When it comes to its stated mission—keeping school-age children from trying illicit drugs—the D.A.R.E. program has been a failure. But D.A.R.E. does have a fun history of teaching kids to turn their pot-smoking parents in to the police.

It happened again last week:

The 11-year-old student is in 5th grade at a an elementary school in Matthews.  Police say he brought his parents’ marijuana cigarettes to school when he reported them.

Matthews Police say he reported his parents after a lesson about marijuana was delivered by a police officer who is part of the D.A.R.E. program, which teaches kids about the dangers of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.

“Even if it’s happening in their own home with their own parents, they understand that’s a dangerous situation because of what we’re teaching them,” said Matthews Officer Stason Tyrrell.  That’s what they’re told to do, to make us aware.”..

Police arrested the child’s 40-year-old father and 38-year-old mother on Thursday.

Both were charged with two misdemeanor counts each of marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

They were not jailed and were released on a written promise to appear in court…

Police say both the 11-year old and a sibling have been removed from the parents’ house by social services.

Proving once again that pot ruins lives. Not because of the drug itself, but because of what the government will do to you if they catch you with it.

Last year I wrote a column about Nick Cheolas, a young guy from the Detroit suburbs who became interested in the criminal justice system after witnessing some appalling behavior from police and other local officials in a case involving his family. Cheolas went on to law school at the University of Michigan, where his experience at home spurred him to get involved with the school’s innocence clinic. There, he worked on a team that won the release of Dwayne Provience, a man who had spent nearly a decade in prison for a murder it’s pretty clear he didn’t commit. (After much hemming and hawing, prosecutors finally announced in March that they wouldn’t attempt to try Provience again.)

I’m sorry to say that Nick’s story has taken a bummer of a turn. Last July he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He has started a blog (Arrested Development fans: take note of the title) where he writes about his treatment, opines on legal issues, and discusses the various other topics about which we bloggers tend to bloviate. If you’d like to click over, I’m sure he’d appreciate knowing he has support out in libertarian land.

Also, if the idea of following an online diary of cancer treatment sounds morose—and it did to me when I was first sent the link—Nick’s sense of humor considerably lightens the experience. His blog’s tagline:

I don’t fight cancer because I fear death. I fight cancer because I fear Mitch Albom writing about me after death.

Get better, Nick. No one else wants to see that happen, either.

Snapped this in Midtown Nashville this morning. Made me laugh. Generally speaking, I think people would less hostile to graffiti if more of it were Wilfred Brimley-themed.

• Facebook photo may have saved toddler’s life.
• Horrifying product recall: Fisher-Price warns tricycles pose “risk of genital bleeding.”
• L.A. prosecutor encourages columnist to get high, drive around town test his driving skills on a driving course.
• Ever notice how much time, space, and energy libertarian-hating writers, bloggers, and pundits spend opining about how libertarians are irrelevant?
• Here’s a bit more on that Simpsons porn case. Including: “…my favorite part of the plea agreement is the ‘proof’ that Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are ‘minors’:  ’An internet search of the encyclopedia website www.wikipedia.org listed the three minor-aged Simpsons characters ages as ten, eight, and baby.’”
• Georgia court says laws requiring you to mow your laws are not akin to slavery.

Montgomery, Alabama:

“They could have at least apologized,” says LaKisha Dixon.

She just wants to hear Montgomery police officers say they’re sorry. Last month, officers entered her home without even knocking on the door. Dixon and two children were inside.

“It was three tall men with masks on and big oozie guns pointing at me like, “Get on the ground!  Get on the ground!”

Not only was the experience frightening, but Dixon says police had the wrong house.

When she tried to explain,”they told me to shut up and be quiet before they take me to jail.”

A Montgomery Police Department search warrant instructed officers to search 812 South Union Street.

Instead, they entered Dixon’s home–810 North Union Street.

The two addresses are a mile and a half apart.

“I feel violated. I feel like they trespassed,” says Dixon.

WSFA 12 News contacted the Montgomery Police Department.

Investigators told us they’re handling the matter internally by interviewing each officer involved.

Dixon says even though the incident is over, it still affects her kids.

“They’re scared of police officers. They said the police [are] going to get them, and it shouldn’t be like that. They should think of the police to help them.”

Right now the Montgomery Police Department isn’t admitting whether they did anything wrong or not.  Investigators say they’re still sorting out the facts.

This happened “last month.” So it’s taken at minimum two weeks and two days for them to figure out that the address on the warrant doesn’t match the address on the door?

Also, don’t read the comments. They’ll give you a soulache.

I’m mentioned in Bob Herbert’s New York Times column today.

Also, my column on drunk driving laws was picked up by the Dallas Morning News.

