurements NCLB is using to evaluate the progress of schools….or what measurements are available… I just read her biography and she has actually never been in a classroom as a teacher or administrator. Her degree is in Political Science. It said she developed NCLB>…Makes one wonder why someone who had classroom experience isn’t in her position.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
FINALLY … a very sound and mighty wise, non-white human rights lawyer that one doesn’t automatically feel like deporting/shooting!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NOV2RT00AAFE3QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/30/do3001.xml
Its getting unbelievably frustrating for those of us eagerly awaiting a full blown, no-holds-barred civil war in Gaza, my popcorn is popped and ready … why wont these selfish mohammedan terrorists/fascists go for it??!!
This is one of the very finest factual commentaries on the traitorous, hysterical far left liberal surrender monkey lemmings I’ve read in a long long time. Devastating, irrefutable logic and incisive, cogent reasoning.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,248593,00.html
Cheers indeed Curious Peeping Tom for your deranged, assidiously cretinous hissy fit yesterday. Jolly amusing it was too. Any chance of another one today bubbaturd?
By Spiritraveller
January 30, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” —Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
If you can get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4s of the states to repeal THAT, then do whatever you want to indigent defense.
Until then, your column is, as usual, a bunch of hot air.
The real cause of these huge costs is the death penalty. But I don’t hear you suggesting that we should get rid of that.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
time for the truth wants to know if Jim will ask if harold can NOW (admittedly rather belatedly) be included in NCLB literacy funding for (certainly nothing more advanced than) six-seven year olds.
By Screwy Wabbit
January 30, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
Question? Yeah, I gotta question: it’s not “Why cant Johnny Read”, but rather, “why does Johnny bleed”? How can we control the violence at schools?
It’s not about no child left behind, but rather every child hides behind something when some demented kid starts shooting.
Make peace in the schools! Why is that such a task?
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
So … the truth emerges … GLOBAL WHINING @ GLOBAL WARMING is just the new lefty cult hysteria, along with the shameful, even more dangerous liberal surrender monkey Iraq cowardice.
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
By Rob Smith
January 30, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Read about the Atlanta City Council new advisory committee member at the following Web Page, Tyrone Rachal…
Click on this link interesting info:
http://redrockglobal.blogspot.com/
By Pompano
January 30, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
WHat a surprise - Leah Ward Sears (an attorney) proposes that the gov’t start picking up the tab for all the additional nuisance suits that citizens realize are to stupid to risk their own money on - what a HUGE financial windfall for her profession!
As the courts become clogged with all of these new “take a free shot at the lottery” lawsuits, we’ll need to hire more judges, clerks, etc on top of her mandate.
What a self-serving proposal. Just shows that the only true beneficiaries of our legal system are the lawyers.By jim d
January 30, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Jim,
Would you mind asking her to listen to what America is saying about NCLB
By Curious Observer
January 30, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
What a perverted justice system we have!
The full power and resources of the state are brought to bear against the accused. The state has unlimited money and unlimited legal resources to use for the sole purpose of convicting the accused.
Meantime, the accused, guilty or innocent, is expected to bankrupt himself to pay for a legal defense. There is no recourse for the accused to recover costs in the event of a finding of innocence.
Now, we read arguments against even providing a penny of state resources for legal help for impoverished accused people. Constitution be damned! Instead of discussing the point, we get the red herring about nuisance suits, when the topic is clearly representation at criminal trials.
At long last, Rightists, have you no shame? Has all semblance of humanity departed from your souls?
By Dennis
January 30, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
By jim d January 30, 2007 11:35 AM “Jim, Would you mind asking her to listen to what America is saying about NCLB”
Alas, what America is saying about NCLB doesn’t matter. It’s what GWB is saying that counts - on education or the Middle East war(s) - “I’M RIGHT EVEN WHEN I’M WRONG!!!”
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Van
January 30, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
Look who submitted the NCLB bill in Congress - answers all the questions.
