Monday, April 28, 2008
IDs, please...
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Indiana's strict law requiring photo IDs to vote.
Opponents claimed the Indiana law and others like it were part of a right-wing plot to deliberately disenfranchise people disinclined to vote Republican.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by that time-honored member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Justice John Paul Stevens, who called the measure "amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process'." His opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas that goes farther, as it would preclude virtually any challenge to similar laws outside a "severe and unjustified overall burden on the right to vote," or is done to intentionally exclude a particular class of voter.
Justice Souter wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, claiming the burdens imposed by the requirement were more serious than the Justices who voted to affirm the statute concluded. Justice Breyer wrote his own dissent, generally agreeing with Justice Stevens' opinion, but finding a disproportionate burden was placed on those without photo IDs.
The opinion may be read here.
Opponents claimed the Indiana law and others like it were part of a right-wing plot to deliberately disenfranchise people disinclined to vote Republican.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by that time-honored member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Justice John Paul Stevens, who called the measure "amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process'." His opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas that goes farther, as it would preclude virtually any challenge to similar laws outside a "severe and unjustified overall burden on the right to vote," or is done to intentionally exclude a particular class of voter.
Justice Souter wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, claiming the burdens imposed by the requirement were more serious than the Justices who voted to affirm the statute concluded. Justice Breyer wrote his own dissent, generally agreeing with Justice Stevens' opinion, but finding a disproportionate burden was placed on those without photo IDs.
The opinion may be read here.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
31 shots - not guilty?
On Friday, 3 New York City Police Detectives were found not guilty of manslaughter, assault, and other charges in the 2006 shooting of Sean Bell at a Queens nightclub. Detectives Michael Oliver, Gescard Isnora, and Marc Cooper were aquitted of all charged following a seven week bench trial when Judge Arthur Cooperman found the state had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the detectives had no reasonable fear for their lives when they fired their weapons.
Given that Bell was ultimately found to be unarmed and the detectives fired 50 times (Det. Oliver even took time to reload during the barrage, firing the 31 shots in the post title), how the hell could this happen, one reasonably asks?
Start with the case being tried to a judge and not a jury. Most of the time, defense attorneys prefer juries to hear their cases. The most obvious advantage of a jury is twelve people have to believe the defendant guilty to convict, rather than just one at a bench trial. Also, a jury may be more likely to look past techincal evidence of guilt, and buy a more emotional argument for acquittal. Adding jury selection to the process creates one more opportunity for reversible error.
In this case, however, emotion favored the state - Bell was an innocent man just hours away from his wedding. The defendants sought a change of venue, arguing that pre-trial publicity had made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial. When the change of venue was denied, the defendants opted for a bench trial. (A quick aside - whenever one listens to Al Sharpton weigh in on this case, it should be noted that Sharpton was a leading actor in creating the atmosphere that led to the defendants choosing a bench trial.) Trying the case to a judge took away, or at least limited the effectiveness of - a powerful argument by the state, compelling a jury to return justice for Sean Bell, talking about the wedding he would have had and the family life that was taken from him - compelling statements that have little to do with the important questions in the case - namely, why did the police open fire in the first place?
The prosecution witnesses weren't particularly helpful in this regard. Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman were two of Bell's friends who were injured in the shooting. Neither helped, contradicting themselves and each other numerous times. This is understandable, to a degree - call it the "Angel Complex." A witness wants to portray himself and/or his friends in the best possible light - to that end, they stop remembering things that contradict that. It isn't necessarily by design, but it causes details to fall away, others to gain prominence - in this case, a key issue was an argument that took place prior to the shooting - how heated was it, did someone mention getting a gun, another was whether or not the police identified themselves as officers prior to firing. Under the Angel Complex, anything that could make Bell and his friends look - not even bad, just less perfect - is going to be minimized or explained away - doing so absolves the witness and puts all the culpability for the tragedy on someone else. Problem is, doing that results in contradictions with prior statements given perhaps before the witness understood the ramifications of what he was saying. It also results in contradicting other witnesses and forensic evidence. It doesn't mean that the whole truth would have completely exonerated the defendants - but they may have been guilty of lesser offenses, maybe one defendant isn't guilty at all - but ultimately, the desire to scrub any questionable behavior from their own acts that night may have doomed the overall credibility of witnesses essential to a conviction.
