University of Hawaii get schooled by Students

          Cristen Crew's recent editorial on the wacky situation down in HI caught me entirely off-guard. I'm amazed I hadn't heard about this on national news outlets, instead I stumble on this ridiculous story by way of the internet, which actually makes sense, as the internet is the only acceptable place for this particular breed of crazy.
          If you haven't read her article, the story is that some administrators at the University of Hawaii barred two students from distributing copies of the US constitution to their classmates. Seriously. Not drugs or the answers to the pop-quiz, it was US constitutions.. Dang. Their Poli-sci classes must be wicked hard.
         So, naturally, the two students are suing the balls off the University. The students are using the same lawyer, Davis Tremaine, that recently won $50k in a similar case against the Modesto Junior College in California. Its appears to be mainly a question of how the students were approaching their peers rather than what they were handing out, but the case is likely feature the constitutional aspect very heavily.
        Cristen does a great job of explaining the situation, despite how unbelievable it seems, this really is going on and it took this article for me to hear about it, which prompted me to do some further study about the case. It also brought to light some of the implications of the 'Free-Speech Zones' we've been seeing get implemented at schools and government facilities.

US v Wurie has got us worried

          What should have been a pretty ordinary trial for a Massachusetts drug dealer has surprisingly made it all the way to the Supreme Court recently. The 2007 arrest of Brima Wurie has been called into question based on an officer's use of Wurie's cell phone during the investigation. You can check on the details of the case on this official-ish SCOTUS blog.
          The ruling of local courts was that a cell phone is similar to a wallet in terms of protection under the Fourth Amendment from 'unlawful search and seizure'. Like a wallet, your phone will likely give an investigator some pretty juicy clues about you, like who you are (and if you can drive), where you live, who you know, how much cash you have, etc. And since wallets are certainly okie-dokie for the police to root around in, it follows suit that your phone is next.
         That's all it is really, I think folks have been caught up in the 'constitutionality' smokescreen Wurie's wily lawyers have concocted. The reality is that the dude got arrested for selling drug, and after refusing to reveal his address, he went to jail. No big thing, happens all the time, but while Wurie was in holding, his phone rang. The attending officer saw that the call was coming from a contact labeled 'My House' then checked the contact for a physical address. More drugs and a weapon were later found at the residence. That sounds like some premium police work to me, no breach of our forefather's intent here, donuts for everybody!
         I think most of us are already aware of most of the hazards of irresponsible cellphone usage, but it looks like this might be another one to watch out for. I know none of you would ever dream of being involved in any less than legal activities, but if you ever did it appears that now you will have to endure the added inconvenience of the anti-incarceration techniques, like; Not labeling the contact for your secret drug den 'My House'.
        

Paul's got the right idea.

       Paul Duah's commentary on the global role of the US is a wonderfully stated explanation of the mysterious clockwork of American politics. As distracting as the political process can be, Mr. Duah has somehow managed to pinpoint the way we are seen and the protective sentiment behind it all, perhaps due to his advantaged perspective of the Nation.
       He calls to mind the great empires, and their collapses, and the lessons we take from them. By recognizing the US's position as a 'Super Power' the world looks to us for guidance. We as a nation must be sure that we are aware of this, and act accordingly, representing ourselves as best we can to those that might be watching. Increasingly so in this age of global transparency via the internet, our behavior is being seen and and our examples are followed by a much greater audience than we may intend.
       Mr. Duah clearly is a well educated man, and his article represents this very well, as he peppers his argument with supporting events in the historical ideological process that brings his point to bear. A very well written and informative read, it has prompted me to investigate and follow his blog, Paul's Ideas on Politics. And you should too.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

         On the heels of the recent shooting of Jawhari Smith by Austin Police, I've been lead to a very critical opinion of the Law Enforcement System of the US. This particular case is pretty straightforward, Smith was carrying a BB gun around and refused to put it down, but its seems to me, that every few weeks someone's getting searched, arrested or shot, solely because the people don't trust the police. Which brings to mind the old Latin maxim;

                              'Who will watch the Watchmen?'

      The first thing to consider when attempting to answer this question, is who the watchmen really are. Most of us will point fingers at the donut-munching, drug-planting, racial-profiling, speedtrap-setting coppers that we see in bad TV and movies from the early '80s. But the truth is just so unbearably mundane that it seems to fade from our memories again and again. The fact is, most of the men and women employed by the law enforcement industry are just regular people, the could be your neighbors or classmates, and the only thing that separates them from the rest of the crowd is that shiny little symbol and a gun. To be fair, there are plenty of terrible douche-bagel cops out there, but they are indisputably the minority. However, due to that phenomenal inability of the people to see past that badge, those few rotten apples are all that we remember.

     This totally biased slant against all these folks that are supposed to protect us is entirely disarming. Because without our trust, why should they trust us? And how can they protect us when they constantly have to safeguard themselves against us? How could we possibly be employing over a million people in an industry that is completely ineffective, paying salaries from taxes from people that hate police?
   
     David Brinn proposed a solution in his book The Transparent Society, back in '98. He argued that given the rate of advancement in surveillance technology, a physical police force will no longer be needed to keep tabs on the behavior of the public. The ease and affordability of this new 'Big Brother' technology could provide detailed records of any individuals actions, whether its their phone records or bank statements or just the bill from that adult video store, at a moment's notice, with the click of a button. The gazillions of little data points could effortlessly be stored in the cavernous internet, providing potential evidence decades after documentation.

