February 13, 2012

washington state says yea ... for now

Gregoire signs same-sex marriage bill - seattlepi.com

An emotional Gov. Chris Gregoire signed legislation Monday making Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage between same-sex couples, declaring it was time "to make history in this great state." Gregoire's voice broke as she descrbed conversations with her two daughters, who told her that marriage equality was "the civil rights issue of their generation . . . Thank you to that younger generation and my two daughters." The governor presided at a ceremony in Olympia, joined by legislative leaders and the longtime same-sex partners of such lawmakers as Sen. Ed Murray and Reps. Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jinkins.

The law goes into effect on June 7, unless opponents succeed in gathering 120,577 valid voter signatures to force a referendum in November. If so, marriage equality would be held up pending a decision by Washington voters.

Gregoire predicted that Washington, for the second time, would vote to ratify a major piece of gay/lesbian civil rights legislation. Washington voted in favor of Referendum in 2009, becoming the first state to ratify an "everything but marriage" domestic partner law. "Washington will say yes because a family is a family," Gregoire declared. "It is time to give our loving gay and lesbian couples a chance to have a married life in the state of Washington...."

It really is going to be interesting to see what happens after this.

I would be astonished if the anti-gay-marriage crowd fails to get enough signatures to put this onto the ballot. That said, if they do succeed, I hope the pro-gay-marriage crowd takes it into court prior to the vote on the grounds that a known hostile majority should not be allowed to vote to recognise the rights of a known-to-be-discriminated-against minority. (Though, to be fair, I'm not sure that argument is precisely a constitutional argument, either under the Washington state or federal constitutions. I would think that you'd be able to get the courts to invoke heightened scrutiny, though.)

What I found interesting, though, was a side comment somewhere: approximately 42% of people in this country now live in a state where gay marriage is legal. Of course, that's primarily due to California and New York, and it's not precisely legal in California at the moment. It's also due to the fact that our population is heavily concentrated in only a few areas; there are only seven states plus DC where gay marriage is legal; another 41 where, one way or another, the state has said, "NO! NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU, ICKY GAY PEOPLES!", either through constitutional amendment or some other law. Weirdly, several of those states grant something vaguely like civil union status. (If the argument proposed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals winds up holding some sort of resonance nationwide, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine will be told at some point that they can't have it both ways -- you can't say that something like marriage is fine, but marriage itself is not.) There are also two (yes, TWO), where the state constitutions and any specifically exclusionary laws are, for the moment, utterly silent: New Jersey and New Mexico.

New Jersey is trying to pass a law allowing gay marriage, but will fail due to the governor's promised veto and desire to take the issue to the people. (He is also under the thoroughly wrong-headed idea that blacks would have welcomed a vote on civil rights during the civil rights era. About as spectacularly stupid a concept as one could come up with, and not one that ought to be said while there are still black people old enough to remember the time, because they will set you straight on that.) New Jersey also has civil union status, stronger than that of the above-mentioned states, thanks to their state supreme court, so again assuming that the logic of the 9th Circuit's decision holds (and it probably won't, in the Third Circuit, but let's pretend), New Jersey will eventually be told that its denial of marriage rights is not a tenable position.

In New Mexico, their state attorney general said last year that under current law, while such marriages could not be conducted in the state, such marriages performed elsewhere would be recognized as valid under current state law. In response, a a member of the state house of representatives submitted a bill to amend the state constitution to make gay marriage invalid. Oddly, less than 24 hours from the bill's first hearing in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, he withdrew the bill from consideration. From what the article says, it's not at all clear why. Without that, they'll remain in this peculiar legal position. Since they don't have civil unions, assuming that they continue to remain silent on the subject ... well. I'll tell you what'll happen: assuming that the various DOMA decisions don't intervene, some gay couple will move to the state, have a falling out, then try to divorce. And with an advisory position on the books saying that the state must recognize such out-of-state marriages, the state will be forced to grant the divorce. And that, as they say, will be the Thin End of the Wedge.