By JoeD
January 30, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this
Why would anyone be surprised that the Secretary of Education has never taught in a classroom? That is the MO of this administration. GWB likes to appoint attorneys who have never been in the courtroom to judgeships, even the Supreme Court, or a FEMA director with no experience in emergency management, or inspectors general with no audit experience, or a secretary of the interior who was a mining lobbysit, and on and on and on. He seems to look for the least qualified people to appoint to important positions. The only requirement seems to be Republican party activism. Margaret Spellings fits right in.
By Pompano
January 30, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer - did you even read Jim’s article before commenting? Leah Ward Sear’s proposal is for “civil” representation and has nothing to do with criminal representation (I can provide an explanation between the differences if you require).
And where are the arguments in this blog against ANY providing support for improvished people in criminal cases? Do you just have a generic post you insert into blogs each day without actually reading any of them?
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this
Dear TFTT @ 11:01, thanks for the O’Reilly link – great article. We saw all of that same foolishness on the blog here yesterday.
Dear Pompano @ 11:28, you are exactly right (no sarcasm, you really are.) While we regard Janine @ 11:00 positively, I think you effectively rebut her argument. Those with a vested financial interest in the prosperity of a program ought not be in a policy-making position. (My response to Janine would be that every government program should be directed by a conservative economist, not a pol-sci major!)
Dear Curious @ 11:54, I think your core observations are correct but I think your solution is flawed. What we need is a more “liberal” – not leftist, but the classical definition – application of “prosecutorial discretion.” We have too many unreasonably restrictive laws, and we try to punish too much “undesirable,” but not truly evil, behavior, e.g., the runaway bride or the Sugarloaf madam. Thinner statutes would be a great first start. Smaller budgets for the prosecutors’ offices plus fewer courts may be the optimal solution. The legal profession will sell as much of its services as the taxpayer is foolish enough to pay for. (Forgive me for landing with a preposition.)
By Brian
January 30, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
At long last, Rightists, have you no shame? Has all semblance of humanity departed from your souls?
Curious Observer says that today and then said this here yesterday a 3:43pm -
Come to think of it, I can think of a few so-called humans for whom euthanasia would yield a benefit for the peace-loving world. I doubt that the permanent removal of jbmlaw, TFTT, Van, and Dusty would even cause a blip on the social/political radar screen. Let’s throw Wooten onto the scrap-heap of history, too. You can bet that Barbaro had more concern for the welfare of humanity they they’ve ever felt or expressed.
That’s nice. Talking about killing Conservatives and the socio/politico nation wouldn’t miss them. To think this Leftist character [and others] are trying to lecture Conservatives and anyone else about humanity departing from souls? Laughable. of course the Left does care about the welfare of humanity - only with other people’s money and lives. A little over the top on hypocrisy, no?
To steal an idea from someone’s overused comment here, You don’t have to be a blind Liberal to be a hypocrite, but you’d have to be an ignorant one to deny it.
By Janine
January 30, 2007 01:38 PM | Link to this
jimd…I almost always agree with your posts….and the point : “every government program should be directed by a conservative economist, not a pol-sci major!” is well taken. However,I think probably it would be wise to not only be a conservative economist, but have at least some experience with what is to be directed. For example, since the function of the Dept. of HOmeland Securiy is to “prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters,” it would be necessary for the director to have some knowledge of and experience in the area if he/she is to function adequately.
By jm
January 30, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this
I guess some of you are not aware that the government also uses civil suits as a means of law enforcement. A classic example is the seizure of the car a “john” used while soliciting a prostitute. The seizure is not a criminal case, that is a civil case. If the government has reason to believe that an asset was used in the commission of a crime, that asset is subject to seizure under civil law, where the standard of guilt is much lower than criminal law.
If the government is going to use civil court as a means of law enforcement, then it should be willing to provide the defendent with adequate counsel.
