So Dan Rather is stepping down as nightly news anchor at CBS. The press release makes no mention of his Texas National Guard story. Why now? I don't think it's just the end of the election cycle as he says. I tend to agree with Jay Rosen to this extent: He wants to reclaim his reputation as a reporter and journalist....and the independent investigative report on the Guard story likely will find fault with Rather and CBS.

I don't think the Guard story is a big enough deal to end Rather's anchor career. I don't think he's too celebrity oriented. I don't think his reporting exhibits a liberal bias, and if it did, I'd be glad. I hope people focus on his contributions over the past several decades rather than one instance where he fell short.

Wisconsin has one of the strictest "truth in sentencing laws" in the nation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is running a series on them, exposing them for what they are: brutally unfair and extravagently expensive. They also remove incentives and cause untold desperation in prisoners.

A state law that gives criminals virtually no chance for early release will cost Wisconsin taxpayers an estimated $1.8 billion for inmates admitted through 2025 if current trends continue, a Journal Sentinel analysis of prison and court records has found. Wisconsin implemented one of the nation's toughest truth-in-sentencing laws four years ago without ever assessing the cost. Today, thousands of inmates are on waiting lists for prison jobs, education and treatment programs. Wardens report more bad conduct and hopelessness among offenders.

....For crimes that occur on or after Dec. 31, 1999, the law requires offenders to serve every day of their sentences. It eliminates time off for good behavior and adds prison time for bad behavior. Judges must tack on a term of extended supervision equal to at least 25% of the prison time.

Most "truth in sentencing laws" require inmates to do 85% of their time. Not Wisconsin. It's 100%. Not only that, it applies to both violent offenders and non-violent property and drug offenders. It eliminates the role of the parole board. And there is no guideline system requiring judges to sentence in a particular range.

Three million voters propelled Bush to victory over Kerry in November. Conservatives claimed this was a mandate for Bush and his policies. Not so. The newest CBS/New York Times poll shows Americans are non-supportive of his agenda:

At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade in the first place.

And it's not just Democrats who disagree with the President:

Nearly two-thirds of all respondents - including 51 percent of Republicans - said it was more important to reduce deficits than to cut taxes, a central element of Mr. Bush's economic agenda.

...The poll reflected the electoral feat of the Bush campaign this year. He won despite the fact that Americans disapproved of his handling of the economy, foreign affairs and the war in Iraq. There has been a slight increase in the number of Americans who believe the nation should never have gone into Iraq. A majority of Americans continue to believe the country is going in the wrong direction, traditionally a warning sign for an incumbent.

Last week, NBC cameraman Kevin Sites, embedded with the Marines in Fallujah, wrote a startling report of a marine who shot and killed an already wounded Iraqi insurgent. On his website, Sites explains why he did it, in an open letter to marines. He wants to counter speculation that he is an anti-war activist or anything but an impartial journalist. Here's a portion of his eyewitness account of the killing:

When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us. The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?" One of the marines raises his hand signaling five. "Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks? "Roger that, sir, " the same marine responds. "Were they armed?" The marine just shrugs and we all move inside.

Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds.

Time to update your bookmarks....Avedon Carol of Sideshow has moved the blog to its new home. Here's the new link.

Libertartian Robert Prather is back blogging, this time as part of the group blog Signifying Nothing.

Say hello to Grits for Breakfast, concentrating on the evils of the drug war.

Norwegianity has the JFK blogpost of the day. 41 years ago today.

Eric Alterman:

So the next time some one asks you if you’re glad that we’ve removed Saddam Hussein from power, you might want to ask them if they’re glad that, after we’ve spent 200 billion dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, 400,000 Iraqi children are now suffering from acute malnutrition. That and oh yeah, the world hates us and the pool of Al Qaeda recruits has been vastly increased. And oh yeah, I’m betting on a draft.

Nine days and counting down to the scheduled texecution of Frances Newton. She may be innocent. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty writes:

Frances Newton faces execution in Texas Dec. 1, despite resounding doubts about her guilt. Newton's case is a witches' brew of death penalty dysfunctions. Her trial counsel was egregiously incompetent, she has a strong innocence claim and her conviction rests largely on dubious tests conducted by the now-discredited Houston Police Department crime lab.

She will be the first African-American woman to be executed in modern Texas history. Take action here.

by TChris

Should Charles Walker die?