February 07, 2012

proposition 8 falls ... for the moment

A U.S. appeals court rules Prop. 8 unconstitutional (sfgate.com)

(02-07) 10:13 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional today, saying a state can't revoke gay rights solely because a majority of its voters disapprove of homosexuality.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Proposition 8's limitations on access to marriage took rights away from a vulnerable minority without benefiting parents, children or the marital institution.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," said Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority opinion.

"The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort."

Prop. 8, passed in November 2008, declared marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. It repealed a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that had legalized same-sex marriage in California.

The ban remains in effect while the case proceeds toward the U.S. Supreme Court....

History of the case from the 9th Circuit website. The site is very overloaded at the moment, so you might want to wait a bit.

It's going to be really fascinating to see what happens from here. Project Marriage has already said that they'll appeal this directly to the US Supreme Court and skip appealing to the full 9th Circuit (this case was decided by a randomly selected three judge panel). And since the 9th maintained the stay in place, they don't need to make a separate request for that.

I'm really curious to see what the Supreme Court does with this case. Given the choice, I suspect they'd decide that the issue of standing was incorrectly decided and punt this on those grounds (technically, reverse and remand, but doing so on that issue effectively kicks the case out of court) -- their own decisions on that issue are generally pretty clear and in direct opposition to what the 9th decided -- but that's probably not going to be an issue that they get presented with, and I don't believe the issue on standing was separately appealed when it was decided.

The 9th decided this case on such specifically narrow grounds that if the Supreme Court declines this case, the decision will apply only to California, and not to the other states in the Circuit. I suspect that dramatically increases the chances of this case never getting granted Supreme Court review. That said, you only need four votes to grant review, and I think it probably has that. And it may well be that the current members of the Court want to be DONE with this issue ... though to do so, they'd have to considerably broaden the scope of the decision, which the two-justice majority went to some strenuous efforts to restrict in a way that only applies to California.

Given the current configuration of the Supreme Court, it would likely fall out either 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing gay marriage, given current membership and the Court's previous decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Of the dissenting justices in that case, Scalia and Thomas remain, with Rehnquist more or less ideologically replaced by Roberts. The interesting thing is that of the majority, three justices are now gone: O'Connor, Souter and Stevens, replaced by Kagan, Sotomayor and Alito. Alito would almost certainly align with Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, making a reasonably certain four-judge dissent. (That said, Scalia might well vote for allowing gay marriage, on the grounds that he warned the Court that they would wind up having to make this decision after having decided Lawrence the way they did, and you cannot consistently decide that the Constitution allows gays the right to live their lives unprosecuted and then decide that just because you are willing to allow them to have sex without being arrested for it, you're not willing to allow them to be married. He does like being a gadfly, occasionally, and he is allegedly very fond of stare decisis, when it falls out his way--though this one doesn't. But I digress.)

Anyway. Assume you have a known four justice block of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito against broadening the decision to allow gay marriage throughout the land. The remaining justices are Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer. The decision is assumed to rest on what Kennedy decides to do. (I think it's probably safe to assume that Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer would vote to strike down Prop. 8 on broader grounds and to allow gay marriage throughout the land. The few decisions that Sotomayor has had to make in this area prior to her Court experience lead one to think that she would probably support this decision, but also support the way in which it has been restricted so that it only applies to California.) It's difficult to imagine the author of Lawrence v. Texas voting to decide that marriage is so different in kind from everything else involved in that decision that he could sustain voting to refuse to allow marriage. It is beyond logically inconsistent, as Scalia went to some pain to point out in his furious dissent in that case.

Thing is, though, if the Court decides that they're not ready for this issue, but that they have no objection to striking down Prop. 8 in a way that's consistent both with Romer v. Evans and with Lawrence v. Texas, all they have to do is decline the case. Frankly, that really does seem the most likely result to me. If they take up the case, it strikes me as a signal that they're likely to overturn the decision. I'm not sure how they can, consistent with past cases, without explicitly overruling both Romer and Lawrence -- and I don't think they have the votes for that. (If they agree with the decision and its result, they could also accept the case, then turn around and issue a relatively quick per curiam unsigned decision confirming the judgement and explicitly limiting its effect to California. That said, they tend to issue per curiam decisions in cases only when the underlying issues have been clearly decided, which is not the case here.)

