Dear Commissioner MacGinnitie:

I just had the pleasure of viewing the voting page for the new Georgia license plates and want to thank you for the preliminary selection of plates that are ALL much better than our current completely-unstylish plate. You’ve done a great job!

But there’s a not so great problem with some of the templates. There are firm indications that the county stickers are on their way out on the plates, which isn’t a problem since the renewal stickers have the county noted on them. But the words “In God We Trust” most emphatically DO NOT belong in their place. The last time I checked, no religious test was required to be a citizen of either Georgia or the United States and I believe the Constitution specifically and explicitly states that one is not required for public office.

Although #5 was my favorite, I voted for #4 because I will NOT place a license plate with this phrase upon my vehicle. I should mention that I am a faithful Christian; I’m just not so insecure in my faith as to believe it’s okay to force it upon others.

Please either retain the county stickers or remove this phrase from the final license plate blank. While I have no objection to the OPTION of displaying it on a license plate, forcing people to do so is a total contradiction of this country’s founding values.

Hat tip to the folks in the Atlanta LiveJournal Community for spreading the word (although the post itself is protected). Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll note that I got my license plate in 2006 — it’s on the 2003-2007 “gradient” template — so it’s unlikely I’d personally be forced to change plates anytime soon.

Would you want your city to outlaw smoking on public streets? Why or why not?

This question, no doubt, was sparked by the recent beginning of the ban in New York City. I understand the point of said ban, but I think it’s misguided. It’s not going to put a stop to smoking in public.

I’ll admit I am biased due to having grown up in tobacco country. But I still remember just how shocked I was to see how frequently people smoked on public streets in Seattle and Vancouver. I saw it quite a bit more often than I was used to seeing it back home in the South.

People who want to smoke will find a way to do it. Banning it in some places will simply lead to smokers finding a place where they can smoke and becoming more concentrated there. That means the secondhand smoke issue will be more significant for those who can’t avoid the places where smoking is permitted.

When it’s banned in private establishments, people will go out in public. When it’s banned in certain public places, people will go to other public places. It won’t simply go away.

Being from tobacco country means that I prefer smoking permissions to be associated with private property rights. By extension, that would mean that any public location is fair game. Seeing the alternative while visiting the Pacific Northwest only reinforced that opinion. Bans aren’t the answer; freedom of choice is.

I should be specific: in North Carolina, state employees can join unions (and, a few years after I left government, SEANC did exactly that). But N.C.G.S. 95-98 prohibits the North Carolina state legislature from negotiating with collective bargaining agents. This effectively makes union activities moot. SEANC effectively evolved from a grassroots effort to hire lobbyists.

What was the result of being cut off from union activity?

Shortly before I myself was attracted away, I saw a study that showed that, in counties with competitive job markets, the average tenure of a state employee was between five and nine years. There was a clear trend that people were using government to get experience and then “jumping ship” for the better opportunities in the corporate sector.

In other words, state government had become nothing more than a training ground for the corporate sector, meaning that state employees in general had less experience. The taxpayers thus got short shrift when it came to those who serviced them.

I was with state government long enough to see both good and bad tax years. In good years, the raises and benefits were squashed in an effort to lower taxes and “refund the taxpayers.” In bad years, the raises and benefits were squashed to balance the state budget. Had I not been promoted a couple of times, I would have left state government with a lower salary in terms of real dollars than when I started.

I never understood the general public attitude about “overpaid government employees” until I found out how well other governmental employees were paid. State employees in North Carolina made significantly less — sometimes by as much as fifty percent — than their corporate counterparts. By the time I left, only the leave benefits were competitive¹.

As a general rule, I’m not particularly pro-union because the presence of a union means an automatic antagonism between management and the employees; and because of traditional union corruption. I favor a partnership model. But I should make it clear that I support the right to unionize and act collectively. If management won’t listen, then employees have no choice.

However, when the senior manager is an elected official (most government employees are in the Executive branch), my outlook changes. I know what it’s like to be subjected to political whim. That manager really doesn’t listen; in a lot of ways, he or she can’t.

It’s not always about keeping your job. Sometimes it’s about a job worth keeping. I wonder what will happen in all those states where government employees lose their collective bargaining rights (make no mistake: it will happen). Somehow I suspect that they, too, will effectively become training grounds.

1. State and local government employees in North Carolina are subject to FICA withholding. That’s in addition to, not in lieu of, mandatory withholding for the state retirement system.

It’s an interesting juxtaposition because, while neither side seems to be explicitly bringing this up, there are free speech issues involved.

Should a group of Muslims have the right to build a center to promote their beliefs? Or should the owners respect the emotional impact of Ground Zero? Should gay couples have the right to demand use of the word “marriage?” Or should they respect the deeply held beliefs of many secular and religious groups, and limit their formal relationships to exercises in contract law?

There are very few limits on free speech in the United States, but they do exist¹ and, in general, are situations where restrictions have been found necessary for the public good. The question, then, is what constitutes the public good.

