Dr. Tom

Does this mean bald Korean men are really good Communists?

His "points" are execrable. This Churchill fellow is a waste of flesh. Hamilton College was concerned about violence and canceled him. If I lived in Colorado, I'd be upset that my tax dollars were funding this asshole poisoning the minds of college students.

Here's what happened. And no, this doesn't need to be discussed anymore. It's been handled.

Drug War Shrinking Bill of Rights Thursday, January 27, 2005 By Radley Balko This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if you're pulled over by the police for speeding or, say, not wearing your seatbelt, they may bring out drug-sniffing dogs to investigate your car without violating the Fourth Amendment. On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr observes that Justice John Paul Stevens (search), writing for the majority, indicated that the Fourth Amendment protects not against violations of privacy or invasiveness, but against violation of property rights. Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment. It's a troubling precedent. It's hard to see how any police search would violate any rights under Justice Stevens' ruling, so long as the search turned up something illegal. That sort of undermines what the Fourth Amendment (search) is all about. That case is just the latest in a number of court rulings and pieces of legislation that have been chipping away at the criminal justice rights of substance-abuse suspects. Ours is quickly becoming a two-tiered criminal justice system, one in which there are one set of criminal protections for drug and alcohol defendants, and a broader set of protections for everyone else. Last month in Virginia, pain physician Dr. William Hurwitz (search) was convicted on dozens of counts of drug distribution. Prosecutors and the foreman of the jury that convicted him conceded that Hurwitz didn't knowingly participate in a drug trade, but because the pain medication he prescribed made it to the black market, he was nevertheless found guilty. He faces life in prison. Proving intent — as is required to secure a conviction in nearly every other crime — apparently wasn't necessary. The drug war has been eating at the Bill of Rights since its inception. Asset forfeiture laws, for example, allow law enforcement to seize the assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime. Even if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dropped, the mere presence of an illicit substance in a car or home can mean the loss of the property, on the bizarre, novel legal principle that property can be guilty of a crime. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a judge in Utah recently had no choice but to sentence a first-time marijuana dealer to 55 years in prison (he had a pistol strapped to his ankle during the one-time deal, though he never brandished it). Frustrated but hamstrung by drug laws, the judge in the case noted that just hours earlier, he had sentenced a convicted murderer to just 22 years for beating an elderly woman to death with a log. Courts have carved out a "drug war exemption" in the Bill of Rights for multiple search and seizure scenarios, privacy, wiretapping, opening your mail, highway profiling, and posse comitatus — the forbidden use of the U.S. military for domestic policing. The other area where criminal protections are withering in the face of substance-abuse hysteria is in Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated cases. The most notable example is the 1990 case of Michigan vs. Sitz (search), where the Supreme Court ruled that the problem of drunk driving was so pervasive, the Court could allow "random sobriety checkpoints" in which cops stop motorists without probable cause and give them breath tests, a practice that would otherwise again violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court has since ruled that the urgency of the drunken driving problem gives states the option to legislate away a motorist's Sixth Amendment (search) right to a jury trial and his Fifth Amendment (search) right against self-incrimination. In 2002, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that police officers could forcibly extract blood from anyone suspected of drunk driving. Other courts have ruled that prosecutors aren't obligated to provide defendants with blood or breath test samples for independent testing, even though both could be done relatively easily. State legislatures have pounced on these rulings. The state of Washington just passed two laws remarkable in their disdain for everything our criminal justice system is supposed to represent. The first instructs juries in drunk driving cases to consider the evidence "in a light most favorable to the prosecution," an evidentiary standard that's unheard of anywhere else in criminal law. The second mandates that breath test evidence be admissible, no matter what — even if the defense can prove that the breath test machine was broken, or jiggered toward higher readings. Last year, Pennsylvanian Keith Emerich had his license revoked by state authorities after he revealed to his doctor during an emergency room visit that he sometimes drinks a six-pack of beer per day. His doctor reported him. Emerich wasn't accused or charged with drunk driving. In a bizarre twist on the principle of "presumption of innocence," Emerich must now prove to the state that he doesn't drive after drinking before he can get his license back. More and more states are taking advantage of the Supreme Court's granted exemption to a right to a jury trial for DUI-DWI suspects, particularly in states where judges are elected, not appointed. That, of course, is because elected judges deemed insufficiently harsh on such defendants can have their "leniency" used against them when it comes time for re-election. Though no such bill has yet to be signed into law, several state legislatures have also now considered bills that would mandate ignition interlock devices in every car sold in the state. New Mexico's version of the law would require all drivers to blow into a tube before starting their car, then again every ten minutes while driving. Drivers over the legal limit would not be able to start their cars or, if already on the road, given a window of time to pull over. Onboard computer systems would keep data on each test, which service centers would download once a month or so and send to law enforcement officials for evaluation. The problem, as Thomas Jefferson famously said, is that the natural process of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. It would take a rare and brave politician to stand up and say that we need to roll back or reconsider our drug laws, or that it's unfair to give accused murderers or rapists more rights than we give DWI defendants. But that's exactly what needs to happen. Radley Balko maintains a Weblog at: www.TheAgitator.com. (LOL2005~!!!!!11!!11one!!!) Particularly troubling points are emphasized, sometimes more than once. Most of you know that I'm a social liberal, and I find the Drug War sickening and repugnant. I was aware of some of these ridiculous offenses of basic rights, but not all, and this article/editorial was quite eye-opening. It's amazing what courts are allowed to get away with in the name of punishing drug and DUI offenders. When a first-time pot dealer gets more than double the sentenced prison time as a guy who BEAT AN OLD WOMAN TO DEATH, then something is seriously wrong with our criminal justics system.