The behavior of the prosecution is also an issue. It has been suggested that the DA actually did too much - called too many witnesses, making issues of contradictions that didn't need to happen, suggesting motives that were inconsistent with their own evidence, all basically with the idea of dropping the whole thing in the judge's lap - had the DA chose not to indict at all, they would have faced anger from the community perceiving a protection racket, while a more focused prosecution that resulted in a greater chance of conviction may have alienated the police. Cited as a key error is the State having the grand jury testimony of the defendants read into the case. Doing this, goes the argument, allowed the defendants to present their side of the case without taking the stand, and possibly making the kind of contradictory statements other witnesses made, or just flat out not coming off as credible on the stand. I don't know the entirety of the detective's grand jury testimony, but generally speaking - tendering the other side's self-serving out of court statements doesn't help you out. That being said, a statement by a defendant that can be factually disproved can be incredibly helpful - it appears likely the State believed they could, in fact, disprove the defendant's justifications for their actions.
Ultimately, however, to the judge, it was the contradictions of the state's witnesses that doomed their case.
The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the matter to consider whether or not federal civil rights charges can be brought. (It isn't likely.) The NYPD is reviewing procedures for undercover operations, and has made changes in the wake of the shooting. Civil suits are pending.
Sean Bell was 23. He had two daughters.
Given that Bell was ultimately found to be unarmed and the detectives fired 50 times (Det. Oliver even took time to reload during the barrage, firing the 31 shots in the post title), how the hell could this happen, one reasonably asks?
Start with the case being tried to a judge and not a jury. Most of the time, defense attorneys prefer juries to hear their cases. The most obvious advantage of a jury is twelve people have to believe the defendant guilty to convict, rather than just one at a bench trial. Also, a jury may be more likely to look past techincal evidence of guilt, and buy a more emotional argument for acquittal. Adding jury selection to the process creates one more opportunity for reversible error.
In this case, however, emotion favored the state - Bell was an innocent man just hours away from his wedding. The defendants sought a change of venue, arguing that pre-trial publicity had made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial. When the change of venue was denied, the defendants opted for a bench trial. (A quick aside - whenever one listens to Al Sharpton weigh in on this case, it should be noted that Sharpton was a leading actor in creating the atmosphere that led to the defendants choosing a bench trial.) Trying the case to a judge took away, or at least limited the effectiveness of - a powerful argument by the state, compelling a jury to return justice for Sean Bell, talking about the wedding he would have had and the family life that was taken from him - compelling statements that have little to do with the important questions in the case - namely, why did the police open fire in the first place?
The prosecution witnesses weren't particularly helpful in this regard. Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman were two of Bell's friends who were injured in the shooting. Neither helped, contradicting themselves and each other numerous times. This is understandable, to a degree - call it the "Angel Complex." A witness wants to portray himself and/or his friends in the best possible light - to that end, they stop remembering things that contradict that. It isn't necessarily by design, but it causes details to fall away, others to gain prominence - in this case, a key issue was an argument that took place prior to the shooting - how heated was it, did someone mention getting a gun, another was whether or not the police identified themselves as officers prior to firing. Under the Angel Complex, anything that could make Bell and his friends look - not even bad, just less perfect - is going to be minimized or explained away - doing so absolves the witness and puts all the culpability for the tragedy on someone else. Problem is, doing that results in contradictions with prior statements given perhaps before the witness understood the ramifications of what he was saying. It also results in contradicting other witnesses and forensic evidence. It doesn't mean that the whole truth would have completely exonerated the defendants - but they may have been guilty of lesser offenses, maybe one defendant isn't guilty at all - but ultimately, the desire to scrub any questionable behavior from their own acts that night may have doomed the overall credibility of witnesses essential to a conviction.