Now if you want to sue a cigarette maker, you should be on your own.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this
Excellent post Brian … Curious Peeping Tom is but another GIANT snivelling leftist surrender monkey hypocrite. Mighty proud though as I am to be specifically referenced in peeping tom’s pugnaciously poisonous bollocks I was not particularly offended by it. Its simply par for the course these days for Bush hating, America hating, intellectually/morally/politically bankrupt pinkos. Clearly the need for those pesky A 130 Gunships I sensibly alluded to yesterday in my blunt, fiercely honest post seems to be much more pressing than even I realised.
Indeed all clear thinking people would, given the opportunity, instantly rather swap the life of a noble beast like Barbaro for the likes of Kerry/Sheehan/Fonda/Turdtha/Pelosi et al. One noble thoroughbred race horse has to be worth at the very least the entire congressional black caucus plus ALL the endlessly spewing leftist liberal surrender monkeys in the US Senate.
By Randy
January 30, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this
This one would be a gambler’s dream. Rolling the dice in civil court without having to pay the machine. What idiot wouldn’t pass on the chance? What idiot would hand them the ante?
A foreign language is required in high school so why not start the classes early. I’m O.K. with that one.
Re Screwy Wabbit’s peace in schools post. Throw the little perps into a padded room. No more than two to a box. Watch them on video to make sure they don’t kill each other. It’s the audience of peers they’re performing for.
Signs on the doors. Machos or B***.
By Southern Democrat
January 30, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this
Time for the Truth,
My problem with the logic expressed in the article you link to and the 2 million number that my friend Jbmlaw threw around yesterday is that it bolsters the anti-Iraq conflict argument.
By your logic, we should intercede whenever innocent lives are at risk and American lives are in danger, correct?
Then why did we not invade Iraq in the 1980s?
Why did “Reaganus Maximus” not declare war on the USSR for its invasion of Afghanistan (and don’t use the “we funded the mujahadeen cop-out)?
Why did we not intercede in Rwanda?
Why have we not interceded in Darfur?
In Sierra Leone?
In the Republic of Congo?
Why didn’t we declare war on South Africa to stop apartheid?
Why don’t we invade Saudi Arabia and round up the family members of all the 9/11 hijackers?
Why didn’t we invade Iran when we intercepted a weapons cache bound for Hizbollah?
Why didn’t we invade Pakistan when they sold nuclear technology to terrorists?
Why are we asking for strict enforcement of the IAEA against Iran when we are breaking it with India?
Why?
By Dennis
January 30, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this
I don’t recall who or when, it may have been in a book entitled “A Nation at Risk”, that the statement was made that [If a foreign power came in and imposed on us the system of education we have, we would declare war].
Take a good look tho at who’s screaming the loudest about the quality of education and it’s the people who control corporations.
Do we need improved education, absolutely! Do we need teacher accountability, absolutely!
Do we need accountability for adequate funding, absolutly!
Would we be willing to give less of a tax break to the high monied individuals and corporations to more adequately fund education, absolutely not.
The NCLB study was done in 18 months during the term of Reagan. It had on its creative board some highly talented people and its concept was endorsed by the NEA (the same organization that gets accused by conservatives and the right-wing of being anti-progressive education).
It has some lofty, worthwhile goals.
The problem comes in the execution; there is only one test (per grade level) that measures the “progress” of each child. It does not measure any progress outside of the box.
Teachers, principals, school districts are threatened by cutting off funds if “adequately yearly progress” is not reached. So, what are you going to teach, you’re going to teach the test.
To some, that may be progress, and to a point, maybe it is. But is it education?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this
S Dem
It is blindingly obvious why “not” to those events cited on your decidedly partial/partisan list. Your intellectual dishonesty made me smirk a bit …
Virtually all of these events occured either in a pre-9/11 world or were simply NOT percieved by the POTUS of the day as being critical enough to US interests. Obviously in a handful of your very selective examples geo-political pragmatism kicked in. Thus the Soviet “evil empire” wasn’t militarily challenged in and around Kabul. Also the clever neo-cons of the day must have instantly worked out, just like I did , that several years of commies killing mohammedans and vice versa was a win win situation for us cool as a cucumber westerners. Dealing with the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal was clearly not a priority for us westerners until it was too late.
