you could recommend that universities amend their diversity mandates, which now cover race and gender, to include “diversity based on political and religious affiliation.”

I blogged about this a few days ago on my own site, but it’s worth adding here: bloggers who want to support Maye can prevent the issue from sliding off their front page and into their archives by getting a pro-Maye banner or button and linking it to www.mayeisinnocent.com or some such site. I made my own (shown here), but Laura Denyes has a whole page full, with codes.

The war bloggers at Hit and Run and elsewhere have pointed to the London bombing as evidence to justify the Iraq War. Previously, however, many of these same war bloggers had asserted that the lack of a terrorist attack in Britain and the United States was evidence that the Iraq war was a success.

I noticed the same phenonemon after the the Madrid bombing. At the time, I made the case that those who tried to deply both arguments for the war had not only contradicted themselves but had flunked Karl Popper's test of falsifiability. Let me restate what I said then. Only this time, I will subsitute the words London for Madrid.

According to Popper,"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory....but a vice."

I submit that advocates of the pro-war position seem generally oblivious to the need to fulfill this test and thus fail Popper's falsifiability principle.

Here is the pro-war approach to the London Bombing and the question of terrorism in general:

Terrorism goes up? One argument for why the Iraq war/occupation was justified.

Terrorism goes down? One argument for why the Iraq war/occupation was justified.

I will admit that the pro-war folks have a lot of moxie. They contend (or at least strongly imply) that the London bombing provides an argument for why their side was right all along.

On the other hand, any fair advocate of the anti-war position would admit that the case against the war/occupation can be falsified. Thus....

Terrorism goes up? One argument for why the Iraq war/occupation was unjustfied.

Terrorism goes down? One argument for why the Iraq war/occupation was justified.

When will the pro-war side construct a set of arguments that can be tested by Karl Popper's falsifiability principle? In other words, when will they tell us how their position can be refuted? We are waiting.

Just found out this a.m. that the Town of Prentiss has"decided to go another route" pertaining to my position as town public defender. In other words, they have now made official what was intimated to me back in December and have fired me.

The explicit and sole reason given to me by the mayor was that my representation of Cory Maye was not to the liking of the aldermen. I guess it wasn't to the mayor's liking either since, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't veto their decision. Of course, I have no doubt that it's a politically popular decision among the Caucasians of Prentiss. But what in life is not, at least to some extent, political?

When apprised that this move was being contemplated, although I doubted that it would make any difference I requested the courtesy of being allowed to appear before the board to express my reasons for representing Cory. They did not deign to grant me this opportunity.

I have been Prentiss public defender officially (salaried) since February 1995 and unofficially for several years prior. During that time not one official complaint has been communicated to me about my performance. Of course, there have been many unofficial complaints about me"getting all those guilty people off."

What it boils down to is something that I have known and personally observed about members of the"unwashed masses" for many years: When the Constitution and Bill of Rights are applied to benefit others, the right to counsel, due process, fair trial et al. are"technicalities". Criminals get off on technicalities such as the 4th Amendment. Only when one of their asses is in a sling are these same documents"fundamental rights".

But what the hell. Four hundred a month ain't gonna bankrupt me. This decision, to me, is an indication that the"powers that be" actually believe that we can win Cory's appeal. That is a refreshing thought. I have always liked the adage"He who laughs last laughs best."

This afternoon, I made some phone calls to Prentiss officials to verify the reason for Evans' firing. My first call was to the mayor, Charles Dumas. One thing to keep in mind about Dumas -- he's very close to the family of the late Officer Ron Jones. In fact, in one December 28, 2001 article from the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Dumas is described as spokesperson"on behalf of the Jones family."

Mayor Dumas told me he couldn't say one way or the other if Evans' story was true, and that if I wanted to know why the Board fired Evans, I'd have to talk to the aldermen. I asked him specifically about the conversation Evans said they had this morning, in which, according to Evans, Mayor Dumas said the termination was in direct retaliation for Evans' representation of Maye. Mayor Dumas said,"Bob and I had a personal conversation. I won't comment on that. You'll have to ask the Board why they fired him."

So I called the board. Aldermen Terry Brinson and Robert G. Miller didn't answer their phones, and had no answering machine or voicemail. I left messages on the answering machines of Aldermen Danny L. Daniels and Willie Davis.

The only alderman I was able to get in touch with was Sylvia Ward. Ward told me that she didn't feel comfortable telling me why the Board fired Evans, and that if I really wanted to know, I'd have to come down to Mississippi and ask the board"as a whole." I told her that the Mayor told me only the board could tell me why Evans was fired, but that I had reason to believe it was because he was serving as counsel for Cory Maye. Again, she said, I'd either need to request a copy of the minutes or come down to Mississippi and make my request in person.

You are, of course, free to draw your own conclusions here. But of the two Prentiss officials I've spoken with so far, neither has denied that his representation of Maye was the reason for Evans' termination, and both were rather coy when I suggested it.

It seems pretty clear to me that Evans was fired from his job as Prentiss public defender in direct retaliation for representing the man who shot the town police chief's son in his death row appeal.

The fact that the town took such petty retaliatory measures against a public defender for doing exactly what he's supposed to do -- represent an indigent defendant -- certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the way justice is meted out in Prentiss.

Archive of Cory Maye posts here.

To put it bluntly, our asses were thoroughly kicked, not just once but twice. We sought an endorsement by Historians Against the War and lost by a vote of 15 to 4. There, I argued that, if we are strong enough to be free, we must be strong enough to endure offensive speech, but a largely unthinking soft Left majority prevailed because"I'm against speech codes, but they don't inhibit opposition to the war." HAW made sure that its majority was notified when the issue arose in the AHA business meeting. There I reminded those in attendance that, despite our specific request, David Montgomery's OAH Committee on Academic Freedom had refused to address the issue of speech codes. That irritates me personally because the issue was brought to their attention and two of that committee's four members have been friends of mine for 30 and 40 years.

The only really bright spot was that Jonathan Rose, a distinguished historian at Drew University, offered an eloquent and impassioned plea in support of our position. Lest you forget – and dismiss our position as a reactionary camel's nose under the tent – I'd remind you that Jonathan Rose is the author of the multiple prize-winning The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes. When our substitute resolution lost on a voice vote, Professor Rose walked out of the meeting. In a subsequent e-mail to me, he wrote:"I could no longer stand the fog of stupidity in the room and the obvious dishonesty of our opponents (‘Of course I oppose speech codes -- but...')." You read that correctly. Those who voted against the substitute resolution in HAW"because speech codes don't inhibit opposition to the war" came to the AHA business meeting to vote against the substitute motion"because speech codes are a complicated issue, not a matter of pressing concern." But I heard a couple of old war horses on the Left, who have no record in favor of free speech, say"Of course, I oppose speech codes, but ...." I, for one, intend to hold their bloody hooves to the fire on their commitment to the first part of that statement. We could have brought the meeting to a halt by persisting in pointing out that there was no quorum present, but decided that it was more important to resolve against David Horowitz's"Academic Bill of Rights." Next year, supporters of speech codes had better get at least 100 members of the AHA to its business meeting.

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

I haven't read it yet.