The Loaves and Fishes are on Me

The NYC transit strike was not a problem for this guy. He just walked across the East River.

Can You Hear Me Now?

I hope it wasn't on vibrate.

The Spirit of the Season

Since it's Christmas Eve, goodwill toward men prevents me from explaining in detail why Dick Cheney is The Prince of Darkness. But he managed to further burnish his credentials with the Dark Angel this week by providing the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on a bill that will, among other things, make it harder for disabled children to get medical care. What with the tax cuts for millionaires and all, there just wasn't enough money to go around.

God bless us, every one.

Gorilla My Dreams

I sooooo don't want to know how they figured this out.

Good Night, Sweet Prince

Alex Rodriguez needs to take some of the $25 million he makes each year and buy some sense.

The AL MVP initially said he would be playing in the inaugural World Baseball Classic this coming March. Then, according to news reports, A-Rod was agonizing over whether to play for the United States team or for the team from the Dominican Republic, where his parents were born. "When faced with the decision to choose between my country, the United States of America, and my Dominican heritage, I decided I will not dishonor either," Rodriguez was quoted as saying in the New York Post.

What?? By playing for Team USA, A-Rod, who was born in New York City and grew up in the Miami area, will "dishonor" his heritage?? This no doubt comes as news to thousands of descendants of immigrants who have been members of U.S. Olympic teams, including those whose ancestors were not even given the choice of coming here. He's a U.S. citizen, for God's sake. This is a tough call?

As the linked article suggests, once the MLB and union officials talk to A-Rod, he probably will change his mind again. Maybe he should play for Denmark's team.

They Got Al Capone on Tax Evasion

As usual, the scandal is not what's illegal. It is what's legal.

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Not.

When It's All About You

Forget about the kid who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan. Ken Lay asking former Enron employees to help him beat criminal charges -- now that's chutzpah.

In fact, a number of former employees wanted to come to court and help. But Wal-Mart wouldn't give them the day off.

On Tookie

In about five hours, absent extraordinary judicial intervention, the State of California will execute Stanley Tookie Williams, carrying out a sentence imposed in 1981 by a jury that found him guilty of murdering four people. Having exhausted his legal appeals, Williams sought clemency from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governor said no. Here is someone making the case for clemency, and here is someone making the case against clemency.

Williams does not argue for clemency based on his claimed innocence of the crimes for which he was convicted, and his failure to acknowledge guilt is, as Governor Schwarzenegger's statement makes clear, perhaps the primary reason his petition was denied. Instead, Williams and his supporters argue that he has reformed and is a different person than the one who co-founded a violent criminal organization responsible for countless crimes and, despite his claims, almost certainly murdered four people. In short, they argue, Williams has demonstrated the type of "redemption" that should lead the Governor to spare his life.

I oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, and if I had the power to do so I would abolish the death penalty. The process in which the death penalty is determined, appealed, and implemented demeans everyone involved, as this sorry spectacle shows all too well. With that said, I am completely baffled as to why such an uproar is being made over the likes of Tookie Williams.

They say he writes children's books, but as any recent visitor to a bookstore could tell you, that hardly puts him in select company. He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which, it turns out, is only slightly harder than getting nominated to lead your local Block Watch. But he's been redeemed, they plead. I hope he has, although in a world in which the death penalty exists I am not sure why that matters. Personal redemption is, to say the least, a rather difficult thing for a governor to measure, unlike, say, four dead bodies or lots and lots of votes.

As I said, I do not want Williams to be executed tonight. But I also do not want a justice system in which 25 years of trials, appeals, habeas corpus appeals, and then more habeas corpus appeals are trumped by something so unmeasurable as the perceived state of a man's heart. The answer, of course, is not to be in the position where this is the choice we have to make.

Fund this Guy

Stefan Marti is my new favorite scientist.

According to this article in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Marti, an MIT grad who now works for Samsung, has created a method in which members of a group can prevent someone else in the group from answering his or her cell phone. The article calls it "consensual interruption."