The black/arab AfriKans have mostly had their independence for decades now. What they do is entirely on them, and seems to be nothing but a modern day extension of the murderous tribal killings that were perptrated centuries ago during the Bantu migration south.
Look at the genocidal tribalism (historically) extant across most of AfriKa. Both in the black and arab bits. Sud AfriKa and the evils of apartheid finally worked itself out - as did Rhodesia … and the blacks have oppressed anyone who gets in their way there.
Much of the “blame” for the killing fields in AfriKa is on the heavily blood stained hands of the spinless liberal surrender monkeys at the corrupt to the core UN.
You left out Angola, Spanish Sahara vs Morrocco, Eritrea/Somalia, the Ugandan genocide, Chad vs Libya, NIgerai vs Biafra and on and on. Much of the post war AfriKan genocide was perpetrated by USSR backed commies, with occasional Cuban interlopers.
Clearly the US of A cannot be ALL the world’s policeman. “We” FINALLY chose the moral high ground in the case of Iraq for well documented reasons, including 17 utterly ignored by Soddom UN resolutions imposed after GW 1. The intent being to try and spread some kind of democracy in the highly oppressive, jew hating arab world.
I note, as expected, you utterly ignore the legitimate criticism of the liberla surrenbder monkeys that O’Reilly and other sophisticated commentators have explicitly elucidated on.
Every nation/state picks its battles (if it can) … Soddom always believed cynically paying off the frogs/ivans/boxheads and others with the world’s biggest fraud - the UN Oil For Food scam would - ensure he kept the rape rooms and killing fields open. The moral leaderership of Bush and BLiar happily made a nonsense of his cowardly arab Hitler reign of terror.
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 02:56 PM | Link to this
Dear Janine @ 1:38, touché, good argument. To steal someone else’s joke from today, “functional competence in a government agency” sounds like an oxymoron.
Dear jm @ 1:39, you hit a really hot button for me in mentioning “civil forfeitures.” Probably our government at its most evil. I suspect you and I disagree on the solution – you would have the taxpayers fund my retirement plan, and I would abolish the cause of action entirely.
Dear Southern @ 2:04, I would respectfully suggest that you manufacture a false conclusion by limiting alternatives, i.e., military incursion in any case means it is the only alternative in every case, thus its selective use in 2003 Iraq was wrong? I believe the military solution was appropriate in that one case after 10 years of corrupt (by bribery) inaction at the UN – no “rush to judgment” by the US. The military option ought to always be the last option, but that should never mean it is never used. [I suspect it pains you to conceive that my hero Ronaldus Maximus was cleverly nuanced, rather than a cowboy? Makes him sound like a Frenchman when I say it that way?]
More to the point, the likelihood of massive bloodshed in the Middle East after eliminating the most evil man in the world does not invalidate the morality of removing the most evil man; Saddam’s rate of killing may have achieved the same level of bloodshed over time, especially if his WMD program truly was within one year of achieving its goals.
Rwanda and Darfur, as evil as they are, show little evidence of willingness to take their evil outside their borders, differentiating them from Saddam’s Iraq (or Iran or North Korea.) As to the former Soviet, surely you do not argue that the co-ordinated international policy – (a) US economic power coupled with an insuperable willingness to fund open-ended military projects, and (b) Pope JP2 highlighting the moral illegitimacy of the Soviet, and (c) hardline Maggie keeping the Europeans focused on the evil of the East - did not exterminate that regime?
Every other case you cite retains at least one non-military solution with a prospect for success. Much as I like to cheer on aggressive use of military might, even I have to accept exploring the alternatives first. I think time is running out on Iran, however. The question for me though is whether the most effective attack on Iran may go through Syria first?
