Zookeeping

I've moved! My blog is here.

Spanish elections -- Much ado about nothing?: Publius has a sober post about what the Spanish election means: perhaps nothing more than that leaders shouldn't use national tragedies for political purposes (or at least, be perceived as doing that).

This is a very good point. Perhaps the Spanish are acting cowardly, or perhaps they are getting rid of a party that they don't think they can trust.

Even if the Spanish voters were acting cowardly -- that is, they intended their vote to replace leadership that they thought would antagonize Al Qaeda -- I think we should refrain from bashing the Spanish too much. In the wake of a horrible tragedy such as the Madrid bombing, the voters may have voted more emotionally than they would otherwise have. Here in the United States, the wake of 9/11 led to easy passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Now, I don't mean to bash the PATRIOT Act, but it's pretty apparent that there are a number of Congresspersons (including ones not running for President) who have come to regret their vote in favor of the act. It may well have been that they were caught up in the emotions of the moment.

Reality TV shows in the pipeline: Prof. Bainbridge blogs about a half-serious proposal for an ABC reality TV show to find a successor for (we can only hope) soon-to-be-ex-CEO Michael Eisner.

Meanwhile, Showtime is sponsoring The American Candidate . . . where "the viewing public will select a People's Candidate who will then have the chance to run for president of the United States." Somehow, I don't think the elimination debates will be particularly enlightening.

But then again, how would that be different from the Presidential "debates"?

Unsolicited (and probably unwanted) advice for Martha: R. Foster Winans, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, offers advice for Martha Stewart:

• Announce that, despite what you said a few days ago, you will not appeal your conviction. Tell the world you respect the decision of 12 thoughtful jurors and a prudent judge, that you have no desire to drag yourself or the rest of us through another year or so of the media circus.

• Apologize publicly to your shareholders, your business colleagues, your supporters, your family and anyone else who has suffered as a result of your poor judgment and your stubborn refusal to take responsibility for your actions. Concede that, whatever you may be innocent of, you are guilty of arrogant thinking.

• When you get to prison, you will be assigned a humbling job, such as washing dishes, mopping floors or scrubbing toilets. Attack your work with gusto. Do not complain. Do not pay someone else to do your job, or make your bed, or wash your clothes. Immerse yourself in humility. It's good for the soul.

Expect at times to be shunned, ridiculed, importuned for money and otherwise humiliated in prison. Try to avoid the instinct to become bitter at your own misfortune. Instead, spend your free time in the law library helping other inmates.

• Once you are released, become an advocate for prison and sentencing reform. You will know how ridiculous and wasteful it was to send you to jail, and how destructive prison is for so many other first-time nonviolent offenders. You will learn how overcrowded the prison system is, how unfair the federal sentencing guidelines are, how flawed the judicial system is. You will know that community service, education, family counseling and drug treatment are what many convicts need to get back on their feet.

• Offer to host or appear on "Saturday Night Live." Your situation, in the context of all the horrible things that can happen to people, is a tempest in a teaspoon. Poke fun at yourself.

• Dedicate your life to a cause — but make sure it's something you believe in. Do not brag about your efforts, do not show up at fabulous celebrity charity events.

• Write your memoir, tell the unvarnished truth and donate all the proceeds to your favorite charity. Your public will fall in love with you all over again.

Easy for Winans to say to forego an appeal; he actually got the Supreme Court to hear his case, although maybe he's a bit jealous that the case doesn't actually bear his name. (It's Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19 (1987).)

Downsides of snail mail: I just received my copy of the current issue of The Iowa Lawyer, distributed to all members of the Iowa Bar. On page 14, there is a short column proudly noting the appearance of Theresa Wilson, an Iowa public defender, before the U.S. Supreme Court. "A decision is expected in the coming weeks" in the case, in which "she presented her Iowa Supreme Court-winning argument. . . ."

Oops. That would be the case of Iowa v. Tovar, which resulted in a 9-0 reversal of the Iowa Supreme Court (and of Wilson's position). Jason Steffens has thoughts and analysis on the case.

Some interesting links re Omarosa of "The Apprentice":

Omarosa unsuccessfully tries to snow Chris Matthews

Omarosa may get her own talk show?!?

Actor Paul Winfield died at age 62, of a heart attack. Winfield had a number of prominent roles, including the dad in the tearjerker "Sounder." But I'm shocked that the AP story on his death omitted his most prominent role: as the doomed Captain Terrell in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan . . . .

Now that Martha Stewart has been convicted, will she have to be jailed immediately, given that she plans to appeal? 18 U.S.C. s 3143 governs this situation:

(a) Release or detention pending sentence.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence, other than a person for whom the applicable guideline promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994 does not recommend a term of imprisonment, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c). If the judicial officer makes such a finding, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c).

(2) The judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence be detained unless--

(A)(i) the judicial officer finds there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted; or

(ii) an attorney for the Government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed on the person; and

(B) the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community.


(b) Release or detention pending appeal by the defendant.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds--

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in--

(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

If the judicial officer makes such findings, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c) of this title, except that in the circumstance described in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention terminated at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence.