The behavior of the prosecution is also an issue. It has been suggested that the DA actually did too much - called too many witnesses, making issues of contradictions that didn't need to happen, suggesting motives that were inconsistent with their own evidence, all basically with the idea of dropping the whole thing in the judge's lap - had the DA chose not to indict at all, they would have faced anger from the community perceiving a protection racket, while a more focused prosecution that resulted in a greater chance of conviction may have alienated the police. Cited as a key error is the State having the grand jury testimony of the defendants read into the case. Doing this, goes the argument, allowed the defendants to present their side of the case without taking the stand, and possibly making the kind of contradictory statements other witnesses made, or just flat out not coming off as credible on the stand. I don't know the entirety of the detective's grand jury testimony, but generally speaking - tendering the other side's self-serving out of court statements doesn't help you out. That being said, a statement by a defendant that can be factually disproved can be incredibly helpful - it appears likely the State believed they could, in fact, disprove the defendant's justifications for their actions.
Ultimately, however, to the judge, it was the contradictions of the state's witnesses that doomed their case.
The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the matter to consider whether or not federal civil rights charges can be brought. (It isn't likely.) The NYPD is reviewing procedures for undercover operations, and has made changes in the wake of the shooting. Civil suits are pending.
Sean Bell was 23. He had two daughters.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Another celebrity in trouble...
This time, it's Rocky the Bear, from the movie Semi-Pro - accused of attacking and killing one of his trainers.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sign the apocalypse is nigh...
Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain taped wrestling promos to appear tonight on WWE's Monday Night Raw.
"Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" is by far the best line of the bunch. John McCain's swiping lines from Hulk Hogan, Triple H and Ric Flair are respectable, if a bit old school. And I've been a pro wrestling fan since I was eight, and I have no earthy idea who in the hell Hillary Clinton is trying to evoke.
"Do you smell what Barack is cooking?" is by far the best line of the bunch. John McCain's swiping lines from Hulk Hogan, Triple H and Ric Flair are respectable, if a bit old school. And I've been a pro wrestling fan since I was eight, and I have no earthy idea who in the hell Hillary Clinton is trying to evoke.
In her defense, have you seen what kids are like these days?
Teacher arrested after bag of marijuana falls out of her purse in classroom.
The story says a student reported that the bag fell out of the teacher's purse. Note to students with lengthy permanent records - not everyone can tell this story and make it fly. Just saying.
The story says a student reported that the bag fell out of the teacher's purse. Note to students with lengthy permanent records - not everyone can tell this story and make it fly. Just saying.
I think someone hasn't done the reading...
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"Priests and worshippers start brawl at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where Christ was believed to be buried and resurrected. Police who tried to break up the fight were attacked as well.
Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself." - Matthew 22:36-39
Father Pakrad, an Armenian priest, said the presence of the Greek priest during the Armenian observances violated the status quo. "Our priests entered the tomb. They kicked the Greek monk out of the Edicule," he said, referring to the tomb area.
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. - Luke 6:29Father Pakrad, upon being advised of the above quote, responded "and what idiot said that?"
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Death becomes him?
On May 2, 1988, an 8 year old girl in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, was brutally raped. Her stepfather, Patrick Kennedy, called police and pointed them towards a neighborhood kid, a claim backed up - sort of - by the victim. Later, however - Kennedy's story fell apart - before he reported the rape, he called a cleaner to have blood removed from the carpet - just one of several lies that caused the investigation to focus on Kennedy, who was convicted at trial, after the victim finally identified him as her attacker. Louisiana (along with Montana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas), allows defendants to be sentenced to death for the forcible rape of a child. Kennedy was sentenced to death. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Kennedy's appeal, considering whether the death penalty can be constitutionally applied when the crime is the rape of a child.
There are a few familiar rationales put forth by those seeking to spare Kennedy's life. He denies his guilt, and while the evidence against him is very strong, there is no DNA or videotape or anything else that would constitute a "smoking gun." It is also asserted that Kennedy is mentally retarded to some extent. The argument that brought Patrick Kennedy to the United States Supreme Court was, however, primarily that he didn't kill anyone. No one has been executed for any crime other than murder in the United States since 1964. One reason for that is in 1977, the Supreme Court found the "sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape, and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment."