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this
Dear TFTT and Southern, I think TFTT and I are on the same wavelength, but he said it better, more efficiently, and with a little panache.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this
the final bit should read …
The visionary moral leadership of Bush and BLiar happily, despite the venal, rabid craven global appeasing eventually made a nonsense of his desperate grasping to hang on (WITTY PUN INTENDED) cowardly arab Hitler reign of terror.
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this
Dear Southern, in my 2:56, my second paragraph should have used “potentiality” rather than “likelihood.” Slipshod draftsmanship.
By time for the truth
January 30, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this
Cheers again jbm … S Dem used the tired old pinko arguments to try and shamefully and ludicrously discredit Bush … tribal geopolitics can be a real b!tch at times … just ask the convicted criminal fraudster and child killer Winnie Mandela!!
RIP 14 year old Stompie Moeketsi …
By jm
January 30, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this
Dear jmblaw @ 2:56
While I against people “profiting” from their crimes, I am also against civil forfeiture. The government should be held to the same (preferably high) standard whether they are taking away life, liberty or property. I kind of lump this in my stand against unchecked power.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough working knowledge of our legal system to understand the nuts and bolts needed to achieve that.
By jbmlaw
January 30, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 3:30, the core problem is that our legal system has too many nuts and not enough bolts. Time to bolt.
By Southern Democrat
January 30, 2007 03:44 PM | Link to this
I appreciate both you taking the time to address my argument (in all seriousness). I know it is an argument that we will never see eye-to-eye on, but I always enjoy hearing the counterarguments. My proposition (as I said in 1991, 2003, and will continue to say until I’m blue in the face) is that Saddam was a bad man, but a contained bad man. I certainly subscribe to Jbmlaw’s and TfTT’s pragmatic views on the usage of force, I simply disagree with their application to the Saddam-Iraq case.
I was heartened to see most who regularly comment on this blog did not even bother with Wooten’s feeble attempt to criticize funding the defense rights of the indigent or its possible expansion to civil matters. The rights of the criminally accused are what makes this country great. The pains at which prosecutors and judges in this country take to ensure that defendants are given a fair trial are admirable and consume a great amount of energy. I would hope that Wooten would agree with the great American adage that “better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted.” The criminal justice system is one of those punching bags that is an easy target until you find yourself needing it… then it’s suddenly a lifeline.
By Screwy Wabbit
January 30, 2007 04:32 PM | Link to this
I was arrested when I was 19 for indecent exposure by cops who were sure I was the guy who flashed some chicks waiting in line for a movie. I was an innocent bystander, but I sort of match the description. (had a wong). Anyway, this old, fat, nearly retired detective straight out of casting tried to play good-cop bad-cop by himself on me and get me to confess for hours and hours. Finally after he let me have a phone call, in which he didn’t like my description of how I was being treated, (and let me know it when I hung ), I was released, but that was a close call.
The system failed that time. I was really shook up. One day, I’m going to pay a visit to that detective in the nursing home, and see how he likes it. I’ll play good shock treatment guy, bad shock treatment guy, and really do the big get-even……
By Emma
January 30, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this
Screwy:
The system failed me too. An Atlanta police officer directing traffic tried to give me a ticket because I didn’t get into the lane he wanted me to. I was making a turn at the upcoming light and actually needed to stay put.
He wrote me a ticket; I questioned him and was arrested. I spent the weekend in the Fulton County Jail.
I was shook up; I cried for days. It never occurred to me that I would be a victim of police abuse of power. Thank God I could afford an attorney; I sued the APD, the officer personally and won a handsome settlement that doesn’t even begin to recoup me for what I went through.
Every person should have access to a lawyer—one they can afford.
By ATL Native
February 1, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this
Maybe the GA Republican Party can fund the proposed statue of their new hero, Zig-Zag Zell — why waste the taxpayers’ $$$ on such drivel?