(2) The judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense in a case described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (f)(1) of section 3142 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained.

While my guess is that Judge Cedarbaum doesn't really think there's a likelihood of reversal, I think she'll make the necessary findings to allow Stewart to remain free on bail pending sentencing and appeal. Stewart will probably have to turn in her passport (if she has one), but she's probably not a flight risk.

So, the next thing to happen will be that the probation officer will prepare a Presentence Report (PSR) that will recommend a sentencing guideline calculation. Stewart and the government will get copies of the report and be entitled to challenge the calculation. They can also present evidence relevant to the sentence, and if necessary, the judge will have an evidentiary hearing. However, for purposes of sentencing, the judge only has to find facts by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes! The blog-city upgrade is finally over! Visit me at my main site.

Prof. Althouse weighs in on last night's episode of "The Apprentice." She thinks that Omarosa erred in highlighting Heidi's coarse language, since -- based on underling Carolyn's expression -- Trump probably uses colorful words as well. She also thinks that Carolyn is a great character: "calm and composed" and "[w]hen occasionally she gets an expression, it's wonderfully effective, like when she looked with disgust at the picked-over food in the losing team's gallery."

Of all of the reality TV shows, "The Apprentice" and "The Amazing Race" are the only ones that I would be at all interested in being on. (Well, if I were really fit, maybe I'd be interested in the "Eco-Challenge," but from the looks of the website, maybe that's over.)

NBC's "The Apprentice": Well, once again, my prognosticatory ability proves itself pathetic.

I didn't think that Omarosa was the type to break down in the boardroom, and I was wrong. She felt attacked for taking time to eat lunch when her head was killing her.

The challenge involved seeing which team could sell more artwork by an artist selected by the team. Versacorp, bolstered by the addition of Amy (as I had correctly predicted), went with a more conventional painter. Protege went with a more, er, edgy artist.

Result: Versacorp sold 8 pieces worth a total of $13,000. Protege sold 1 piece worth $869. Ouch!

As usual, the episode was full of that special Omarosa-Heidi bickering, including the aforementioned lunch incident. Kwame took both women with him into the boardroom, where Trump ragged on the two women: Heidi had an abrasive edge, and Omarosa was smart but couldn't get along with anyone.

Result: Omarosa was fired.

In the preview for next week, Heidi cackles, "Omarosa is gone!" The next clip showed a bunch of glasses of champagne being raised. . . . Funny, my wife felt the same way. I, on the other hand, will miss the tension and dissension that Omarosa was responsible for.

CBS' "Survivor: All-Stars: Some thoughts about tonight's episode.

Whenever I see someone say something like, "You can trust me 150 thousand percent" (as Jerri said to Lex), I can't help but think that I wouldn't trust the person at all.

But the big news of the episode was that Sue Hawk decided that she couldn't stand to play the game any more because of what Richard Hatch did to her in the last episode. (In case you missed it, the challenge involved manuevering on narrow beams. Hatch went naked and at one point, forced into a confrontation by Sue, ended up "grinding" against her.)

On some message boards, people had speculated that Sue would quit, and some thought it was odd that she didn't blow up in last week's episode -- when the incident happened. But this episode showed how really tormented she was about it. At one point, she broke down and cried, lamenting how she couldn't get the "naked image" of Hatch out of her mind.

When the tribes arrived for the Reward Challenge, Jeff Probst referred to the Hatch incident and asked if anyone had anything to say. Sue exploded in rage, furious about how she'd been dehumanized, violated, etc. She then said she couldn't possibly go on with her emotions as riled as they were.

I've generally disliked Sue; she's overbearing, crude, and obnoxious. But I felt really bad for her after seeing the torment that she suffered, and I don't think it's odd that she seethed for a day before exploding as she did. It's not like she was happy during the time between the last challenge and this one. She was miserable. Perhaps Probst's question was the final straw that prompted her to let loose; or perhaps she'd already decided to quit and just needed the opportunity to tell Probst. Hopefully, she'll recover all right.

Corporate governance: I would guess that it's happened before, but I've never seen it up until now: the board of directors of a company has actually recommended voting for a shareholder proposal! This one happens to be a proposal for the Coca-Cola Company to issue a public report about the steps taken by Coke to address the business risks posed by global pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. It's here on page 53 of the proxy statement.

Of course, the Board recommended voting against six other shareholder proposals.

(Disclosure: I own a little bit of stock in Coke.)

Beware sharing passwords for online news sites!: Wow, here is a story leading to the conclusion that it may violate federal law to share passwords for free sites that require registration. (Via Locussolus).

I can kind of see it from the point of view of the websites; they have (somewhat) valuable material that they are willing to offer for free, in exchange for some basic info about who is accessing it. It might help them secure higher advertising rates if they can demonstrate a larger readership. Personally, I find the registration process annoying, so I've done it only for the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times.

Still, criminal prosecutions?!? Well, perhaps this is just a "parade of horribles" argument.