Man faces up to 10 years in prison for possession of Simpsons porn:

A former middle school teacher in Meridian has pleaded guilty to possession of visual representations of child sex abuse.

The U.S. Attorney’s office said Steven Kutzner, 33, had downloaded more than 70 animated cartoon pornographic images on his computer. Many of them depicted child characters from The Simpsons.

Kutzner was a former middle school teacher at Lake Hazel Middle School in Meridian. He resigned immediately after the search warrant was served at his home.

Kutzner will be sentenced Jan. 5, 2011. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.

Didn’t Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition rule out these sorts of prosecutions?

MORE:  According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, though investigators only found the cartoons, as part of his plea bargain Kutzner “admitted installing two different cleaning programs on his computer and using them to erase child pornography files that he had downloaded.”

Tunku Varadarajan:

My first instinct as a libertarian is, of course, for Republican victories everywhere…

Of course?

No. I can see cheering for divided government on Election Night. I can see hoping for a GOP Congress to counter Obama’s historic expansion of the federal government. But there’s no reason a libertarian’s “first instinct” should be to root for Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter). And it’s certainly not obvious enough to merit an of course.

Varadarajan then writes:

The big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished; now it’s time to get rid of the big-government Democrats—i.e., all of them.

I’m fine with everything after the semicolon. The problem is that to “get rid of the big-government Democrats” inevitably means replacing them with Republicans. The label “big-government Bush Republicans” implies that there’s an alternative sort of Republican. Time and again, they’ve proven there isn’t. The Republican Party was and is filled with big-government Republicans, before, during, and after the eight years that Bush was president. There are some genuinely limited government Republicans, just as there are some Democrats who give a damn and are willing to fight for civil liberties. But they aren’t in the leadership, and they won’t be calling the shots in a new GOP-led Congress. Even now, in the minority, with public sentiment pretty solidly against Obama, all but assured of big gains this November, the GOP figureheads still don’t have the guts to name specific federal programs they’d target for spending cuts.

Varadarajan’s full column is about why he can’t support some of the crazier GOP candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino. I actually disagree there, too. And hell, in the spirit of bipartisanship I’ll go ahead and endorse Alvin Greene in addition to Paladino and O’Donnell. Politics is a ridiculous profession populated by ridiculous people. Maybe if we elect increasingly clownish candidates, the public will eventually come to realize this, and finally realize that it’s probably not a good idea to put larger and larger portions of our lives and livelihoods in the hands of people who have achieved success in a field that rewards character traits you spend your entire tenure as a parent trying to teach out of your kids.

I’m kidding about endorsing Greene, O’Donnell, and Paladino, but only because their election would give them actual power. But I see no particular reason to root for their opponents, either.  And I see no reason to instinctively cheer for Republicans over Democrats. Or vice versa. At least electing transparently crazy people will make us more cautious about how they use their power.

Me, I’m cheering for elections to matter less, and for politicians to have less impact on my life. I dream of waking up to find the results of the November 2 election on page A-10 of my November 3rd newspaper—because no one cared, because very little was at stake, because we stopped pinning our hopes and dreams on the results of a perverse process dominated by generally horrible people who have made a career of accumulating power for the sake of accumulating power.

Incidentally, this is also how you “get money out of politics.” You make politics and political outcomes less important. I’m amused by people who are surprised that as the power, scope, and influence of government grows, interest groups are correspondingly willing to spend increasingly more money to purchase a piece of that influence. I actually once heard a prominent lefty journalist express this very sentiment. They’re shocked by this!

It’s even cuter that they think they can continue to expand the size, scope, and influence government and prevent the government from being corrupted . . . by giving the same government yet more power, in this case to prevent itself from being corrupted. Inevitably, these new powers then manifest as new restrictions on our ability and freedom to criticize politicians. Because that’s the solution to the corruption of our politicians: Less criticism of politicians!

Anyway, I’m rambling a bit. So I’ll stop. But more, somewhat better organized rambling on these themes to come.

A Texas appeals court has ordered a halt to a district court’s inquiry into whether Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for setting a 1992 fire that killed his three daughters, was innocent. The stay was sought by Navarro County District Attorney R. Lowell Thompson. It’s merely the latest attempt by Texas officials (Thompson’s office prosecuted Willingham), including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, to stave off any formal inquiry into Willingham’s execution. Arson specialists now say Willingham was convicted based on flawed and outdated science, and there’s little forensic evidence to support the theory that the fire was set intentionally.

Meanwhile, Texas District Attorney Lynn Switzer told the U.S. Supreme Court this week that the state should be able to execute Hank Skinner without first turning over crime scene evidence for DNA testing that Skinner says will prove his innocence. The Court has already ruled that there’s no constitutional right to DNA testing in such cases. Skinner is arguing that the state is obligated to turn over the evidence under federal civil rights law. (I previously wrote about Skinner’s case here and here.)