A few places in the Supreme Court opinion leave a door slightly open, by stating the death penalty is excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman. (Emphasis added.) Subsequently, a few states authorized the death penalty for the rape of a child, and of the 3,300 people currently on death row, only two are there for non-homicide crimes, one of which is Kennedy.
Kennedy's attorneys claim there exists an "overwhelming consensus" nationally against executing defendants who do not commit murder. Traditional argument claiming this consensus exists are raised, such as the few states that use the death penalty for child rape, and the few people who have been sentenced to death for such offenses. There are two responses to this: one, previously raised by yours truly - is that the relative rarity of such sentences suggests that juries are taking their obligations seriously and not imposing sentences lightly. If one has to sentence pretty much everyone to death for a particular offense, lest a "national consensus against" be found, well, be careful what you wish for - such things can be arranged.
The second response is simple - read what happened to this little girl. The description of her injuries begin on page 3. Go ahead, read them, and tell me the nation is overwhelmingly opponsed to putting the man who did that to death. I haven't seen a poll on the subject, but I'd call that a long shot.
There are practical objections raised as well. Opponents claim that the death penalty for child rape will result in rapists killing their victims. It will also result in children victimized by family members not reporting the crime if doing so could result in the rapist's death. The interesting thing about this argument is that death penalty opponents have claimed for years that the death penalty does not serve any deterrent function. The above arguments, however, rest on the assumption that the death penalty deters a great deal:
The issue of race has also come up - Kennedy is an African-American sentenced to death in the south. The race of the victim has not been mentioned, which means she's almost certainly African-American as well. (If not, the racial aspect would have been raised a lot more, and a lot more loudly.)
Speaking of the victim, she is now in college, and dreams of being a lawyer. Her family believes that justice would best be served by the execution of Patrick Kennedy.
There are a few familiar rationales put forth by those seeking to spare Kennedy's life. He denies his guilt, and while the evidence against him is very strong, there is no DNA or videotape or anything else that would constitute a "smoking gun." It is also asserted that Kennedy is mentally retarded to some extent. The argument that brought Patrick Kennedy to the United States Supreme Court was, however, primarily that he didn't kill anyone. No one has been executed for any crime other than murder in the United States since 1964. One reason for that is in 1977, the Supreme Court found the "sentence of death is grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment for the crime of rape, and is therefore forbidden by the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment."
A few places in the Supreme Court opinion leave a door slightly open, by stating the death penalty is excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman. (Emphasis added.) Subsequently, a few states authorized the death penalty for the rape of a child, and of the 3,300 people currently on death row, only two are there for non-homicide crimes, one of which is Kennedy.
Kennedy's attorneys claim there exists an "overwhelming consensus" nationally against executing defendants who do not commit murder. Traditional argument claiming this consensus exists are raised, such as the few states that use the death penalty for child rape, and the few people who have been sentenced to death for such offenses. There are two responses to this: one, previously raised by yours truly - is that the relative rarity of such sentences suggests that juries are taking their obligations seriously and not imposing sentences lightly. If one has to sentence pretty much everyone to death for a particular offense, lest a "national consensus against" be found, well, be careful what you wish for - such things can be arranged.
The second response is simple - read what happened to this little girl. The description of her injuries begin on page 3. Go ahead, read them, and tell me the nation is overwhelmingly opponsed to putting the man who did that to death. I haven't seen a poll on the subject, but I'd call that a long shot.
There are practical objections raised as well. Opponents claim that the death penalty for child rape will result in rapists killing their victims. It will also result in children victimized by family members not reporting the crime if doing so could result in the rapist's death. The interesting thing about this argument is that death penalty opponents have claimed for years that the death penalty does not serve any deterrent function. The above arguments, however, rest on the assumption that the death penalty deters a great deal:
1. It deters rapists from leaving a living victim.To opponents, the death penalty is capable of deterring nearly everything, except the crime itself.
