This is college football in the South, where the only thing more important than where you go to church is what school you root for. Your allegiances are displayed by bumper stickers and by plastic flags projecting out the car window. It's not replica jerseys -- because they don't make completely accurate current college replicas -- so it's sweats and t-shirts. It's Winnebagos and paper plates, burgers and barbeque chicken. With a side of potato salad, of course.
It's Cokes (notice I did not say Pepsi) that get watered down from the sun and humidity, getting sunburn on just one side of your face, and borrowing suntan lotion from stranger in front of you. Frat boys in dress shirts, ties and slacks, and regular people in shorts and sneakers. SEC coaches on TV shilling for pressure-treated lumber, ACC coaches overshadowed by the basketball coaches.
I've never been to a college game up North or out West, but I assume it's a similar, if smaller, experience. College football is equal parts family and funseekers. And at the risk of choking on a cliché, college football in the South really is a way of life, moreso than any pro sport has ever been and probably will ever be. This is partly a reflection of the Southern economy. Most people here aren't going to shell out $45 a pop to watch the Atlanta Hawks play the Los Angeles Clippers. Pro football is popular, as long as the teams are winning (note that the Atlanta Falcons have never had back-to-back winning seasons), and the Braves always average a solid crowd, but famously have had problems selling out playoff games.
Why is college football so enduring down here? I think it has something to do with spirit. It's easy and fun to joke about the schools turning into football factories, about the students not really being students, but at the end of the semester, they've got to pass classes like the rest of us once did. These are real kids, who hang out at the student center and for the most part, some of them will never play football again after they leave college, with the exception of the exceptional athletes. So for them this is it, the only memories they'll have to live the rest of their lives on.
And with a pro career eliminated, they don't have to worry about playing for the name on the back of the jersey, and instead can concentrate on playing for the name on the front of the jersey. We understand this, as fans, and we don't root for them, as people, but as representatives of our favorite schools. University presidents like to talk about academics and the importance of the school's rich sociology or math department. The day 105,000 people show up for a math competition, I'll start listening to them. We want to see football, hear helmets cracking, brass sections blowing.
Right now, it's 8:21 a.m., and I'm at a Panera Bread restaurant, strictly to rock the free WiFi, although the bagels aren't bad, either. (Note to self: Ask Peter King about the lattes here.) Looking around, there are about 14 people in here, give or take a few. And I see two Auburn hats, an Alabama golf shirt, five FSU fans, and and the rest are Gators, oh and a car with a Gator flag outside, that would be mine.
Thanks Lang Whitaker for your passion for College Football....
Friday, August 19, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
FL Amendments 5 & 6
In 2010, Florida voters passed Amendments 5 and 6 with the intent of creating fair districts. They supported what sounded to be a common-sense approach to redistricting. How many citizens would oppose the basic premise of a district that neither favors or disfavors an incumbent? How many would truly stand against the premise that a district should neither favor or disfavor any political party, or any qualified voter regardless of their heritage, sex, or income? Very few, indeed.
However, if what you thought to be true turned out not to be true, would you want to know about it now, or later, when it?s too late to do anything? Did these amendments truly remove politics from the redrawing process or did voters unknowingly endorse a power shift to a potentially activist judiciary and to well-known community organizers who clearly hold significant political influence?
Wesberry v. Sanders, a landmark 1964 Supreme Court case, held that the fundamental principle of representative government is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people, without regard to race, sex, or economic status. Soon afterward, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, prohibiting states from denying U.S. citizens? voting rights on account of ethnicity. When combining the provisions of the VRA with the new amendments, you notice interesting cross currents that will likely lead to legal challenges on behalf of voter groups.
If districts are now required to be contiguous and compact, yet certain groups of organized voters are granted waivers to avoid having to comply with anti-gerrymandering requirements, how is that fair and equal? It?s not. The problems inherent with the amendments is they create compact districts for non-minorities and non-compact districts for minorities. That means Floridians are being treated unequally under the law.
