Ain't this Interesting?

Hood's Google Fishing Expedition

Does it surprise anyone that Samson is greasing the palms of his buddies, and doing the bidding of a powerful interest?

It works out for everyone:  Mike Moore gets paid, the MPAA gets to take Google down a peg, Jim Hood gets to run against a Corporation (that just happens to have all your search records)...win win right?  I'm sure when the campaign finance reports come down, there will be no money donated from MPAA types to Hood.

Speaking of which, has anyone noticed the Jim Hood pattern?  He's against cybercrime, he's against exploiting children, he's against abusing drugs...

Is there anyone out there who's actually FOR THOSE THINGS?  Other than criminals?  It's subtle, but the "If you're against Jim Hood, you're for all kinds of bad things" vibe is real.  

I expect this to be covered extensively by the relevant newspapers in Mississippi.*

* sarcasm.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

"That's not the convicted death row inmate I knew."

Paging Matthew McConaughey

Does anyone remember the scene in A Time to Kill where the state psychiatrist is on the stand and testifying that Carl Lee did not have a break from reality and is criminally liable for killing the two guys who raped his daughter? And the paralegal comes in with information about the psychiatrist testifying in cases, and how he's holding a man in Whitfield who has been judged criminally insane despite his own diagnosis that the man is perfectly sane?

That's kind of the situation Mr. Franks finds himself in today. First, his clients didn't possess or use drugs. Then it turns out they pled guilty to the charges!

Much like Jake Brigance, I begin to wonder: Were they guilty, or did they just have a bad lawyer?

Not an Issue

No, not at all. Especially not for poor people. At least, according to the Champion of the Working Man.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071028/NEWS/710280379