I’ve known former-Judge Tommy Jewell for a couple of decades in the most superficial social way. I run with lawyers and judges the way some run with wolves. A very long time ago, I attended a party at which Woody and the Woodpeckers, a band of judges, played — Jewell was their drummer.

I do know that Jewell served for many years as a judge and, particularly, with matters of family law. And, it matters little to me, but he is married and has children. We might call him a pillar of the community.

So, soon after his retirement as a judge, his appointment to head Children, Youth and Family in New Mexico seemed a very good fit. Here is a judicious man used to getting difficult things done.

So what happened? How did the wheels fly off the cart in such a short time? What is Tommy Jewell guilty of?

I have no idea; do you? I know that soon after his nomination, an anonymous women pointed out a sealed court case involving her and Jewell and a restraining order. Now, I respect her right to privacy, which has to be slightly greater than for a public figure like Jewell. And, I know restraining orders are good and necessary tools to protect victims of abuse. Of course, restraining orders can also be abused, as we saw in the case of the lunatic in Santa Fe attempting to restrain Letterman from communicating with her via TV.

How can Jewell be driven out of this by something so lacking in details? I don’t want the detail — let the Governor or state Supreme Court look into it. If there is something in this situation, other than inuendo and controversy, that disqualifies Jewell from this position, I want him disqualified. If there is something genuinely unseemly involved, I’m not sure I want to know.

What troubles me most, even more than the constant assault on public figures (to which I mightily contribute), is the underlying secrecy. Again, I respect privacy. But secrecy is becoming a national obsession that threatens our freedom. And secrecy in this case may be denying us the best person for the job. mjh

ABQjournal: Jewell Declines CYFD Position; Former Judge Was Set To Take Over Today By Leann Holt, Journal Staff Writer

According to news reports about the domestic violence case, a Sandoval County judge did not grant the woman a temporary restraining order, saying her accusations were “unsubstantiated and scandalous.” The judge then sealed the case. …

Jewell, a nationally recognized children’s advocate and leader in juvenile justice reform, apologized in his letter for not telling the governor about the domestic violence allegations before taking the job.

“Since the accusations were reported in the media and the case was sealed, I believed it was resolved and in the past,” he wrote.

Tom Swisstack, director of the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center, said Jewell was instrumental in making Bernalillo County a national model for detention reform when he was a judge. He said Jewell’s ability to help people work together was something the department needed.

ABQjournal: Appointee Vetting to Change; Gov. To Require Disclosure Form By Deborah Baker, The Associated Press

A woman— not Jewell’s wife— requested a temporary restraining order against the judge in 1999. The case was shifted to Sandoval County, where a judge didn’t grant the order— calling the accusations “unsubstantiated and scandalous”— and sealed the case. …

“Here was a man with an impeccable record, a great reputation. A community leader. We thought we had a real gem,” Richardson said. “And, obviously, I wish he had said, ‘Well, by the way, there was this incident.’ ”

Just a couple of days ago, I wrote that one should not quote me as evidence in support of an argument. Now, I find I have been quoted in just such a case.

New Mexicans for Science and Reason March 2006 Newsletter

Hinton on Gammill…

NMSR has been arguing with Intelligent Design
creationist Paul Gammill for a decade. Albuquerque blogger
Mark Justice Hinton jumped into the fray last September, after
another of Gammill’s letters was published in the Albuquerque
Journal. Hinton wrote “Because we haven’t explained it, we
can’t ever? Thank god that perspective didn’t take hold before
the Enlightenment (though the same people tried their
darndest to hang onto the Dark Ages). Genetic code is a
language? So, is the author crediting god with all language,
too? Or, as the creators of language, can we also create life?
NO exceptions or no known exceptions? ID proponents seem
very quick to embrace endless ignorance. Gammill seems to
confuse the way he views the world with the way the world is.
Common mistake among the arrogant. …”

Nice to see other folks are getting it!

www.edgewiseblog.com/mjh/001053.htm

Dear NMSR,

I am surprised and honored to find myself implicitly among reasonable New Mexicans. In the interest of fairness, I will admit ample evidence to the contrary, though I hope no evidence of me being anti-science can be found. Of course, that quote about world-view and arrogance will surely be used against me; I hope I am the first to do so.