Never in North Carolina, and perhaps not in the United States, has the state executed a convicted murderer when there is no body or even a trace of blood indicating a crime was committed. In modern times the state has not executed a defendant without a confession of guilt or some sort of physical evidence, or at least testimony from a witness who had nothing to gain from testifying.

But unless Gov. Mike Easley commutes Charles Walker's death sentence to life imprisonment, the state will execute a man who a jury concluded did not fire the fatal shot -- an outrageous injustice since one of the two men who admitted doing the killing is now out of prison and the other is eligible for parole.

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack says "no thanks" to the DNC chairship and withdraws his name from consideration. Will it go to Howard Dean?

This is way too close for comfort.....not to mention three people lost their lives in a air tragedy today near Houston.

A private jet that was en route to Houston to pick up former President Bush clipped a light pole and crashed Monday as it approached Hobby Airport in thick fog, killing all three people aboard. The Gulfstream G-1159A jet, coming into Houston, went down about 6:15 a.m. in an undeveloped area 1 1/2 miles south of the airport, officials said. The former president had been scheduled to travel to Ecuador for a conference.

"I was deeply saddened to learn of the plane crash this morning," Bush said through spokesman Tom Frechette. "I'd flown with this group before and know them well. I join in sending heartfelt condolences to each and every member of their families."

Our condolences go out to their families as well. We may not agree with the former President on politics, but we're very glad he's safe and not in harm's way.

Bump and Update: The Judge is keeping the same jury and not moving the trial but he granted a one week continuance.

*******************
The jury in the Scott Peterson trial is set to begin hearing evidence in the sentencing phase of the trial today. First the Judge will rule on a motion by Mark Geragos to have a new jury from outside of Redwood City empaneled to hear the case, due to the overwheming prejudice against Peterson, as evident from the whoops and cheers of the lynch mob that filled up the street around the courthouse when news of the verdict was announced.

I disagree with much of the coverage I've read and listened to--mostly from prosecution-oriented analysts and professors who have never defended a death case, let alone a high-profile one.

For an article that comes close to getting it right, in my view, check out this San Francisco Chronicle article, and in particular, the comments of Marcia Morrissey and Ellen Kreitzbert, two true experts in death defense.

by TChris

Complaining that law schools rely on “extreme rationalism,” the dean of Liberty School of Law (part of Liberty University, where televangelist Jerry Falwell is chancellor) takes a less rational view of legal studies. So does civil procedure professor Jeffrey Tuomala, who criticizes the Supreme Court’s well-settled and uncontroversial holding in Erie v. Tompkins that federal courts have no business telling states what their substantive rules of common law ought to be.

In ruling that federal courts may not apply general principles in some cases but must follow state laws, he said, the Supreme Court denied the possibility of "a law that's fixed, that's uniform, that applies to everybody, everyplace, for all time."

So much for states’ rights. And Roger Bern, who teaches contracts, urges students to counsel their clients “not to walk away from oral contracts even where the law allows it.” Counseling clients to act in a way that is contrary to their desires and their best interests seems a bit unethical, but there may be no need to worry. Liberty hasn’t been accredited, and with such a radical view of the law, it probably won’t be. Unfortunate for the students who shell out $18,000 per year to attend (and who won’t be able to sit for a bar exam), but fortunate for those who might otherwise engage the services of lawyer who hasn’t been trained in rational thought.

The New York Times today makes the case that Fallujah demonstrates we will need substantial troop reinforcements in Iraq. Pentagon officials seem to concur. They say it's possible that the 82nd airborne may pick up the slack:

But a third option -- drawing all or part of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on emergency standby in the United States -- has emerged as increasingly likely.

Sounds like a bandaid to us--a real short-term solution. The reality is that Army recruiters are having a tough time fulfilling their quotas.

With troops stretched thin, with rumors swirling about a return to the draft, the nation's volunteer Army must reinforce itself — and demonstrate its capacity to reinforce itself, quickly and robustly, come what may. If the Army can't make do with volunteers, as it's done for all but roughly 35 years of its 229-year existence, then it will need to conscript.

It seems like common sense. If we need more troops and they aren't available, how else but through use of the draft will we get them?

Update: Check out this post I wrote over at 5280-on recruiters and recruitees--the hunters and the hunted.