2. It deters victims and witnesses from reporting the crime if the offender is a family member.
The issue of race has also come up - Kennedy is an African-American sentenced to death in the south. The race of the victim has not been mentioned, which means she's almost certainly African-American as well. (If not, the racial aspect would have been raised a lot more, and a lot more loudly.)
Speaking of the victim, she is now in college, and dreams of being a lawyer. Her family believes that justice would best be served by the execution of Patrick Kennedy.
Keeping the geek train rolling...
Ric Flair saluted on the floor of the House of Representatives.
There's a video, if you want to see Rep. Sue Myrick deliver Flair's famous "Whoo!"
There's a video, if you want to see Rep. Sue Myrick deliver Flair's famous "Whoo!"
Truth, justice, and maybe trying not to be such an ass...
Why Superman will always suck.
I understand the irony of posting this right on the heels of making fun of some else's geekiness - but this is an important point that merits further study. I never really got into Superman, basically for the reasons in the article - he's just too damn powerful, and any story about him facing is crisis basically has as its central question not "How will the hero triumph over adversity?" but rather "How will the hero avoid screwing this up?" The fact that, despite Superman's godlike powers, Lex Luthor managed to come up with ways to threaten him was actually more impressive than Superman subsequently overcoming the challenge. It's like the Duke-Belmont game in this year's NCAA tournament - were you more impressed with Belmont for playing Duke so tough, even though they ultimately lost, or with Duke, for narrowly beating a team they had considerably outgunned?
I know, I know. Lex is evil. Still, you gotta admire his gumption.
Batman, of course, ruled for exactly the opposite reason. Also, Batman scared the crap out of everyone else in the Justice League. It didn't matter what power you had - superspeed, a power ring, whatever. Nobody. Screws. With. Batman.
Tip - Sullivan.
I understand the irony of posting this right on the heels of making fun of some else's geekiness - but this is an important point that merits further study. I never really got into Superman, basically for the reasons in the article - he's just too damn powerful, and any story about him facing is crisis basically has as its central question not "How will the hero triumph over adversity?" but rather "How will the hero avoid screwing this up?" The fact that, despite Superman's godlike powers, Lex Luthor managed to come up with ways to threaten him was actually more impressive than Superman subsequently overcoming the challenge. It's like the Duke-Belmont game in this year's NCAA tournament - were you more impressed with Belmont for playing Duke so tough, even though they ultimately lost, or with Duke, for narrowly beating a team they had considerably outgunned?
I know, I know. Lex is evil. Still, you gotta admire his gumption.
Batman, of course, ruled for exactly the opposite reason. Also, Batman scared the crap out of everyone else in the Justice League. It didn't matter what power you had - superspeed, a power ring, whatever. Nobody. Screws. With. Batman.
Tip - Sullivan.
The single geekiest human being to ever land a girlfriend...
Would be the guy who decided to pop the question by reprogramming a video game so the proposal would come up when she hit a certain score.
Of course, the publicity caused the video game company to spring for the honeymoon, so if a honeymoon in Seattle was your idea of wedded bliss - this was actually doubly brilliant.
Of course, the publicity caused the video game company to spring for the honeymoon, so if a honeymoon in Seattle was your idea of wedded bliss - this was actually doubly brilliant.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Funny...
Friday, April 11, 2008
At least they're both involved in their child's life...
Parents get into fight over which gang their four year old should be raised to join.
I totally see this turning into a musical: West Side Story II: If Tony Lived...
I totally see this turning into a musical: West Side Story II: If Tony Lived...
Thursday, April 03, 2008
On, balance, I'm OK with this...
A Superior Court judge in Atlanta has come under some criticism for removing white people from his courtroom prior to lecturing a group of black defendants who were facing sentencing for various crimes.
Bottom line, it is wrong - he's a judge, and judges aren't supposed to draw those kind of distinctions. So no, he shouldn't have done it. That being said, here's the thing...
