Tucker Done Gone? Woo Hoo!

Is Tucker Carlson finally toast at MSNBC? Rumors are growing that his show will be canceled in the near future.

I'm actually feeling kinda giddy about this prospect.

One can only hope that MSNBC will actually replace him with a grown-up this time (a minority or a woman w/b nice, but I ain't holding my breath), and keep moving away from news as infotainment.

The Wire--It Ain't Over

The finale of HBO's series The Wire aired tonight.

I will miss it.

What a truly extraordinary body of work. Everything about this series--the intersecting and paralell storylines, the cast, the locations and the settings--all of it was near-flawless in execution.

The series' truly masterful storytelling allowed viewers to see far beyond stereotypes and 30-second headlines, to gain clear-eyed insights into the similar political, ethical and moral dilemmas faced by others (regardless of class) and to gain a sense of renewed empathy and civic responsibility for the tremendous challenges facing all of us who are part of the systemic, lurching behemoth that is real life in modern urban America.

If you don't have access to HBO and have never seen the series, run like hell to your local video store and rent it.

Goldie's Right (Once Again)

Goldie over at HorsesAss has an excellent post up that pretty much captures my own sentiments about the fevered, mean-spirited pro and anti candidate opinion pieces rapidly suffocating the progressive blogosphere.

To quote Goldie:

No doubt my friends in the establishment press are looking forward to a bitter and divisive brawl between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all the way up to the Democratic National Convention, but the truth is that even at its nastiest, the 2008 presidential nominating process has thus far been an extraordinarily civil war compared to previous campaigns. Still, while the candidates have mostly managed to stay out of the muck, their partisan supporters in the blogosphere are now poised to march into combat rakes in hand, the posts and comment threads of many of our leading blogs serving as battlefields in an increasingly bloody war of words.

To which I caution my comrades in the progressive netroots… who the hell cares?

There isn’t a nickel’s difference between Obama and Clinton on most policy issues, at least not substantive enough that it can’t be overcome by a commanding congressional majority, and both candidates arguably occupy the same center/center-left ideological niche. We may prefer one candidate’s health care plan over the other, or one candidate’s historical record on the occupation of Iraq, but both Obama and Clinton largely share the same agenda, and either would be far preferable to the Republican alternative. But most important to movement progressives like me, while both are good Democrats, and both have clear paths toward victory in November, neither is exactly what we would call a “netroots candidate,” and thus neither deserves the sort of unrelenting partisan passion that now threatens to distract our ranks, if not actually split them.

Cascadia Drinking Song

Josh Mahar over at Cascadia Rising penned the lyrics to a great drinking song. He's looking for a tunesmith.

Criminal History--The Digital Scarlet "C"

I've been reading, contemplating and researching issues relating to removal of a person's past criminal history from public scrutiny.

It's not only recent parolees and repeat felons who are now summarily being disenfranchised and eliminated from access to all sorts of jobs, housing, licensing and other opportunities.

Nowadays in our "post-911 world", because of easy, cheap access to permanent databases--either provided by a court system or by private data mining and "background check" companies--this disenfranchisement is being experienced by John Q. Citizen who has a criminal history that was in the distant past.

If you do basic google searching you will come across an amazing number of desperate people seeking to have their criminal histories removed from public scrutiny. Many of these people committed a crime 10, 20, even 30 years ago and have been crime-free since then.

Even cases that were dismissed, vacated or sealed by the courts are now showing up in these databases. Juvenile cases, misdemeanors, traffic tickets and parking tickets are listed. Even in cases where an arrest was made, but no charges were filed, or the person was exonerated, or the conviction was overturned--even in cases of utter innocence, governmental malfeasance, or mistaken identity--these are showing up in permanent, unregulated private company databases.

Some people who don't even have an actual criminal record are perpetually suffering because of ID theft falsely linking them in permanent databases to a criminal past. Even people who share common names are also being wrongly linked in permament private databases to a criminal with the same name.

So, John Q. Citizen, who has lived a clean life for years--before and after the period of criminal conduct and contact with the justice system--is now being "marked by the beast" with a permanent digital scarlet letter "C". John Q. Citizen is suddenly discovering he's not allowed to "get past his past" anymore--despite the fact that this is exactly what he has successfully done--and been doing--for years before the advent of e-docketing and permanent databases.

