Blogroll

Apparent trouble in J.A.I.L.land = More lies

Seems like there may be more dissension in J.A.I.L.land. On Friday, the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers added to the bottom of each page of their web site: “NOTE: This is the only official website for South Dakota Amendment E.” (Bold in original). It then links to a disclaimer that states in part:

This is the only official website for South Dakota Amendment E.South Dakota Judicial Accountability (SDJA) authored Amendment E, collected the signatures, and put the Judicial Accountability Amendment on the 2006 ballot. There is no other organization or person more accountable, or more qualified, to address issues pertaining to Amendment E than the staff at SDJA.

If you read something representing a PRO Amendment E position on another website, please verify the information against the information on this site.

(Italics in original).

The disclaimer reflects J.A.I.L.’s seeming compulsion to lie about everything. Unless South Dakota J.A.I.L. is the same as Californian Ron Branson and his Jail4Judges organization, the claim that South Dakota J.A.I.L. “authored” the measure is laughably false.

South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-chief Bill Stegmeier admitted long ago that the initiative came from Branson, who wrote the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). The Jail4Judges web site has said for months that J.A.I.L. was “customized for each state” and gave a link to the South Dakota J.A.I.L. site on which the disclaimer now appears for South Dakota’s version. The site also has long said: “Our pioneer state for the passage of J.A.I.L. is South Dakota where we expect victory in November 2006.”

Then there is the May 26, 2005, e-mail titled “New and final version of the South Dakota Initiative” Branson wrote to Stegmeier and Gary Zerman (a California lawyer and co-founder of Jail4Judges listed by Stegmeier as being in charge of South Dakota J.A.I.L.’s “media relations”).

Bill and Gary, here is our work in its final form ready to be filed. FINALLY! It is best to use the attachment version because it has all the proper print size & style. (Use the below pasted only for verbiage.)

The only changes made before the “final version” was filed with the Secretary of State was altering some paragraph designations from the letters (a)-(x) to the numbers (1)-(23). And those changes came only after an exchange of letters with the Legislative Research Council.

Just recently, Branson posted a comment to an online article from the Pierre Capital Journal. The post begins, “As the author of Amendment E, it is appropriate that I be given the opportunity to rebutt [sic] the above article[.]” The comment is “signed” at the beginning and end as Ron Branson, “Author of Amendment E.”

Did this lead to the disclaimer or is South Dakota J.A.I.L. also disavowing others? South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers previously tried to distance themselves from Branson. But what about Bonnie Russell, the “publicist” who created the Amendment E website when the “split” from Branson was announced (and which she so graciously registered in the name of her own organization)? Or how about the Amendment E site on MySpace? As an interesting aside, Jake Hanes has followed Stegmeier’s lead when it comes to openness and accountability. Now that the extremism shown on his MySpace site has been exposed, he has made it “private.” [NOTE comment below.] [UPDATE 2: Jake can’t make up his mind.]

Isn’t it interesting how South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers never want to be accountable themselves and keep running from the truth?


Factions are a sign of illness in [an organization].

Ernest Mandel

Thanks John

Usually, it’s the political items that bring visitors to this piece of the blogosphere’s backwoods. Never, however, underestimate the power of science fiction.

John Scalzi posted a one word link (“these”) on his blog of my review of his Hugo-nominated Old Man’s War. Within less than six hours, my blog received as many hits as it normally gets over the course of a couple days. The trend continues today, with the visits as of this posting also exceeding a couple normal days.

And I have since also learned that Scalzi wrote the first post for and named Blogcritics, the online magazine for which I write virtually all of my reviews. I suppose I should thank him for that outlet for my hobby.

Finally, I want to once again plug and recommend Scalzi’s “Being Poor,” which I mentioned here when he posted it last September.


Being poor is people who have never been poor wondering why you choose to be so.

John Scalzi, Being Poor

Book Review: Old Man’s War (2005)

Because or maybe in spite of the number of books I read, it is a far too rare experience for one to grab me with opening paragraph. John Scalzi‘s debut novel and Hugo Award nominated Old Man’s War did just that.

The opening? “I did two things on my seventy-fifth birthday. I visited my wife’s grave. Then I joined the army.”

Aside from raising the basic question of why a 75-year-old is joining the army, the paragraph quickly summarizes the major motivations that drive John Perry, the story’s narrator: age and the death of his wife eight years before.