Is it protection of the public good to prevent a minority of citizens from expressing their religious beliefs? Is it protection of the public good to protect a minority of citizens who hold a belief that homosexual relations are acceptable?² The entire idea behind freedom of speech is protection of a minority, but where does minority protection cross the line into a danger against the public?

I don’t believe that two persons of the same sex can marry before God³, and my opinion is that the mosque near Ground Zero is, at minimum, tasteless⁴. But when I consider both of these issues in the light of freedom of speech, I’m reminded that the minority opinion doesn’t threaten the public good in either case. That line hasn’t been crossed.

Since I support freedom of speech, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose either action. It doesn’t matter whether or not I agree; what matters is protection of the civil liberties that Americans value.

1. There’s a dense but readable PDF document that nicely outlines First Amendment restrictions at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf.
2. Proposition 8 wouldn’t have passed if gay marriage supporters were a majority.
3. Call me homophobic if you must, but I don’t have a problem with secular civil unions. It’s the word “marriage” that makes me drag my feet.
4. I have no problems with Islam or the mosque, either; but I also wouldn’t think it smart for the NAACP to build a center next to an Aryan Nation stronghold.

Of course, a properly executed search warrant may always be used to reach any items, including medical records, that constitute “instrumentalities of a crime,” but this recent court decision opens the door to law enforcement gaining access to personal medical records that are not themselves evidence of crimes [...]¹

When I first read the column, I was pretty alarmed, especially in light of recent legislation putting certain mental illness diagnoses on Georgia driver’s licenses. Georgia’s not a particularly friendly state when it comes to medical privacy, and it seemed this court decision was simply one more assault against those with diagnoses that could reflect a person in a negative light.

But a look at the actual decision causes me to wonder if there’s as much cause for alarm as Mr. Barr seems to think. A look at the actual facts of the case suggest that the medical records in question were, at the very least, pertinent; and it reveals a gray area with respect to whether the records were evidence of criminal activity.

Appellant was involved in a vehicular collision [and] the responding police officer arrived at the scene in time to smell alcohol [...] notice appellant’s belligerent behavior, and to find evidence of alcohol consumption in [the] appellant’s truck. [...] The officer did not ask appellant to submit to a blood-alcohol test, and [...] was unable to continue his investigation at the hospital to which appellant was taken because appellant was receiving medical treatment. Five months later, the Gwinnett solicitor general’s office obtained and served upon the hospital a search warrant for Brogdon’s medical records for the date on which Brogdon had been treated at the hospital following the vehicular collision. The hospital provided the records [...]²

It appears that Gwinnett County only asked for records that were created on the date Brogdon was treated for a suspected alcohol-related car crash. That’s a pretty narrow limitation and one that seems relevant to this non-legally-trained blogger³. As such, I have a hard time believing that the records aren’t “evidence,” although an argument could be made for hearsay.

It’s also significant to note here that HIPAA privacy rules do not protect medical records that are subpoenaed by the courts⁴. HIPAA doesn’t speak to the courts’ authority to subpoena.

While it’s true that this court ruling struck down an argued privacy protection, I don’t think this one is opening up the floodgates when it comes to medical records. The fact that the court’s ruling was based on the location of the medical records (at the hospital) doesn’t affect questions about their relevance and thus whether they constitute information of interest to the court.

I absolutely think medical privacy is becoming an important issue. But concern about this legislation is a bit of a false alarm. There are other legal issues that carry a far greater threat.

1. Georgia Court: Personal medical records are fair game for government snooping
2. http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=ingaco20100712138. I’ve edited this for length but all of my omissions had to do with irrelevant details and “wordy” phrasing.
3. That we’re talking about an issue related to public safety — drunken driving — also seems relevant to me. In this case there do seem to be issues related to the common good.
4. HIPAA FAQ

Legally, this isn’t quite discrimination. Smoking isn’t a disability, so the ADA doesn’t apply. Smoking also isn’t a protected class in Georgia, so the Civil Rights Act doesn’t apply. Since Georgia is also a right-to-work state, an employer is free to choose not to hire someone as long as the choice isn’t based in legally discriminatory criteria.

So I suspect this policy would survive a discrimination challenge, even if not smoking isn’t a bona fide occupational qualification. I still question whether it’s a good idea, though.

Let’s make it clear: I’m personally disgusted by tobacco usage and I absolutely believe that it’s a health hazard. But so are a lot of other things: a high-cholesterol diet, over-usage of alcohol, lack of regular physical activity, and so on.

If employers can legally discriminate based on one unhealthy activity, who’s to say they can’t start discriminating on other activities they deem unhealthy? The Centers for Disease Control have identified many health-related causes of lost productivity, so a loss-of-productivity argument doesn’t work. In fact, I can’t think of a single argument that smoking is uniquely different than other unhealthy habits. It’s only more visible.