What I think is really going to be interesting, though, is what happens in Washington state after this. It seems likely that the Washington state legislature and governor are going to sign laws into existence that allow gays to marry in that state in the extremely near future. The Washington state branch of Project Marriage has already said that they plan to get the signatures to put the issue on the next ballot, and barring major disaster, they shouldn't have problems getting enough people to sign. And if it gets onto the ballot, it will pass, probably by a broader majority than Prop 8 passed. (I know, I know, there are all sorts of people out there saying that Washington is too liberal, too broad-minded a place for that. Those people ignore the fact that a really substantial chunk of Washington state is politically a bit more like neighboring Idaho than it is like crunchy-granola Seattle. Those people ignore the fact that marriage remains the one and only religious sacrament granted official recognition by the state, and if you believe for religious reasons that gays AREN'T people, too, you don't want the one part of your religion that the state acknowledges contaminated by the state saying, "No, really, gay people ARE people and they have the same rights as you, so shut the hell up already." The fascinating thing is going to be that Washington state will be on a parallel track with California, and assuming the Court either declines the case or upholds the decision, that puts Washington in exactly the same situation. They've already recognized all sorts of nondiscrimation rights in employment, housing and other areas, so they have no legal constitutional grounds for rejecting gay marriage except as an official way of saying, "You are icky and we don't like you!" Which is not allowable.

But we shall see what we shall see. We continue to live in interesting times, we do.

January 23, 2012

illegal search and seizure -- apparently, the concept still exists

Supreme Court Court Rejects Willy-nilly GPS Tracking | Threat Level | Wired.com
By David Kravets
January 23, 2012 |

The Supreme Court said Monday that law enforcement authorities might need a probable-cause warrant from a judge to affix a GPS device to a vehicle and monitor its every move — but the justices did not say that a warrant was needed in all cases.

The convoluted decision (.pdf) in what is arguably the biggest Fourth Amendment case in the computer age, rejected the Obama administration’s position that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle was not a search. The government had told the high court that it could even affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, without a warrant....

You know ... I'm by way of thinking that if you want to win your case, telling the Supreme Court that you have the authority (as opposed to the ability) to conduct what may be warrantless searches of the justices themselves is not a really good thing to do.

The decision itself manages the interesting trick of being both unanimous -- in that all nine justices concur in the result, overturning the conviction -- and terribly fractured, with nobody agreeing under what circumstances a warrant might actually be required. They just agree that surveying someone by GPS for 28 days absolutely positively should have required one, because of the length of time. Fewer days? Maybe, maybe not. Absolutely silent on that. And, if the article is accurate, in a truly confusing maneuver, while the justices all agreed that the prolonged duration of this "search" without a warrant was unreasonable and thus resulted in the overturning of the sentence, they declined to state whether a warrant was required in the first place.

Seriously, an actual lawyer is going to have to go over that to make sense of it to me, because it sounds like the only thing the Court could clearly agree on was that the government had exceeded its authority in this particular case. They then bent themselves into pretzels to avoid telling the government exactly what its authority was. In part this is because the Court tires to avoid dealing with purely procedural matters when it can. I also have a sneaky feeling that the Court's belief, to the extent that it can be divined, is that you actually can't go wrong with getting a warrant for placing a GPS device on a suspect's car each and every time. You then have to show probable cause to the judge, you have to demonstrate that you have some concrete reason for believing this person is a criminal. Following this sort of procedure will actually make more certain that you don't have sentences thrown out for not doing what you should have done in the first place. Of course, putting a GPS device on someone's car is low-level enough, in some ways, that it does put the authorities in an interestingly circular bind. They might have enough evidence to suspect that someone's a criminal, and the GPS device might give them enough evidence to make the case. But, of course, if you have to get a warrant first, you have to demonstrate that you have enough evidence to warrant the warrant, so to speak.