Perry lives in a future in which humanity has not only made it to interstellar space, it has established colonies on numerous planets. But the universe is a rather dire place. Although there are plenty of intelligent extraterrestrial races, they have little or no desire to share their home planets with man. As a result, the Colonial Defense Forces (CDF) has waged a decades-long war to both protect humanity’s colonies and expand man’s reach to and control of other planets.

Earth is largely irrelevant and basically ignorant of the colonies and what the CDF does. In part to protect humanity’s home, the heavily populated Earth is an unknown hinterland and life moves on much as always. It does, though, serve as a source for CDF soldiers. The catch is the CDF doesn’t want anyone who isn’t at least 75 years old. People like Perry do not know why, other than they speculate that youth is restored to enlistees. But enlistees can never return to Earth. If they survive their mandatory two years at the front, they have the option of “reupping” or settling on a colony planet.

Thus, even at the outset, Perry and other enlistees face difficult decisions. Do you simply live out your existence on Earth subject to the ailments and maladies of age? Or do you opt for what you believe to be restoration of youth, albeit with the risk your life could end violently within weeks? Do you forever leave your family, friends and everything you have ever known with the carrot being that in two years you might be able to start over on some planet light years from Earth and of which you know absolutely nothing?

While Scalzi freely acknowledges Old Man’s War was inspired by Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, issues like these distinguish Old Man’s War from most so-called military science fiction. Scalzi is adept at making the subgenre a vehicle rather than the essence of the book.

Perry learns how 75-year-olds become CDF fighters, experiences firsthand the brutality of this war, sees and feels the effects of an extraordinary casualty rate and meets a special forces soldier who looks identical to his years-dead wife. While alone an intriguing read, these plot lines also raise thornier issues. How does the CDF’s supposed fountain of youth fit in with traditional concepts of human life and ethics? Is war and its extreme brutality inevitable or should the focus be on trying to achieve peaceful coexistence with alien races? Most important, what is it that gives us selfhood?

But don’t let all of these thoughts and ideas make you think the book is some plodding existential tome. With Perry’s personal story, the military SF aspects and enough pieces of “hard” SF (e.g., what makes travel over light years possible), Old Man’s War works equally as well for someone who just wants to read well-done, straightforward science fiction.

Yes, the opening paragraph sucked me it. But it’s Scalzi’s ability to explore all the concepts and ideas those simple sentences give rise to that kept me interested. If you can combine that feat with writing that produces such a good read, you are deserving of a Hugo Award nomination.


This man had gone to new places, met new races and exterminated them on sight.

John Scalzi, Old Man’s War

Assorted miscellany

  • Although I’ve seen no scientific confirmation one way or another, I suspect today’s effort to put Earth into a new orbit was unsuccessful.
  • I was pleased to discover that it would take 120 cups of coffee or 370 cups of iced tea to get enough caffeine to kill me. I don’t think I’d be able to drink that much in a sitting but it’s nice to have goals. (Via Boing Boing.)
  • Another of those book announcements that evoke, “Spare me,” as a reaction. On a related note, I am half-tempted to start a regular who gives a rat’s ass feature but fear that not only would it just draw attention to the blight, it would consume far too much of the blog.
  • Not a good sign for someone’s marriage.
  • The Guardian opines on the 50 albums that changed music. I don’t buy at least half of it, particularly that their first choice is “the most influential rock album of all time.”

  • This land is your land & this land is my land -? sure -? but the world is run by those that never listen to music anyway.

    Bob Dylan, Tarantula

    A Herseth laugher?

    Here’s something that’s bothered me from the moment I read it. I was willing to let it slide until two votes this week.

    Stephanie Herseth told the state Democratic Convention last month, “Not a week goes by where I don’t wonder what it would be like to be in the majority party.” If you look at her voting record, you gotta wonder if she isn’t in that party already.

    Since June 1 alone she has:

    Part of me attributes these votes to this being an election year but that ignores the fact that on each and every one of them more than 150 House Democrats — most of whom also face reelection — had the courage of conviction.

    UPDATE: The new issue of The Progressive has a Troubletown strip that perfectly summarizes Congress.


    The problem with legislators is they only have a vision to the next election.

    Jesse Ventura, Feb. 28, 2002