There's a large number of absolutists who believe that the "public has a right to know" everything about a person's past criminal conduct upon demand, and who believe that employers have a similar right to learn of long-past criminal conduct in order to make a current hiring decision.

All I can say is, well, "F-U. You don't."

There's tons of research available clearly demonstrating that the longer a person shows clean conduct (before and after committing a crime) the less likely it is that they will commit a crime--any crime whatsoever--in the future. Researchers know that in the three-year post conviction period that if there's no additional criminal conduct, the recidivisim rate plummets and rapidly reaches a level near-equal to people who have never had contact with the criminal justice system.

Lots of people have committed crimes and have engaged in anti-social conduct--but they may not have a criminal record.

So, if you take the absolutist position that an individual's entire criminal history must be made permanently available on demand for purposes of judging a person's character, then you must also logically take the position that courts should also permanently and openly publish all other court pleadings for all case types to the internet. That way the character of other people who don't have a criminal history record, but who have been subject to the judicial system, can also be "properly" judged.

Allegations and findings in divorce files, for example, could be extraordinarily pertinent, and much more helpful to an employer and to others for properly and fully evaluating a persons's character demonstrated over an extended period of time than would be a summary docket sheet from a single criminal incident from five, 10 or 20 years ago.

In divorces, judges are presented with highly-detailed character and conduct allegations and counter-allegations from petitioners, relatives, friends, employers, medical and psychological professionals, social workers, teachers, and neighbors, etc. Substantiated allegations of repetitive anti-social conduct, ugly behavior and even criminal conduct, allegations of sexual impropriety, child mistreatment, abuse and neglect, mental problems, assault, stalking, vandalism, addictions to drugs, alcohol, pornography and gambling, domestic violence, gross and/or deliberate financial irresponsibility, serial adultery, serial lying, theft, fraud, etc.--aren't atypical at all.

Based on the allegations and evidence presented in divorces, judges make findings of fitness and enter orders for parenting, visitation, parental contact, property division, parenting classes, drug/alcohol classes, restraining orders, anger management classes, psychological evaluations, counseling, financial support and the like.

Allegations in estate and guardianship matters are similarly extremely pertinent and also extremely helpful to evaluating character. Like divorce records, these records also contain allegations and counter-allegations from multiple persons about character and conduct (theft, fraud, elder abuse, etc.) upon which judges enter findings and orders.

But because states place near-automatic restrictions on public access to these types of records as a matter of course, and because sealing orders are readily granted to private citizens in divorces without even good cause showings--these types of court records--often containing clear, convincing and extremely pertinent information relevant to accurately judging "character"--are off limits.

And why are restrictions on these types of historical court files in place? Precisely because they contain embarassing "character" allegations and information that may be entirely true, but may also be taken out of context, may be fundamentally unjust or untrue, may be outdated, may be irrelevant, and at some point in time, maybe they really just aren't anybody else's damn business anymore.

Turns out that other groups and organizations have also been contemplating placing limits on access to prior criminal history records.

The American Bar Ass'n. recently published a position paper calling for significant restrictions on release and retention of criminal history information. Gov. Patrick Deval of Massachusetts is using their findings to follow up on his campaign platforms calls for common sense reforms to that state's criminal records release policies. Good for him.

Most of the reform discussions center around the idea that a citizen should have a right to "restored privacy" via limiting access to and retention of criminal history records once contact with the judicial system is over, and once a person has demonstrated a sustained period of clean conduct relevant to the seriousness of the crime committed.

But what I haven't seen articulated much as part of the discussion are concepts of other basic constitutional rights as well--namely, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

When a person commits a crime AND is caught, AND if the police are called, AND if the police show up, AND if the police then file a report, AND if a prosecutor then files charges (and a person may well be deliberately overcharged), that person is then subject to criminal prosecution.

If convicted or if they plead guilty, then that person is also subject to the jurisdiction of the correctional system. The existence of these systems and their roles and functioning are predicated upon the principles inherent in our laws and enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and are based on the idea that a codified, institionalized system of fair, open and standardized processes is the best way to protect private citizens, ensure proper punishment and promote rehabilitation.

A citizen facing criminal prosecution has a demonstrated need for a check/balance on the power of government, a demonstrated need for due process, and a demonstrated need for protection from vigilante justice by a mob or by private individuals.