The fascinating part comes at the very end, where the government notes, "The government told the justices during oral arguments that that GPS devices have become a common tool in crime fighting, saying it is employed “thousands” of times annually." If that's true, given this decision, just imagine how many cases are going to start parading through the courts. And you're going to get wildly differing decisions from the Circuits, because the Court's decision gives a profound lack of guidance. The Ninth, with a generally more civil-libertarian/liberal lean, will probably throw out many cases; the Fifth Circuit, with its cavalier disregard of human rights (or, indeed, actual humans whenever possible) will be confirming sentences right and left and probably trying to encourage the states to go for death sentences whenever possible even if they didn't do so in the first place. (Yes, yes, I know that's not possible. Nonetheless, the Fifth has a reputation to uphold.)

January 19, 2012

supreme court guts public domain in u.s.

Public Domain Works Can Be Copyrighted Anew, Supreme Court Rules (nytimes.com) By ADAM LIPTAK Published: January 18, 2012

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a federal law that restored copyright protection to works that had entered the public domain. By a 6-to-2 vote, the justices rejected arguments based on the First Amendment and the Constitution’s copyright clause, saying that the public domain was not “a category of constitutional significance” and that copyright protections might be expanded even if they did not create incentives for new works to be created.

The case, Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, considered a 1994 law enacted to carry out an international convention. The law applied mainly to works first published abroad from 1923 to 1989 that had earlier not been eligible for copyright protection under American law, including films by Alfred Hitchcock, books by C. S. Lewis and Virginia Woolf, symphonies by Prokofiev and Stravinsky and paintings by Picasso. The precise number of affected works is unknown but “probably number in the millions,” Marybeth Peters, the United States register of copyrights, said in 1996. The law was challenged by orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists who said they had relied for years on the free availability of such works.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the law had merely put “foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts. [...] Assuming a foreign and domestic author died the same day, their works will enter the public domain simultaneously,” she wrote.

The issue, as noted, is that there are works which are foreign and became public domain in the US, but were still copyrighted in other parts of the world. Congress passed legislation to re-copyright some items to bring the US into full compliance with the Berne Convention.

One of the arguments by the plaintiffs was that this would effectively allow Congress to legislate effectively perpetual copyright status. The Court majority politely disagreed. This is because they've already agreed with Congress that it has the right to legislate effectively perpetual copyright, in Eldred v. Ashcroft.

In a post at Ars Technica, the article mentions that one of the plaintiff lawyers says that the decision "suggests Congress is not required to pay particularly close attention to the interests of the public when it passes copyright laws." To which, of course, the proper response is, "Well, DUH! When was the last time YOU noticed Congress paying particularly close attention to the interests of the public regarding ... well, anything?"

It will, no doubt, be presented in various places as Big Media Buys Off Congress And Court Agrees. (Though, to be fair, Big Media apparently bought off Europe first.) Or, The House of Mouse Wins A Fight They Weren't Even Fighting, or something like that. Even if the issue was bringing the U.S. into compliance with its treaty obligations -- which is the basis for the Court's decision -- it's hard not to notice that a number of the entities who will benefit from this decision are also the same ones who benefited from the Court's last major copyright decision. And that one WAS a case where Big Media Bought Congress.

If nothing else, the decision did manage to produce a striking combination of dissenters. Except in unanimous decisions -- which the Court rarely has about anything important these days -- you would rarely find Breyer and Alito in agreement. But in this case, in Breyer's dissent, in which he was joined by Alito, they both agreed that the copyright authority in the constitution was meant to be much more limited than this decision implied, and that this decision "abridges a pre-existing freedom to speak".

It's going to be interesting to see what happens. There are many items in various digital repositories, like Google Books and Hathi Trust -- items considered "orphan works", not purely because the copyright term had expired, but because the potential holders of copyright were no longer in business or could not be located -- that suddenly now have copyright protection previously lacking. What happens with those items? It also gives further ammuntion to the lawsuits against those projects.

For various academic and public interests, it's going to be a brave new world, figuring out what now is and is not covered, and what they're allowed to do.