Gwinnett Medical Center has every right to prohibit smoking on the grounds; that’s rooted in property rights. But prohibit smoking when employees aren’t on the clock? That opens the door toward a considerable level of interference in employees’ personal lives.

Regardless of whether it’s legal, that’s never a good idea.

North Carolina is set to have the distinction of executing the 1,000th person in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty almost 20 years ago.

On Tuesday evening, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner granted clemency to a convicted killer scheduled for execution Wednesday. That means the execution of North Carolina death row inmate Kenneth Lee Boyd may become that milestone. Boyd is set to die by lethal injection at 2 a.m. Friday at Raleigh’s Central Prison.

Boyd, 57, was convicted in the 1988 shootings of his estranged wife, Julie Boyd, and her father, Thomas Dillard Curry, in their Rockingham County home. [Text continued at site.]

First, a humorous nitpick: I’m sure all the people who were born in 1976 (and are getting ready to start turning 30 beginning in January) will be interested in hearing that a penalty reinstated the year they were born was only restarted 20 years ago. I have clear memories of news coverage of North Carolina’s first execution following the reinstatement: we talked about it in my fourth-grade class, and well, I don’t like to admit it, but I was in fourth grade more than twenty years ago.

That doesn’t mean it won’t be done, though, and Raleigh is only about four hours from Richmond. The protesters planning to go to Richmond may likely not have to go further in order to change their plans. There are also plenty of protesters right here in Raleigh and elsewhere in the state. I sincerely hope the Division of Prisons is prepared.

He doesn’t deserve to be: he is a murderer. In 1988, during a robbery, he stabbed a man to death with scissors. He was convicted and sent to prison for that crime.

But on Wednesday, he will receive notoriety when he is the 1000th person executed in the United States since the 1976 reinstatement of the death penalty. In return for his murder of a man during a robbery, he will be murdered by the State of Virginia. Earlier in the week, two more people will be murdered by the States of Arkansas and Ohio, bringing the totals to 998 and 999 people respectively.

A bit of math shows that the murder of 1000 people since the 1977 murder of Gary Gilmore (the first to proceed under the 1976 reinstatement) results in an average of someone murdered every ten days. During this same time period, 122 people — some 3.5% of the current death row population — have been released from death row after their innocence was proven. Evidence exists suggesting that some of the people already murdered also were innocent.

In the name of law and order, we have instructed our governments to shoot, strangle, suffocate, chop up, electrocute and paralyze people and called it by the rather neutral term “capital punishment.” Some of these people may have been innocent. Some of them, such as “Tookie” Williams (founder of the Crips, multiple murderer and noted anti-gang activist), have saved other lives. Yet supporters of State-sponsored murder dare to call themselves “pro-life.”

How could the deliberate, premeditated and vicious murders of 1000 people, some of whom were innocent and others who have saved lives, be “pro-life”?

Sources: Gary Gilmore’s Eyes, 1000th Execution Next Week, Death Row Gang Founder Gets Schwarzenegger Hearing

Jason Smith is in a tough spot. He works for a company he has been asked to boycott.

In an effort to keep weapons out of the workplace, his employer, ConocoPhillips, is challenging state law and has forbidden workers to leave guns in their cars in company parking lots. Now, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is encouraging gun owners to stop buying ConocoPhillips gasoline.

The boycott is the latest skirmish in an expanding battle over gun control. Now that many states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, the NRA is pushing to eliminate remaining restrictions on where those guns can be taken. Gun-control groups – and some employers – are fighting back. The outcome could decide whether more states expand the rights of licensed owners to carry their guns where they want, despite recent evidence that workplace gun bans do lower risk.

This issue is simmering in states across the country, says Stephen Halbrook, a Virginia lawyer who handles many Second Amendment cases. “But it is in brightest relief in Oklahoma.”

That’s because Oklahoma is one of only two states with statutes that specifically prohibit employers from banning weapons on their own property. (Kentucky is the other state.) ConocoPhillips and several other employers are challenging the 2003 Oklahoma law in federal court.

“ConocoPhillips supports the Second Amendment and respects the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns,” the Houston-based oil company says in a written statement. “Our primary concern is the safety of all our employees. We are simply trying to provide a safe and secure working environment for our employees by keeping guns out of our facilities, including our company parking lots.”

But gun-control opponents see the issue in constitutional terms. [Text continued at site.]

Constitutional terms? What about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which many gun owners (and, to be fair, non-gun owners) have gleefully told me was almost phrased as “life, liberty and property”? Presumably, ConocoPhillips either owns the property or has tenant rights on the property. In North Carolina, at least, property owners and those with tenant rights have an absolute right to forbid any sort of weapons on the property, regardless of the nature, status or location of the weapon. If the cars are parked in the ConocoPhillips parking lot, they’re on the ConocoPhillips property. Ergo, ConocoPhillips is exercising its right to control of its own property. What is un-Constitutional about that? (For that matter, just how Constitutional is the Oklahoma law anyway?)