That's repugnant. Conservative =/= Fascist.

If it sounds too good or too easy to be true, bet on the fact that it is.

Well, I certainly hope that doll --sorry, action figure -- wasn't tortured by having to wear Barbie's panties on his head...

Six more weeks of winter. :-/

Not only are they not Americans, they're not soldiers. Terrorists do not deserve POW protections. They deserve a .45 bullet in the back of the head and a shallow mass grave.

ESPN's latest foray into dramatic television, "Tilt" aired last night at 9PM ET, with a replay immediately afterward. Did anyone else watch it? Impressions? I thought they did a better job with the characters than on "Playmakers." The blonde girl doesn't seem like a very good actress; eye candy is nice, but in a dramatic series, you need someone who can carry the role. A couple of the situations were very cliched, like the two guys drawing down in the backroom poker game. Spoiler stuff: I don't like the fact that The Matador is a cheater. It'd be a lot better if he were just a really good player whom the casino regulars fear and the young players want to knock off. Make him a thug, but not a cheat. And I don't like that he's in cahoots with the casino owner. ESPN is probably going to give people the impression they'll get cheated if they go to a casino, and while that's possible, it's not likely. The mousy-looking cop was a surprise. I thought he'd be just a bit player from the trailer, but it looks like he's going to be a thorn in everyone's side. Now that he knows The Matador is shady, I'm sure he's going to turn up the heat, especially since the LVPD is in with the casino owner and won't help.

"Count Dooku" is a far more ridiculous name, IMO. Nice job, George, naming an important character something very similar to a childhood euphamism for shit. "Grievous" isn't a great name by any stretch, but it's tolerable.

Heh. I was listening in the car on my way back from lunch. That was indeed a good one...

What about retired b-baller World B. Free? It's pretentious as hell, but come on.

He's available, but ESPN was reporting that the Tigers were foolishly offering him $55m over 5 years. Several teams were considering him for an incentive-laden one-year deal, but that doesn't seem likely anymore. The Orioles were apparently scared off by his left knee, which makes a mutliyear deal seem especioally risky. As for the Sosa deal, they're getting a guy who would have hit 45 or so homers in a full season last year, and they're getting him for less than half his actual contract. The minor-leaguers they're giving up don't matter much, and Hairston -- while he's come on strong the past couple years -- was definitely caught in a logjam at several positions. If Sosa isn't too much of a malcontent, this is a good deal for the O's. If he's a bitchy crybaby, then it's not.

I'm surprised it took you this long. This outcome, while repugnant, was entirely expected.

It's not just that they had the threat of death at the polls to deal with. Iraqis who voted are clearly marked for a day or more by a purple stamp on their finger. So if terrorists wanted to kill people who voted, they'd be easy to distinguish from those who didn't vote. Despite these risks, the Iraqi people embraced liberty and turned out to the polls in very strong numbers. An excellent achievement all around.

Because there was no sociaized medicine for her to take advantage of, obv...

I'm disappointed that a thread with a good and timely topic turned into a comparison of marijuana prices.

That sounds like a band name... I love free translators.

What irritates me is when a couple has a baby and then mentions the baby on the answering machine message. Like anyone is calling to talk to a fucking infant. It also irritates me that people still bother explaining the whole "leave your message after the beep" thing. Who doesn't know to do that? DId someone sleep thru the last 20 or so years of answering machines? Mine's simple: "Hey, it's Tom, you know what to do. And if you don't, I didn't want to talk to you, anyway."

LSD: Show your tirts.

I've always found HP's inkjets to be shitty. Their lasers are good, though. If you want the reliability of a laser with color, you should be able to go to a site like Tigerdirect.com and find a home-use color laser for around $500.

What's your OS? In XP Pro, when I open User Accounts, there's a link there called "Change the way users log on or off."

DUI is driving under the influence, a lesser offense than driving while intoxicated. And while I'm in favor of shooting any drunk driver who maims or kills someone in a traffic accident, some of these measures are positively byzantine. A guy gets his license taken away because he told HIS ER DOCTOR that he *sometimes* drinks a 6-pack in a day? What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality, or is that gone too in the zeal to lock up everyone who's ever sipped a martini and driven in the same calendar week? Now, in a system that's supposed to presume innocence, this fellow has to prove that he doesn't drive drunk in order to get his license back. It's an absurd abuse of basic legal rights.

I find it funny (and sad) that the medical examiner didn't *examine* the "body" at the scene. Hello, isn't that his fucking job?