January 17, 2012

arizona vs its hispanic population -- again

Will TUSD Violate a Federal Court Order Tonight? (tucsonweekly.com) Posted by Mari Herreras on Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:30 PM

When the Tucson Unified School District governing board meets tonight it could mean several possibilities, including an expected vote to not appeal state Superintendent John Huppenthal's recent ruling on Friday, Jan. 6 that the district's Mexican American Studies classes are illegal. If the district appeals it would force the state to take their case before a Superior Court judge and prevent Huppenthal from financially penalizing the district withholding more than $10 million in state aid.

But if a majority of board members vote against an appeal and begin the process of dismantling the current Mexican American Studies program, some wonder if the district will be in violation of a federal desegregation order and the district's own 2009 Post-Unitarian Status plan approved by court.

Sylvia Campoy, a former TUSD teacher, school board member and director of the city of Tucson's Equal Opportunity Program, has been involved in the TUSD desegregation litigation for more than 30 years and now represents the Mendoza plaintiff's at TUSD desegregation meetings, told the Range that she plans to speak at tonight's meeting to remind the governing board that yes, if indeed they choose not to appeal Huppenthal's ruling, they could be violating the district's federal court-approved deseg plan....

Arizona Orders Tucson to End Mexican-American Studies Program - NYTimes.com

By MARC LACEY
January 7, 2011

TUCSON — The class began with a Mayan-inspired chant and a vigorous round of coordinated hand clapping. The classroom walls featured protest signs, including one that said “United Together in La Lucha!” — the struggle. Although open to any student at Tucson High Magnet School, nearly all of those attending Curtis Acosta’s Latino literature class on a recent morning were Mexican-American.

For all of that and more, Mr. Acosta’s class and others in the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American program have been declared illegal by the State of Arizona — even while similar programs for black, Asian and American Indian students have been left untouched.

“It’s propagandizing and brainwashing that’s going on there,” Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected attorney general, said this week as he officially declared the program in violation of a state law that went into effect on Jan. 1.

Although Shakespeare’s “Tempest” was supposed to be the topic at hand, Mr. Acosta spent most of a recent class discussing the political storm in which he, his students and the entire district have become enmeshed. Mr. Horne’s name came up more than once, and not in a flattering light. It was Mr. Horne, as the state’s superintendent of public instruction, who wrote a law aimed at challenging Tucson’s ethnic-studies program. The Legislature passed the measure last spring, and Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law in May amid the fierce protests raging over the state’s immigration crackdown.

For the state, the issue is not so much “The Tempest” as some of the other texts used in the classes, among them, “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Occupied America,” which Mr. Horne said inappropriately teach Latino youths that they are being mistreated.

Teaching methods in the classes are sometimes unconventional, with instructors scrutinizing hip-hop lyrics and sprinkling their lessons with Spanish words.

The state, which includes some Mexican-American studies in its official curriculum, sees the classes as less about educating students than creating future activists.

In Mr. Acosta’s literature class, students were clearly concerned. They asked if their graduation was at risk. They asked if they were considered terrorists because Mr. Horne described them as wanting to topple the government. They asked how they could protest the decision.

Then, one young woman asked Mr. Acosta how he was holding up. “They wrote a state law to snuff this program out, just us little Chicanitos,” he said, wiping away tears. “The idea of losing this is emotional.” [...]


Holder: Voting rights under attack in states
Mcclatchy Newspapers Mcclatchy Newspapers | Posted: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:00 am (azstarnet.com)

In his bluntest comments to date, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that voting rights, particularly for minorities, are under assault in some states.

Speaking at a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday event in Columbia, Holder said some states had sued to challenge provisions of the Voting Rights Act and had approved new laws that would make it difficult for some minorities to register and vote this year, five decades after King and other civil rights leaders fought for access to the ballot box.