      What's even better, is that this information could be available not only to prosecutors, but to also to the defendants. Alibis for years, no more hearsay, and above all accountability for both sides of that thin blue line. And I know the multitude of semantic, parking-ticket-ignoring criminals out there are raging about the invasion of privacy, and the NSA watching them pee, but the fact of the matter is that once 'they' see what the good, upstanding people are upto, they'll leave you alone. And hey, at least with this system you get to watch them too. And that's really what its all about, getting everyone to keep the lights on and make sure that whatever happens, it is seen and recognized. By someone, by anyone,by

                                                   Everyone.

       Which brings to mind a second point, why are the police the only ones upholding the laws? Surely as part of our 'upright citizenship', we ought to feel at least somewhat motivated to support those rules and systems we've chosen to be participate in. Strangely, the only place folks are willing to take a stand like that is on literal battlefronts, through the armed forces. Our citizens would rather leave their communities, to kill or be killed combating foreign hazards, to defend a dreamy ideal of what the nation 'should' be, rather than try and share the enormous burdens of our domestic turpitude.

         I would suggest a change in policy, to promote faith and commitment in our national ideals, by instituting a lottery, similar to that used to select potential jurors, to elect a Citizen's Guard to protect and police their community, for terms not exceeding one year. By eliminating the divide between civilians and law enforcement, we could encourage cooperation and rebuild that shattered trust. Though at the same time it will keep the population on their toes, as each individual will know the others are watching, and that each of them is expected to suppress dangerous or unreasonable behavior.

       Eventually, we, as a cooperative and responsible nation, may outgrow the need for the absurdly punitive system of law enforcement that we currently rely on. Though even switching the emphasis, just a little bit, towards deterring crimes, rather than just jailing folks after the fact, would be a huge improvement. It'll take a lot of doing, but there's a lot of us here to do it, and it definitely needs to be done.

Supreme Court has given cops a new way into your home.

        A recent ruling in the robbery case of Fernandez v. California, has allowed officers to enter a residence despite being denied consent, and, they can do it without a warrant. The potential ripples from this have the many people in a frenzy as they try to predict the damage this could cause to our rights to privacy and due process. Not to mention the Fourth amendment, which states very clearly 'the right of the people to be secure in their house against unreasonable search and seizure'. Tim Cushing discusses the issue on the Crooks and Liars blogroll from a balanced and logical perspective in his recent article.

        He begins with a summary of the 2009 case that started all this, and proceeds to respectfully argue both opinions in an admirable effort to clarify the impact of this new precedent. While he is clearly opposed to this corrosion of civil rights, he withholds his own reservations, instead he quotes from Judge Ginsburg, and refers to the much more spirited response of Gideon from A Public Defender to add weight to his argument.

       The article is quite well written, and easily grabs the sentiment of the youth and libertarian demographics who are statistically more concerned with the balance of security and freedom. But it also reaches out to a wider audience by illustrating the ease with which law enforcement agencies are encroaching on the right of the public.

        The piece is also accompanied by a PDF of the 33 page ruling on the case in question, as well several links to supporting documents and sources, which lends a high level of credibility to the work, more than compensating for the relative anonymity of Mr. Cushing himself. My own examination of his evidence in combination with some periphery research has lead me to believe that his information as well his worries, are not unfounded.
    
      

Anonymous Judges Fuel Olymic Scandal

       A recent article in USA today shed some light on the apparent controversy surrounding the Winter Olympics and specifically the panel of anonymous judges that administers them. Whether or not this is due to the United State's failure to bring home a gold has yet to be seen, but following up on reports of cheating and collusion among Soviet block representatives of these villainous foreign panels, journalist Christine Brennan investigated.
        She quickly found that several of these judges had previously been either accused or outright convicted in several instances of moral turpitude. This could well be the solid evidence we might need to substantiate these types of accusations, though sadly whatever transgressions may have occurred, the Olympic Committee has clearly given the go-ahead to the parties involved. Unfortunately the effect of this sort of indictment is merely to present Americans as sore losers and tattle-tales. Furthermore Christine's article relies heavily on an unnamed "high ranking Olympic figure skating official" whose fears of repercussion so weakly excuse anonymity. I don't mean to question anyone's ethical direction myself, but it occurs to me that it'd be mighty easy to anonymously 'support' just about any claim you can think of.
         In fairness, national pride can easily cloud perspective in these matters, as can a need to sell newspapers to a predominantly US supporting clientele. I maintain, that well it may be true that the current system in Sochi may be ethically vulnerable, without proof of malfeasance it plainly unreasonable to level any allegation against those persons invested by the People with that venerated responsibility to judge impartially

USPS might not be going bankrupt.

        A recent article on NPR describes an encouraging source of revenue for the struggling postal service. Apparently there is a proposal suggesting the USPS consider taking up some limited banking services, such as wire transfers and check cashing. This would be a throwback to the policies of the early 20th century, when the post office first began offering an alternative to those that distrusted private banks. This first Postal Savings system became obsolete in the late 60's due an attractive increase in interest rates among the competing banks, but set a precedent that would allow the post office to renew their banking interests without approval from congress. The matter is somewhat controversial, with vocal advocates of both sides, but could potentially signify a path towards a truly Federal banking system, which could herald great change in the nation.