The striking thing about both cases is that Texas government officials are staking out a position of ignorance. That is, they don’t want to know if either man is innocent. That’s not how they’d phrase it, of course. But in the Willingham case they’re thwarting efforts merely to investigate the possibility that the Wilingham might have been innocent. In the Skinner case they’re fighting a DNA test—which Skinner’s attorneys have offered to pay for themselves—that if prosecutors are correct would undeniably establish Skinner’s guilt. But there’s a chance it could implicate someone else, or complicate their case against Skinner. So they’d rather not test.

Of course in both cases they know that a finding of innocence would further undermine support for the death penalty (which is now under fire even from establishment conservatives). So it’s better just not to know.

Perry, Thompson, Switzer, and their cohorts should consider the possibility that their callous indifference in the face of considerable doubt about both men’s convictions—and that even after the Willingham fiasco they’re still fighting to execute Skinner without being absolutely sure of his guilt—only confirms suspicions that we have a flawed system stacked with perverse incentives, all of which not only encourages the pursuit of convictions at the expense of justice, but then pressures state actors to double down rather than admit to the possibility that they made mistakes.

Put another way, in fighting to keep us all in the dark about Skinner and Willingham’s actual guilt, these staunch capital punishment supporters are providing data points for the strongest arguments against the death penalty.

….over at Hit & Run.

• All I can say is that it’s about time Rich Whitey got some political power in this country.
• Hey, something else to worry about!
• In addition to all the other weirdness in this story, I’m trying to figure out why the reporter used the word ironic.
• Here is a picture of some dogs.
• New York City has paid out more than $1 billion to settle claims against NYPD.
• So who is most to blame in that story about the city fire department that let a man’s house burn down? Why, libertarians, of course!
• Supreme Court hears arguments in the Hank Skinner death penalty case. I’ve written about Skinner here and here.

Earlier this week, I posted on a settlement in the case of the Pennsylvania public school accused of illegally spying on its students. Noting that the bulk of the settlement will go the students’ attorney, I wrote:

So public school officials get caught illegally spy on students. But no one gets fired. And none of the offending parties will be fined. Instead, a municipal insurer (which will ultimately affect taxpayers) will pay a decent settlement to one student, a small settlement to another, and a small fortune to their lawyer.

After reading some analysis by Max Kennerly and Scott Greenfield, I’m persuaded that I was off-base with my snark (in other words, I was wrong).

Here’s Kennerly:

If the Lower Merion case had gone to trial, and the plaintiffs had won on any of those claims — and they definitely would have won on the first — then the school district would have been liable for all of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in litigating the case.

The settlement of the case reflects that eventual reality: if the School District had not paid the plaintiffs’ lawyer now, they were going to pay them later…

But why did this case, where liability was obvious, cost so much? There’s a simple answer for that: because the School District litigated the heck out of the case. Their own lawyers, as of the end of July, had already billed $743,000 to the school district. I bet the final bill will exceed $1 million.

Viewed through that lens, Mr. Haltzman was downright frugal in accepting less than half what his opponents charged to fight him.

And here’s Greenfield:

While the wrong in this particular case seemed abundantly clear, especially since it received broad attention and near-universal condemnation, the deprivation or violation of constitutional rights that seem so obvious to the victims often fails to get to trial.  Sure, getting your “day in court” is a fine platitude, just like so many that make us feel warm and comfy even though they defy reality in the trenches.  The hard fact is few civil rights cases are ever heard, and fewer still recover damages, whether for some variation of governmental immunity or some banal rationalization which makes the wrong “good enough for government work.”

That means that the efforts of a lawyer to pursue the violation of rights may not only fail to result in a payday, but leave the lawyer out of pocket for whatever unreimbursed expenses accrued in the process.  This can be a very risky business, trying to protect our constitutional rights by representing a person whose rights were deprived.

So Mark Haltzman “made” more money from this case than did his clients.  Was he supposed to eat the cost of this litigation, as if he, rather than the school administrators, committed the wrong?

These are all great points. As someone who would like to see a heck of a lot more civil rights suits against government officials who abuse their power, I was wrong to direct scorn at an attorney who actually brought one (even in an obvious case like this one). It would be even better if the responsible parties actually had to pay out for their actions, and not have the taxpayers bail them out. But that’s beside my point here, which is that Hatlzman shouldn’t be blamed for getting compensated for his time and expense in bringing this lawsuit.