It is a bit cumbersome and not quite ready for widespread use -- those in the group (people attending a meeting, for example) wear badges, which are in wireless contact with the cell phone, and, when a call comes in, a ring everyone also is wearing vibrates, and if anyone touches their ring the call is diverted to voice-mail. I don't understand it either, but just the idea that smart people are trying to deal with this issue is the best news I have heard in a long time. The biggest downside I see is that I frequently am in close contact with far more people wielding cell phones than I have fingers. So I am guessing that, in order to be successful, Marti may have to convince everyone to start wearing ear, nose, and belly rings too.

Whatever it takes.

Those That Can't...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case brought by a group of law professors challenging the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to allow the military to use on-campus facilities to recruit law students. Many law schools have barred the military from on-campus recruiting because of the military's discriminatory policies toward persons who are gay.

Well, our representatives in Congress were not about to allow the only group in America with more job security than they have to push around our armed forces. So, by passing the Solomon Amendment, Congress gave universities a choice: let the military into the law school recruiting offices or forego millions of dollars in federal aid. Stick that in your Starbucks and stir it, Professor.

Principles are nice, but millions of dollars are better, and having both is best of all, so the professors sued, claiming that the Solomon Amendment violates the First Amendment by forcing the professors and their schools to associate with the military and appear to endorse their discriminatory message. As this article makes clear, the Supreme Court was not impressed. And rightly so.

Here's a wacky idea for the law professors: Why don't you try to teach (yes, I know you already have two classes this semester) your law students that they should not be persuaded by the military's sales pitch and should reject it as a potential employer because of its discriminatory policies. Wave a sign. Give a seminar. Talk too loudly at the Starbucks. It's called Free Speech. And of all the people in the world, law professors should know that the response to a message you don't like is not to banish the speaker. It is more speech.

Class dismissed.

Deficit Reduction in Our Time

As this article explains, by the end of today the House of Representatives will have passed bills designed to cut taxes by about $95 billion, a move that will mostly, though not exclusively, benefit the most affluent among us. Last month, the House of Representatives passed bills designed to cut $50 billion in spending on programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and others that benefit the least affluent among us.

So let's do the math: Cut spending by $50 billion. Then cut revenue by $95 billion. That gives us a net savings of ... (scribble, scribble) ... minus $45 billion!!

Warning: These are trained professionals. Please do not try this at home.

Cardinal Sins

No one, save its many abuse victims and families, could be more angry at the Catholic Church -- and especially the Archdiocese of Philadelphia -- than I am. A recent 423-page report issued by a grand jury empaneled by Philadelphia District Attorney Lynn Abraham showed in necessarily horrid detail, priests known to abuse children were aided and abetted by senior officials of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. As has happened in dioceses in Boston and elsewhere, abuse was ignored or covered up, offending priests were transferred from parish to parish, and life after life was shattered by criminals who spent Sunday mornings claiming moral authority over the rest of us.

Still, a proposal (described here) being discussed by some Pennsylvania lawmakers to change the existing statute of limitations to allow civil suits by victims regardless of when the abuse occurred, is a bad idea. Statutes of limitations serve a number of purposes, including the important function of ensuring that claims are brought within a time that will reasonably allow a defendant to produce evidence to contest claims. As years pass, witnesses die, memories can fade and become unreliable, and documents can be lost. The despicable nature of the acts at issue, the desire to compensate victimes, as well as the anger and frustration felt over the inability to criminally prosecute most of the abusers (unlike statutes of limitations applicable to civil claims, those governing crimes cannot be changed in order to charge someone retroactively), are not good enough reasons to amend a law that has generally served valid purposes. If the Pennsylvania General Assembly wants to prospectively change the statute of limitations in abuse cases, then that proposal should be debated on its merits. But a retroactive change intended to "get" the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and others is not the way to go. The abusers don't deserve respect and consideration, but our civil justice system does.

Why Not Just Flip a Coin?

I always hesitate to draw conclusions about society at large by the actions of a few, so it hard to know what to make of this story. But when Abbott & Costello's "Who's on First" routine is less confusing -- and has fewer characters -- than a child custody case, maybe everyone needs to re-think this whole surrogate thing. Say a prayer for the children.