If our government is truly one of equal representation without regard to race, sex, and economic status, why was the MyDistrictBuilder website built to provide 12,000 demographic data points that include race, ethnicity, income and age?The right to vote is fundamental. Any right that impedes upon the voting rights of others is detrimental.
(James Marshal is active in Republican Party politics, including president of the Republican Men's Club of Brevard)
Monday, June 13, 2011
1777: The Whistle Blower
Forty years ago today, The New York Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers, a seminal moment not only for freedom of the press but also for the role of whistle-blowers — like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the papers to expose the mishandling of the war in Vietnam — in defending our democracy.
Today, the Obama administration is aggressively pursuing leakers. Bradley E. Manning, an Army private, has been imprisoned since May 2010 on suspicion of having passed classified data to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks. Thomas A. Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency, pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor of misusing the agency’s computer system by providing information to a newspaper reporter.
The tension between protecting true national security secrets and ensuring the public’s “right to know” about abuses of authority is not new. Indeed, the nation’s founders faced this very issue.
In the winter of 1777, months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American warship Warren was anchored outside of Providence, R.I. On board, 10 revolutionary sailors and marines met in secret — not to plot against the king’s armies, but to discuss their concerns about the commander of the Continental Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. They knew the risks: Hopkins came from a powerful family; his brother was a former governor of Rhode Island and a signer of the declaration.
Hopkins had participated in the torture of captured British sailors; he “treated prisoners in the most inhuman and barbarous manner,” his subordinates wrote in a petition.
One whistle-blower, a Marine captain named John Grannis, was selected to present the petition to the Continental Congress, which voted on March 26, 1777, to suspend Hopkins from his post.
The case did not end there. Hopkins, infuriated, immediately retaliated. He filed a criminal libel suit in Rhode Island against the whistle-blowers. Two of them who happened to be in Rhode Island — Samuel Shaw, a midshipman, and Richard Marven, a third lieutenant — were jailed. In a petition read to Congress on July 23, 1778, they pleaded that they had been “arrested for doing what they then believed and still believe was nothing but their duty.”
Later that month, without any recorded dissent, Congress enacted America’s first whistle-blower-protection law: “That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”
Congress did not stop there. It wanted to ensure that the whistle-blowers would have excellent legal counsel to fight against the libel charges, and despite the financial hardships of the new republic, it authorized payment for the legal fees of Marven and Shaw.
Congress did not hide behind government secrecy edicts, even though the nation was at war. Instead, it authorized the full release of all records related to the removal of Hopkins. No “state secret” privilege was invoked. The whistle-blowers did not need to use a Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents to vindicate themselves. There was no attempt to hide the fact that whistle-blowers had accused a Navy commander of mistreating prisoners.
Armed with Congress’s support, the whistle-blowers put on a strong defense, and won their case in court. And true to its word, Congress on May 22, 1779, provided $1,418 to cover costs associated with the whistle-blowers’ defense. One “Sam. Adams” was directed to ensure that their Rhode Island lawyer, William Channing, was paid.
Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: “The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.”
A 1989 law was supposed to protect federal employees who expose fraud and misconduct from retaliation. But over the years, these protections have been completely undermined. One loophole gives the government the absolute right to strip employees of their security clearances and fire them, without judicial review. Another bars employees of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency from any coverage under the law. And Congress has barred national security whistle-blowers who are fired for exposing wrongdoing from obtaining protection in federal court.
It is no surprise that honest citizens who witness waste, fraud and abuse in national security programs but lack legal protections are silenced or forced to turn to unauthorized methods to expose malfeasance, incompetence or negligence.
Instead of ignoring and intimidating whistle-blowers, Congress and the executive branch would do well to follow the example of the Continental Congress, by supporting and shielding them. I'm just saying'....
Today, the Obama administration is aggressively pursuing leakers. Bradley E. Manning, an Army private, has been imprisoned since May 2010 on suspicion of having passed classified data to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks. Thomas A. Drake, a former official at the National Security Agency, pleaded guilty Friday to a misdemeanor of misusing the agency’s computer system by providing information to a newspaper reporter.