"Each of these lawsuits claims that we've attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2012 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965," Holder told hundreds who gathered outside the domed Capitol. "I wish that were the case. But the reality is that - in jurisdictions across the country - both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common." [...] Holder's comments come nearly four weeks after the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division ruled that South Carolina's voter identification law was discriminatory because it would make voting harder for minorities, who lack sufficient forms of government-approved ID more often than whites do. Justice Department officials weighed in on the law under Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires approval of proposed voting-law changes in 16 mostly Southern states because they have histories of discrimination. Arizona is one of those states....


2 AZ bills would allow Bible class in schools (azstarnet.com)
Rhonda Bodfield
Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:00 am

A Republican lawmaker from Tucson wants to allow the Bible to be taught as an elective in high school. State Rep. Terri Proud said the concept is gaining support among her colleagues in the House.

Current state law states that a teacher who uses sectarian or denominational books, or who teaches any sectarian doctrine in school, is guilty of unprofessional conduct and may have his or her license revoked.

Proud said HB 2563 and HB 2473 aren't about bringing church in the classroom, but aim to familiarize students with the way biblical references impact literature, art, music and public policy. Proud said that in her discussions with teachers as a member of the House Education Committee, she's heard from many who are fearful of even mentioning God or the Bible in the classroom.

Tucson Unified School District Superintendent John Pedicone said it strikes him as an unnecessary bill. The Bible in its historical context is already addressed in various courses as it becomes relevant, he said, and there's also nothing in law now that expressly prohibits a teacher from talking about it. "I suppose it could give it more of a focus and make sure people understand that, but I'm not sure that's the reason we pass laws. I don't think it belongs in legislation," he said

But Proud said that, while she agrees that there's nothing in law now that prohibits teaching about the Bible, the fear of getting in trouble for it hamstrings teachers. Biblical references are rife throughout Shakespeare's works, she said, and it would be nearly impossible to teach an art-history class and discuss Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" without having the appropriate religious context.

That makes some degree of sense to Tucson Democratic lawmaker Steve Farley. "If a student is reading Shakespeare and doesn't understand biblical sources, they aren't going to get as much out of it," Farley said, adding that he would encourage students to have some foundational knowledge of the Quran as well.

But Proud said she has no intention of adding the Quran to the mix. "The Quran hasn't influenced Western culture the way the Bible has," she said, noting students already learn about some ancient religions, including Greek and Roman gods, in their coursework.....

Apparently, Representative Proud has never heard of Arabic numbers. Which would explain a lot, really. But I digress, already.

So, let me get this straight-ish:

Arizona wants to make teaching the Bible a requirement, which would be illegal under both state and federal law.

In the meantime, they have stripped Tucson of a particular Mexican American literature class, despite being under federal orders to expand the Mexican American studies department specifically at the middle and high school levels. A law rather clearly aimed at that one class, but having broader effects for the entire school district.

...All-righty, then!

I am mildly, if only mildly, surprised that Tucson chose not to challenge the ruling. I mean, on the one hand, we're talking about Arizona, land of consent decrees (two, even!), Arpaio, and an unspeakable "driving while Hispanic" law that the courts have so far not looked favorably on. 'Nuff said, really. On the other hand, the existence of those two consent decrees means that Tucson had to know that it won't be long before this decision itself gets challenged in court, both by affected students as a class and by the federal government, which will not be well pleased at having Tucson abrogate its part in the agreement. Why wouldn't you put yourself on the side of the requirements you're supposed to be meeting, and challenge that way? I suppose there's some rhetorical advantage to be gained by saying some of the more ... vocal, shall we say, constituents, "Look, we didn't want to reinstate these courses! The feds made us do it! We're the victims of a nondiscriminatory federal bureaucracy and out-of-control judiciary! Us! We're the victims here!"

On the other hand ... despite their best efforts, Arizona is becoming more Hispanic. More slowly than before, of course -- a state that has demonstrated an unseemly aggression and glee in legislating against its Hispanic minority is not a place that most sane Hispanic peoples would choose to move to. On the other hand, more and more are simply being born there. Arizona can slow down the demographic change, but not prevent it. And things like this: they will be remembered.

Copyright © 1999 - February 2012 Iain Jackson, after-words.org

? chicago blogs ?

Listed on BlogShares

 


Valid CSS!