• Pretty soon, they’re just going to ban cold medicine altogether. It’s the price we must pay to keep people from getting high. One of the prices, anyway.
• Rolling Stone slobbers all over Obama. As I’ve pointed out before,  Obama has been quick compromise on campaign promises that limit government or hold it more accountable, but held firm to his principles on issues that expand the scope and power of government. Also interesting how the historians and talking heads interviewed for the article say Obama will be considered great simply for the fact that he’s “getting things done”. Never mind that we have no idea if the things he’s gotten done will actually work.
• Think this worked?
• Accountability in the military vs. accountability in domestic police departments. One has it, one doesn’t.
• My drunk driving column has been pretty warmly received. Pleasantly surprised at this.
• Student finds FBI tracking device on his car. FBI demands it back.
• I haven’t covered the plight of Mississippi sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott, mostly because I have more than enough Mississippi material to keep me busy. But here’s a good summary of their case. And yes, it’s pretty outrageous.
• Police chief wants to issue fines for leaving car doors unlocked.
• Massachusetts prosecutors say defense attorneys get too much money. Check the comments for some counter arguments.

I’ve posted a lengthy appreciation over at Hit & Run.

Here’s a very funny Vice interview with the man who mastered Sim City, the urban planning computer game.

The Consumerist sets the interview up.

Vincent Ocasla says that in fashioning the “Magnasanti” metropolis, he has “beaten” SimCity by creating the max stable population of six million. It consists of four grids of identical 12 x 12 grids with everyone’s workplace within walking distance. There are no roads, the city runs entirely on subways. There’s zero abandoned buildings zero congestion, and zero water pollution. 

Sounds utopic! But wait…

Technically, no one is leaving or coming into the city. Population growth is stagnant. Sims don’t need to travel long distances, because their workplace is just within walking distance. In fact they do not even need to leave their own block. Wherever they go it’s like going to the same place….

…The ironic thing about it is the sims in Magnasanti tolerate it. They don’t rebel, or cause revolutions and social chaos. No one considers challenging the system by physical means since a hyper-efficient police state keeps them in line. They have all been successfully dumbed down, sickened with poor health, enslaved and mind-controlled just enough to keep this system going for thousands of years. 50,000 years to be exact. They are all imprisoned in space and time.

Also, no one lives past the age of 50. Bright side: Low health care expenditures!

• Senator gets high in the D.C. suburbs, urinates in public, has to be taken in for medical care.
• Dem group attacks Rand Paul for being “soft on crime.”
• Great photoset of Washington, D.C. from the 1980s.
• Think twice before calling the police.
• This is the part where she comes to life, dons a cape, then goes about restoring constitutionally-limited government.
• L.A. Weekly blogger manages to show off ethnic bigotry and economic ignorance in a single post about Prop 19. Here’s a good explanation of how he can’t even get his stereotypes correct.

Alex Knapp flags this paragraph from a New York Times profile of Muslim-baiting blogger Pamela Geller.

She spent the next year educating herself about Islam, reading Bat Ye’or, a French writer who focuses on tensions over Muslim immigrants in Europe; Ibn Warraq, the pseudonym for a Pakistani who writes about his rejection of Islam; and Daniel Pipes, whom she ultimately rejected because he believes in the existence of a moderate Islam.

Knapp responds:

This is grotesque to me. It’s like saying that that someone spent a year educating themselves about Christianity, reading Chrisopher Hitchens, an English writer who wrote articles focusing on the “crimes against humanity” of Mother Teresa, Friedrich Nietzsche, a former seminary student who wrote at length about his rejection of Christianity, and Sam Harris, whom they ultimately rejected because he believes in the existence of moderate Christianity.

If you put that in a profile of an anti-Christian blogger, you would know immediately that they’re a fraud and simply not worth listening to.

If you want to listen the fruits of Geller’s self-education, check out her interview with 60 Minutes from a few weeks ago. Note, though, that after the interview, Geller helpfully provided some important context in which to watch the segment: 60 Minutes “is part of the Islamic supremacist agenda.”

My all-time favorite Geller moment is still the time she published proof that Barack Obama is the illegetimate love child of Malcolm X. (She now disclaims the theory, but says she published it because “the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama’s many connections with the Far Left.”)

Geller would be easy to dismiss and not take seriously . . . if it weren’t for the fact that a distubring and growing number of people take her seriously.

Wonderfully obtuse line from Time’s scare story about militias:

“In a reversal of casting, the armed antigovernment movement describes itself as heir to the founders.”

Not sure which I like better, the historical ignorance or the cutesy, condescending way the writer demonstrates his ignorance in the course of exposing what he thinks is the ignorance of the militia groups he’s writing about.

(Note: It is possible to think Time is being silly and scaremongery in this piece without also endorsing the beliefs of the few militia groups and nutjobs who do, in fact, advocate violence as a form of dissent.)

Via my colleague Jesse Walker, who has more on the piece.

At least that’s what the A.P. is reporting.

I haven’t yet heard who got the job.