Once the criminal prosecution and punishment are over, the state's case is dismissed, and the defendant is supposedly then free from "any disabilities or penalties."

But when the judicial system perpetually publishes or allows unfettered public access to past criminal history records, the judicial system is abdicating its express authority, responsibility, powers and fundamental role to fairly evaluate facts, evaluate character and determine and mete out punishments and "disabilities" in favor of allowing private citizens to do so over and over again--long after that person is no longer subject to the judicial system's oversight and control. Prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and "mob rule" are effectively gutted.

While it's true the state is not the "actor" and is not actively imposing extra-judicial punishment by its direct actions, and the court has "released" its interest in the citizen, by allowing permanent access to historical criminal records, the court is instead facilitating and encouraging unrestricted, extra-legal punishments by private citizens via its passive reliance on a generalized concept of a "right to know."

Certainly being "marked by the beast" with a permanent digital "C" which tacitly encourages and allows private citizens to engage in mob rule, or to judge, discriminate against, and punish other citizens long after the judicial system has already done so is cruel.

Unfortunately this scenario is becoming less "unusual" as these databases continue to exponentially expand.

More on this topic later.

Delayed Citizenship in Big Brotherland

I am becoming increasingly concerned, distressed and occasionally even distraught over the direction our country is heading--weaving and bobbing towards Big Brotherland where most all people are "presumed potentials" and treated accordingly--potential suspects, potential whack-jobs, potential criminals, potential terrorists, etc--and we are all under constant, perpetually retrievable surveillance (wholesale electronic eavesdropping, videocameras, GPS locators, data mining, data sharing, remote viewing, etc.)

We've allowed terrible changes to our fundamental concepts of national self-defense to occur--if we even suspect we will be harmed in the future by another nation, well then, according to this new concept because there is a "potential harm" we can now simply assert our suspicions of this potential as the central foundation for legitmizing the invasion and occupation of that country.

We are especially suspect of our "potential citizenss" and we fear them. They are highly suspect of being criminals, political subversives or terrorists--especially if English isn't that person's birth tongue. But some "potential citizens" are more suspect than others, even when they share certain cultural traits.


From Votelaw blog:

A lawsuit filed Thursday in a federal court in New York by Latino immigrants seeks to force immigration authorities to complete hundreds of thousands of stalled naturalization petitions in time for the new citizens to vote in November.

The class-action suit was brought by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of legal Hispanic immigrants in the New York City area who are eager to vote and have been waiting for years for the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency to finish their applications. The suit demands that the agency meet a nationwide deadline of Sept. 22 to complete any naturalization petitions filed by March 26.

Latino groups hope to summon the clout of the federal courts to compel the Bush administration to reduce a backlog of citizenship applications that swelled last year. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, more than one million citizenship petitions were backed up in the pipeline by the end of December, the majority from Latino immigrants.

Despite protests over the delays from lawmakers, Latino groups and immigrant advocates, the immigration agency is currently projecting wait times of 16 months to 18 months to process the petitions. -- Latinos Seek Citizenship in Time for Voting - New York Times


It's simply not fair that an entire group of immigrants, based solely on their country of origin (read: Cuba) are afforded prompt handling of their citizenship applications, but most other people, even those that have been waiting for YEARS and YEARS and are demonstrably decent people, are being stonewalled.

When white middle class and upper middle class Americans started complaining about not being able to obtain passports so they could leave the US for vacations, well then, our government suddenly relaxed its regulatory procedures that had created a ridiculous application backlog and suddenly found the monies to hire more staff and speed up the process.

I hope the lawsuit is successful and that these deserving people are moved nearer to the front of the line.

Working the Primary--It's a Trust Thang

I've been hired to work as a polling site supervisor for the upcoming Feburary 19th primary election. To get the job I simply called the King County Records & Elections office. That's it.

The woman I spoke to said they were desperate for workers, so if you're looking for some temp work this is a good gig. I'll earn about $400 for attending a one-day traning session and working the day of the election.

As a site supervisor, prior to the election I am given a key to the site and I have free access to ballots, equipment and supplies. I also transport the ballots post-election to the counting center (I get to pick a poll worker from the "opposite" party to come with me while transporting ballots, but if there isn't an actual "opposite" available, I can simply designate somebody.)