The tension between protecting true national security secrets and ensuring the public’s “right to know” about abuses of authority is not new. Indeed, the nation’s founders faced this very issue.
In the winter of 1777, months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American warship Warren was anchored outside of Providence, R.I. On board, 10 revolutionary sailors and marines met in secret — not to plot against the king’s armies, but to discuss their concerns about the commander of the Continental Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins. They knew the risks: Hopkins came from a powerful family; his brother was a former governor of Rhode Island and a signer of the declaration.
Hopkins had participated in the torture of captured British sailors; he “treated prisoners in the most inhuman and barbarous manner,” his subordinates wrote in a petition.
One whistle-blower, a Marine captain named John Grannis, was selected to present the petition to the Continental Congress, which voted on March 26, 1777, to suspend Hopkins from his post.
The case did not end there. Hopkins, infuriated, immediately retaliated. He filed a criminal libel suit in Rhode Island against the whistle-blowers. Two of them who happened to be in Rhode Island — Samuel Shaw, a midshipman, and Richard Marven, a third lieutenant — were jailed. In a petition read to Congress on July 23, 1778, they pleaded that they had been “arrested for doing what they then believed and still believe was nothing but their duty.”
Later that month, without any recorded dissent, Congress enacted America’s first whistle-blower-protection law: “That it is the duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all other inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to Congress or any other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of these states, which may come to their knowledge.”
Congress did not stop there. It wanted to ensure that the whistle-blowers would have excellent legal counsel to fight against the libel charges, and despite the financial hardships of the new republic, it authorized payment for the legal fees of Marven and Shaw.
Congress did not hide behind government secrecy edicts, even though the nation was at war. Instead, it authorized the full release of all records related to the removal of Hopkins. No “state secret” privilege was invoked. The whistle-blowers did not need to use a Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents to vindicate themselves. There was no attempt to hide the fact that whistle-blowers had accused a Navy commander of mistreating prisoners.
Armed with Congress’s support, the whistle-blowers put on a strong defense, and won their case in court. And true to its word, Congress on May 22, 1779, provided $1,418 to cover costs associated with the whistle-blowers’ defense. One “Sam. Adams” was directed to ensure that their Rhode Island lawyer, William Channing, was paid.
Nearly two centuries later, the Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, praising the founders’ commitment to freedom of speech, wrote: “The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information.”
A 1989 law was supposed to protect federal employees who expose fraud and misconduct from retaliation. But over the years, these protections have been completely undermined. One loophole gives the government the absolute right to strip employees of their security clearances and fire them, without judicial review. Another bars employees of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency from any coverage under the law. And Congress has barred national security whistle-blowers who are fired for exposing wrongdoing from obtaining protection in federal court.
It is no surprise that honest citizens who witness waste, fraud and abuse in national security programs but lack legal protections are silenced or forced to turn to unauthorized methods to expose malfeasance, incompetence or negligence.
Instead of ignoring and intimidating whistle-blowers, Congress and the executive branch would do well to follow the example of the Continental Congress, by supporting and shielding them. I'm just saying'....
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Stitch in Time that Saved Nine
“The stitch in time that saved nine” is the name given to what was perceived as the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. Conventional historical accounts portrayed the Court's majority opinion as a strategic political move to protect the Court's integrity and independence from President Roosevelt's court-reform bill (known as the "court-packing plan"), which would have expanded the size of the bench up to 15 justices.
Sounds like Speaker Cannon in FL hasn't read this case with the proposed HJR of HB 7111 to reform the FL Supreme Court to 10 Justices; 5 for Civil Cases (3 of which Gov. Scott would appoint) and 5 to Criminal Cases, of which 5 serving Justices would fulfill. This will be a hugh mis-justice to all Floridians if this bill passes through the House. Call you Senators and encourage them NOT to support a companion bill to HB 7111.