...the judge was facing a group of people, apparently all black, who maybe, just maybe, weren't lost yet. Now, someone like Judge Arrington has a personal story that could be very compelling, and might give him the credibility needed to get through to a couple of these folks. He faces a problem in trying to reach people like the defendants in that African-Americans who work in the justice system are often dismissed as trying to curry favor with a racist power structure, and can be treated with as much, if not more, contempt than a white person in the same position. By not delivering the lecture in front of the white lawyers and courtroom staff, Judge Arrington removed one potential barrier to the defendants listening to what he had to say. In that environment, maybe the defendant faces the reality of what community is actually paying the price for their behavior, and who it is they're really hurting.
I say maybe a lot, because a lot of times judges' lectures go in one ear and out the other. Plenty of criminals will look remorseful at sentencing, promise to turn their life around if the judge would just see it in their heart to spare them incarceration, and...well, you know the rest. But by removing one possible obstacle to getting through, Judge Arrington may have increased the possibility that someone heard him.
So yeah, it was wrong. But it also, for one or two people, might have worked. And if you convince one or two young men to turn away, you've done a lot.
Tip - Ace.
Bottom line, it is wrong - he's a judge, and judges aren't supposed to draw those kind of distinctions. So no, he shouldn't have done it. That being said, here's the thing...
...the judge was facing a group of people, apparently all black, who maybe, just maybe, weren't lost yet. Now, someone like Judge Arrington has a personal story that could be very compelling, and might give him the credibility needed to get through to a couple of these folks. He faces a problem in trying to reach people like the defendants in that African-Americans who work in the justice system are often dismissed as trying to curry favor with a racist power structure, and can be treated with as much, if not more, contempt than a white person in the same position. By not delivering the lecture in front of the white lawyers and courtroom staff, Judge Arrington removed one potential barrier to the defendants listening to what he had to say. In that environment, maybe the defendant faces the reality of what community is actually paying the price for their behavior, and who it is they're really hurting.
I say maybe a lot, because a lot of times judges' lectures go in one ear and out the other. Plenty of criminals will look remorseful at sentencing, promise to turn their life around if the judge would just see it in their heart to spare them incarceration, and...well, you know the rest. But by removing one possible obstacle to getting through, Judge Arrington may have increased the possibility that someone heard him.
So yeah, it was wrong. But it also, for one or two people, might have worked. And if you convince one or two young men to turn away, you've done a lot.
Tip - Ace.
And I will refuse if Jessica Biel asks me to have sex with her...
...which I need to say, because hey, if John Edwards has to mention that he would turn down the Veep spot if Clinton or Obama offered it to him, hey, anything could happen.
After the rousing success that was Edwards as VP candidate in 2004, I'm sure Clinton and Obama were fighting over who could offer him the spot first.
"You do it!"
"No, you do it!"
After the rousing success that was Edwards as VP candidate in 2004, I'm sure Clinton and Obama were fighting over who could offer him the spot first.
"You do it!"
"No, you do it!"
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
What I learned today...
I'm in scenic Forsyth, Georgia for a training seminar. So far, I've learned three things. One of which is work related.
The second is that the actor who played Eddie Haskell, Ken Osmond, spent 18 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, and was shot in the line of duty. (He recovered, thankfully, and we salute you Mr.Haskell.)
The third thing is that if I had only one day to live, I would spend it in Forsyth, Georgia. There are two reasons for this - one, it would seem like an eternity, and two, when death finally came for me, I would be happy to meet it.
Seriously, this place is a one-horse town, except for they don't have the horse.
The second is that the actor who played Eddie Haskell, Ken Osmond, spent 18 years with the Los Angeles Police Department, and was shot in the line of duty. (He recovered, thankfully, and we salute you Mr.Haskell.)
The third thing is that if I had only one day to live, I would spend it in Forsyth, Georgia. There are two reasons for this - one, it would seem like an eternity, and two, when death finally came for me, I would be happy to meet it.
Seriously, this place is a one-horse town, except for they don't have the horse.