peace, mjh

Congress.org
Motion to Waive CBA; Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005

Rejected: 58-41

By 58 yeas to 41 nays (Vote No. 21), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the Specter motion to waive section 407, limitation on long-term spending proposals, of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, with respect to the bill and Frist (for Specter/Leahy) Amendment No. 2746 (listed above). Subsequently, the Ensign point of order against the bill is sustained, pursuant to section 312(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, the bill is recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary; provided further, that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Frist (for Specter/Leahy) Amendment No. 2746, and the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill were vitiated.

What the hell happened here? I assume from the name, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, that said “fairness” was pro-industry, probably suppressing those “frivolous” lawsuits that help restrain capitalist cruelty when government won’t. But the act was of 2005 and the vote was last week. And our Senators split. Does it clarify that Domenici voted ‘yea’ and Bingaman ‘nay’ — that is, Domenici wanted to stop a filibuster, but on what matter? mjh

Update 2/21/06: A Washington Post Editorial adds a little to my understanding (if you read the whole thing). Here’s a piece:

A Challenge for Mr. Frist

The chief hope for reform lies in a Senate bill that would shift asbestos claims from the courts to a $140 billion compensation fund run by the federal government. Sick people, including those excluded from compensation by the tort lottery, would be entitled to payments. Lawyers’ fees would be capped at 5 percent of settlements. The fund would be financed by companies responsible for asbestos, with no direct burden on taxpayers. But the bill was defeated last week in a vote that was technically about the budget impact of reform; “I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers and the future,” intoned Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who forced the so-called budget point of order. Mr. Ensign’s charge was false, but 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans accepted it.

DCCC.org: New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid National Radio Address

“When it comes to Medicare, America can do better”

If there was any doubt who benefited most from the Medicare plan, this ought to provide an answer:

The Republican Committee Chairman who guided the plan through Congress turned around and immediately became the top lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry — at a multi-million dollar salary. He and his industry cashed in, while America’s seniors and taxpayers are paying more. …

Under the Bush Administration and Republican Congress, the special interests and their lobbyists are writing our laws — and reaping the benefits.

We don’t have to allow these special interests to undermine our efforts to provide affordable prescription drugs for the seniors who need them. America can do better. And under a Democratic Congress, it will.

Patricia Madrid For Congress

Did anyone else notice that after wasting his swan song pissing on the blogosphere, Steve Lawrence has a new line (sorry). OK,

The Line on KNME (7pm Fridays) isn’t quite new anymore, and surely not New Media (until it has a podcast — YAWN!).

But

hold on. After Lawrence excoriated bloggers, who joins him on the set: Joe Monahan, one of the few bloggers making money. And what’s

this?! Next week, conservative blogger Mario Burgos will be the guest (what, is Greg Payne afraid to ride the bus after dark? Is Bohnsack

too busy re-writing Pong for Ruby?). And, no, I haven’t overlooked that regular Gene Grant is a blogger (I may be the only person Gene

Grant ever yelled at on his blog — or possibly anywhere). So, is Steve surrounding himself with bloggers to make himself look good by

comparison?

Regular readers would assume I had to be happy that Joe replaced Dimdahl for the week. Surprise! The ever dour, fast-

talking monotone Monahan made me miss the sly Burnsian-smile of Dimdahl, his skin so smooth and hair perfectly white (or are those hairs

transparent, like a polar bear’s?). Though I can’t stand Dimdahl most of the time, I imagine it most be wonderful to sit with Dimmy in

the warming hut aprés ski, drinking wine and passing a fatty; he’s probably brilliant while high.

I’d say we all need to

support these local TV shows, though Kate Nelson’s In Focus at 7:30pm is much better — The Line is the McLaughlin Group for people

under 50. But after my re-education at TheFix, I adhere to Capital

Darwinism which declares “if you can’t make a go of it, sod off, ya wanker!” It’s the profit motive, stupid! mjh