Sounds like Speaker Cannon in FL hasn't read this case with the proposed HJR of HB 7111 to reform the FL Supreme Court to 10 Justices; 5 for Civil Cases (3 of which Gov. Scott would appoint) and 5 to Criminal Cases, of which 5 serving Justices would fulfill. This will be a hugh mis-justice to all Floridians if this bill passes through the House. Call you Senators and encourage them NOT to support a companion bill to HB 7111.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Words
So I've decided to start my own blog about what is important to me; my dreams, aspirations, thoughts, ideas, and yes, a few let downs. But mostly good things, trying to keep it all positive because I've learned that being positive and taking responsibility for your own happiness is what truly matters. So inspite of, not depsite all the bad things out there, I choose to be happy. I choose to be part of the solution, not the problem. I choose to use words like; believe, success, achieve, happiness, and aspire. And so this is where I'll begin telling my story. I hope you settle in, put on your seat belt, spit out your chewing gum (so you don't choke when you laugh or cry); and get ready for the ride! I hope you enjoy it!
In July, 2010 I was offered a job with the Florida Innocence Commission as the Assistant to the Executive Director. I accepted and moved to Tallahassee and work at the Florida Supreme Court. You can read about the Florida Innocence Commission at this site: http://flcourts.org/gen_public/innocence.shtml. I love my job, I love the people I work with everyday and I am honored to be included in such a great work for the state of Florida.
I work with a diverse group of people within the judiciary and legislative arenas, and that includes law enforcment. I am learning so much about how our local and state governments function and I'm fascinated everyday with what goes on here in Tally, and how quick things change. The most important decision that has come from this is that I decided to take the LSAT and apply to law school. This has been a dream of mine since probably fifth grade when I used to check out law books from the library and bring them home to read! And then later in life my passion has always been to fight for those who cannot speak for themselves. I became involved in the Guardian at Litem program and was on the National Advisory Committee for SafePlace. I learned that there are so many women and children around the world that need a voice. They cry, yet no one hears. So I made a decision to study, and took take the LSAT so I could go to law school and become that voice for those who did not have one. My goal is to pursue my JD this fall, and steer towards Advocacy Law.
The culmination of our Commission's work transpired over the past several weeks with a senate bill and a house bill to support recommendations from our Commission to standardize procedures for law enforcement across the state of Florida. These two bills are reforms to eyewitness identification procedures with photo line-ups and live line-ups. The session isn't over until May 6, so there is a long way to go, but the senate version passed it's committees, and the house version was amended in support of law enforcment. What I've taken from this are two things; that no one wants anyone to be convicted of a crime didn't commit, and there are always two sides to every story. But in the end--justice does have a price.
In July, 2010 I was offered a job with the Florida Innocence Commission as the Assistant to the Executive Director. I accepted and moved to Tallahassee and work at the Florida Supreme Court. You can read about the Florida Innocence Commission at this site: http://flcourts.org/gen_public/innocence.shtml. I love my job, I love the people I work with everyday and I am honored to be included in such a great work for the state of Florida.
I work with a diverse group of people within the judiciary and legislative arenas, and that includes law enforcment. I am learning so much about how our local and state governments function and I'm fascinated everyday with what goes on here in Tally, and how quick things change. The most important decision that has come from this is that I decided to take the LSAT and apply to law school. This has been a dream of mine since probably fifth grade when I used to check out law books from the library and bring them home to read! And then later in life my passion has always been to fight for those who cannot speak for themselves. I became involved in the Guardian at Litem program and was on the National Advisory Committee for SafePlace. I learned that there are so many women and children around the world that need a voice. They cry, yet no one hears. So I made a decision to study, and took take the LSAT so I could go to law school and become that voice for those who did not have one. My goal is to pursue my JD this fall, and steer towards Advocacy Law.
The culmination of our Commission's work transpired over the past several weeks with a senate bill and a house bill to support recommendations from our Commission to standardize procedures for law enforcement across the state of Florida. These two bills are reforms to eyewitness identification procedures with photo line-ups and live line-ups. The session isn't over until May 6, so there is a long way to go, but the senate version passed it's committees, and the house version was amended in support of law enforcment. What I've taken from this are two things; that no one wants anyone to be convicted of a crime didn't commit, and there are always two sides to every story. But in the end--justice does have a price.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)