|
|
Congrats to former Sioux Falls Stampede player Chad LaRose, who will now have his name inscribed on the Stanley Cup as a member of the winning Carolina Hurricanes.
LaRose was a member of the Stampede in its first year of existence and played part of year two before moving to the Ontario Hockey League. He is one of the first two Stampede alum to play in the NHL, both this year. LaRose took the hard route. He was undrafted and worked his way through the minors after signing a free agent contract with Carolina in 2003.
After playing in two of the first three games of the finals, LaRose was a healthy scratch in Games 4, 5 and 6. Yet not only did he play in Game 7, he wore one of NBC’s player microphones and, as a result, appeared in a brief feature segment during the broadcast.
This is the only thing that’s seen more parties than us.
Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler on the Stanley Cup
South Dakota’s J.A.I.L.ers are back at doing what they do best. Misrepresenting what the proposed amendment says.
In a recent update to their website, they say, “Basically what Amendment E will do is create a ‘citizen’s oversight committee’ with the sole purpose of hearing complaints against judges alleging judicial misconduct.”
Let’s quickly examine the phrase in quotes. Generally, quotation marks are placed around — you guessed it — statements taken from the source material. Yet the phrase “citizen’s oversight committee” appears nowhere in J.A.I.L. Saying J.A.I.L. creates a citizen’s oversight committee certainly seems to be a misstatement of the provisions of the amendment, a violation of state law, ironically the very statute they accused the Legislature of violating.
Having come up with a new catch phrase to evidently distance themselves from what the amendment actually says (“special grand jury”), they then trot out their oldest and most repeated lie. They claim the “oversight committee” has the “sole purpose of hearing complaints against judges alleging judicial misconduct.” Given the fact J.A.I.L.’s founder, South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in Chief and spokesperson have repeatedly said this the amendment applies to far more than the judiciary, this falsehood is getting awfully threadbare.
The J.A.I.L.ers also conveniently omit the fact that the term judicial misconduct is extremely broad. Their own campaign brochure says it includes acts that might result in “weakening” a litigant’s case. Since the rules of evidence that govern judicial proceedings specifically allow the exclusion of evidence and witnesses under certain situations, simply applying established law can constitute judicial misconduct under J.A.I.L.
Finally, another addition to the web page says the strategy of J.A.I.L. opponents is to lie about the amendment. It then suggests reading J.A.I.L.’s campaign flyer to find the truth. Too bad that brochure is full of lies, as demonstrated here, here and here.
Ours is an age in which partial truths are tirelessly transformed into total falsehoods and then acclaimed into revolutionary revelations.
Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin
I am just now starting to see the light of day from the material that accumulated while I was gone (although I have cracked only one of the six books that arrived in my absence). Most of my family is off in different directions this weekend, giving me a sparse and quiet house for the weekend as a Father’s Day “gift.” Before I take refuge, I figured I would post a few things that drew my attention.
- Roughly two months ago, I mentioned PEN World Voices, a New York festival of international literature. Next week, Bill Moyers kicks off the first of a seven-part series called Bill Moyers on Faith & Reason. It is based on interviews with a variety of authors, many of whom participated in PEN World Voices. Among those discussing faith, spirituality, and religion with Moyers are Martin Amis, Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie.
- Who’d a thunk it? A study on kids and reading finds, among other things, that “children of high frequency readers are far more likely to read for fun every day than children whose parents are not high frequency readers.”
- Google has launched a new handy search site for finding government information. It not only lets you search across an index of federal, state and local government websites, you can also arrange for personalized content feeds from government agencies and press outlets.
- And while it’s not associated with Google, Simply Google is a one-stop shop to run searches via almost all of Google’s various indices.
- The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia hit bookshelves this week.
- Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle board of directors, recently noted John Updike’s six rules for reviewing.
- An blogger explains why science fiction is like diabetes.
- Will this replace or supplement magazines in the bathroom?
If you want somebody you can trust, trust yourself.
“Trust Yourself,” Bob Dylan, Empire Burlesque
Critical Mass, the blog of the National Book Critics Circle board of directors, recently questioned whether it was a conflict of interest for online book reviewers (like me) to provide links to sites like Amazon for the books they review. I think Kevin Holtsberry put it wonderfully:
All kidding aside, or at least most kidding aside, this whole kerflufle is the height of silliness. Do people really think I take the time to read books and write reviews on this site so I can rake in the tens of dollars that Amazon might send my way? Is this a huge ethical dilemma?! Give me a break.This is a hobby people! We do it because we enjoy it and have a passion about books. The pressure comes from a desire to write well and successfully communicate not from a desire to up our Amazon affiliate numbers. As every book blogger will tell you, the joy comes from finding good books and telling others about them. The money is so laughably small given the book buying budgets of most folks that I really have a hard time believing it influences anyone.
I would simply add two things. Under this theory, isn’t it also a conflict of interest for a book reviewer to receive the gratis review copies from the publisher? I think I purchased at least half or more of the books reviewed, something that probably can’t be said for “professional” reviewers. Second, whether a link appears has nothing to do with what I think of a book. I provide links for every book, even those I pan.
So here comes the big disclosure: I’ve received roughly $15 over the life of this blog from Amazon sales, including the princely sum of $3.64 so far this year. (Only two of the purchases were books reviewed here, one originally published in 1988.) With all that cash rolling in, it’s no wonder I keep going out and buying books so I can post reviews here.
Oh, oh. I hope this disclosure and post don’t scotch my NBCC membership application.
We call the intention good which is right in itself, but the action is good, not because it contains within it some good, but because it issues from a good intention.
Peter Abelard
My travels have kept me behind the times a bit but a friend brought to my attention that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor commented recently on South Dakota’s Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). The following is from a Q&A in USA Today last week:
Q: The issue of judicial independence has been much in the news. How serious a threat is such “court bashing” in the country today?A: It’s very serious. There were “Impeach Earl Warren” signs in the western United States when he was chief justice, but it never amounted to anything truly threatening. But the concerns today are not only at the national but at state levels. Have you watched what’s happening in a proposal in South Dakota? They’re looking to remove all judicial immunity from judges for their judicial decision-making and want to subject them to civil and criminal lawsuits for their actions on the bench. The sponsors want to take it elsewhere.
Q: What might be the effect of such a proposal?
A: That would be a remarkable change in direction from what the framers of our Constitution intended. They went to enormous effort to set up three separate branches of government —— each with power to affect the other two but providing for independence of each of the branches, in effect letting them do their jobs.
J.A.I.L.ers contend they are trying to create a check on the judiciary because the other branches of government have failed to do so. In truth, they are trying to create a special grand jury” to act as a fourth branch of government with absolutely no checks on it whatsoever.
Undoubtedly, J.A.I.L.ers will reject O’Connor’s statements because she was a judge. That’s exactly what they did when former South Dakota Supreme Court Justice George Wuest spoke out against J.A.I.L. last fall. I recently heard one J.A.I.L.er comment on Justice Wuest’s death in March as justice being served. I guess you say such things when you despise a branch of government and the people in it
Statutes and constitutions do not protect judicial independence — people do.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, March 10, 2006
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