Another source: A good source for more reality TV news. There's an interview with Ereka, but it's not all that enlightening, except for the part where she trashes Omarosa: "I was one of the first to see through her, and lucky for me, now all of America can see what she's really all about. She's a wonderful speaker, but underneath it all there's a mean spirit and a terrible employee."

Speaking of Omarosa, will this be the week when she gets fired? Or will her team win again, keeping her out of the boardroom? Since last week's preview showed some kind of emotional breakdown in front of Trump, and since Omarosa doesn't seem to be the type to break down like that, I'm guessing she dodges the bullet again.

Not a hate crime?: I'd previously blogged about an alleged hate crime in downtown Iowa City a few weeks ago. The Iowa City police have decided not to press hate crime charges against the defendant. The police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that a racial epithet had been used, and instead the defendant was charged with a misdemeanor. His buddy, who actually punched the victim, was charged with assault causing serious injury. Meanwhile, the victim -- the boyfriend of the Asian woman who thought she'd been the subject of the epithet -- was also charged with a misdemeanor.

Of course, as should be apparent, not charging a hate crime doesn't mean one didn't occur. It may be the police felt it would not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a racial epithet was used. It may also be that the woman thought she heard an epithet, but was mistaken.

I should disclose, by the way, that the woman in the incident is a law student here at UI. I have not had her in any class, nor have I met her.

Gitmo brief: Courtesy of Goldstein Howe, here is the U.S. Solicitor General's brief in the Al Odah and Rasul cases, which challenge the government's refusal to allow the Guantanamo Bay detainees access to federal courts.

Interestingly, the SG does, as I would have expected, argue that the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Gherebi v. Bush was wrongly decided, largely for the reasons offered by the dissent in that case: specifically, that the Ninth Circuit had to reach the conclusion that the United States had annexed that part of Cuba, contrary to the official positions of the U.S. and Cuban governments. The SG comes close to but never explicitly argues that the sovereignty status of Guantanamo Bay is a "political question" of the sort that the Court has consistently avoided. This is a little puzzling, since the SG does note the need for the U.S. to speak with one voice in foreign affairs. (Brief at 29-30.)

Fox's "24": One of the downsides of having a show that is so serialized is that the network won't air reruns. After all, how confusing would it be if you were watching the first-air episodes covering, say, 3 pm to 8 pm, and then all of a sudden it was back to 10 am? (Though I imagine there could be some interesting "Groundhog Day" ramifications. . . .)

Because there are no reruns, Fox has, truly, only 24 episodes of "24" to show, whereas the viewing audience has 52 weeks of Tuesday night, 8 pm to 9 pm (Central time) slots available. Thus, Fox has to come up with 28 "episodes" of other shows, and scatter them throughout the October-May period so as to maximize the use of "24" for "sweeps."

So what does Fox offer us? Another dysfunctional family sitcom: Cracking Up. Bleech!

By the way, another side effect of highly serialized shows is that they do not do well when it comes to syndication rights. This explains why critical darling Alias has fared poorly, earning only $200,000 per episode in syndication, compared to $1.35 million per episode for the blander "Without a Trace." I guess that's why the first two seasons of "24" have already been released on DVD.

Blackmun's papers on Roe: According to Justice Blackmun's private papers, Justice Kennedy was ready to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1992, but got "cold feet."

I have to wonder what the impact of the public release of such papers will have on the current justices who were on the Court at that time, especially Justice Kennedy. On the one hand, having life tenure means that they don't really need to worry about what the public or anyone else thinks. On the other hand, they are people, and the Blackmun papers discuss even back then (1992) how "the court was not unaware of the case's political implications. At one point, one of Blackmun's law clerks wrote that the three centrist justices could pay a price for disagreeing with the White House view on abortion."

Of course, from the standpoint of academics, release of papers earlier rather than later is better, since we get to see the inner workings of the Court that much sooner. But from the standpoint of impact on the Court, perhaps it would be better if the papers were embargoed until everyone who served with the retired/dead Justice has also retired.

Various thoughts that have occurred to me during the past two days but that I've been unable to post on my main site:

Martha Stewart: I have now committed my reputation around here (Iowa City, or more specifically, the UI law school) to my guess that Martha Stewart will be convicted of making false statements to the government. It is nothing more than a guess, even though I think the evidence (based on what I've read) is overwhelmingly against her on this count.

2) Disney: That was pretty exciting to see that 43% of the shares withheld support for CEO Michael Eisner, including my 0.00000000001%. I think Eisner's defense that Disney shares are up 30% (or whatever) this year is pretty lame, considering that the stock price is about where it was six years ago.

3) American Idol 3: Group 4 was so-so, though I was glad to see redhead John Stevens make it to the finals. The wildcard group looks pretty good, but I think it would have been better with Martha "Army Girl" Krabill, who was on the "uncut, uncensored, untalented" show on Monday. Only, she actually has talent -- more so than that hideous Group 2.

Just a temporary back-up blog I've created while (stupid) blog-city finishes its upgrade to version 3.0.