While I deeply appreciate this opportunity, and I need the money, I am really bothered that our elections are still run primarily on trust. I care deeply about the sanctity of the vote, and it seems inconceivable to me that I can be hired as a site supervisor and be given such free rein simply by making a single phone call asking for a temp job.

Realistically, if the votes from just one small polling site were tampered with it probably wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in the outcome of our elections. But what if it did? Or what if one political party gamed the system by signing up party loyalists en masse to work at several polling places? Or what if a computer hacker gained remote access to the system via work at a polling place? I imagine that King County has instituted double-checks of some sort (especially given the fallout from the razor-thin election victory of Gov. Gregoire over Dino Rossi in the last general election), but still, what if the double-checks can be circumvented at the polling site?

WA Lawmaker Moves to Ban Plastic Bags!

Woo-hoo.

I strongly support Rep. Chase's proposed legislation to ban the flimsy bags!

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/01/some_washington_lawmakers_want.html

If China Can Ban Flimsy Plastic Bags--Can We?

China passed a new law taking effect in June that will ban the sale of flimsy plastic bags, and will impose a fee for using the thicker plastic bags that would still be available to shoppers and merchants.

In an article highlighting China's new law by AP writer Christopher Bodeen, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_re_as/china_plastic_bags;_ylt=ApMabP1VVqSbu4gxYSY7kIys0NUE), he reviewed the status of other worldwide efforts to ban the bags:

Internationally, legislation to discourage plastic bag use has been passed in parts of South Africa, Ireland and Taiwan, where authorities either tax shoppers who use them or impose fees on companies that distribute them. Bangladesh already bans them, as do at least 30 remote Alaskan villages.

Last year, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban petroleum-based plastic bags in large grocery stores. In France, supermarket chains have begun shying away from giving away plastic bags and German stores must pay a recycling fee if they wish to offer them. Ireland's surcharge on bags imposed in 2003 has been credited with sharply reducing demand.

ECS has a question--when is "green" Seattle going to address banning the bags?

Eternal Sunshine--Green Plug

As a dedicated Northwest denizen I will freely admit that I enjoy our cool, rainy weather and cloudy days, but lately I've been feeling "off." I've got a raging case of "Northwest blahs"--feeling like I will Just Go Bonkers if I don't get more sunlight.

It's just too damn dark around here. I've been contemplating taking a trip to the Southwestern United States, or Florida, or Hawaii, anywhere I can be in bright sunshine. But trips are expensive, and the benefits of brief sunshine-basking are short-lived. What to do?

A fantastic green product--Solatubes--offers a permanent solution to the Northwest blahs.

Solatubes are highly-reflective, insulated, UV-coated, sealed pipes installed through a roof. Available sunlight is magnified and projected indoors in a diffuse pattern, providing indoor "sunshine plus" on cloudy days. Because of Solatube's unique design, on bright sunny days, Solatubes actually baffle and moderate "excess" sunlight.

While there are similar knock-off products on the market Solatubes is by far the best. Northwest Natural Lighting is the distributor for Solatubes in the Puget Sound region

Latest Wash State Attorney Disciplinary Actions

William Knowles has finally been disbarred. Per the latest Washington State Bar News:

In or about June or July 2004, Mr. Knowles engaged in sexually related communications over the Internet with someone he believed to be a 14-year-old girl from Portland, Oregon. Mr. Knowles arranged over the Internet to meet with this individual for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity and traveled from Seattle to Portland for this encounter. Unbeknownst to him, the person with whom he had been communicating was an FBI agent, not a 14-year-old girl. In July 2004, Mr. Knowles was arrested in Portland at the location where the meeting had been arranged.

For descriptions of publicly available attorney disciplinary actions (yes--there are disciplinary actions that aren't disclosed to the public) go to www.wsba.org/media/publications/barnews

About the Name

Greetings to all! This is my first blog.

Emerald City Scion, is a collection of musings, opinions, critiques, essays, interesting tidbits and (hopefully) investigative work.

"Emerald City" refers to Seattle, Washington, where I live. A "scion" per the Encyclopedia Britannica is:

. . . the act of placing a portion of one plant (called a bud or scion) into or on a stem, root, or branch of another (called the stock) in such a way that a union forms and the partners continue to grow.

So, this blog, Emerald City Scion, is a grafting of my work here to the larger body of web-based writing and journalism.

Nuff said!