<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Alan Berlow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/alan_berlow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ardor in the court, Part 3</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/21/hood_case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/21/hood_case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death Penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/hood_case</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Texas court affirms the right of a judge and a prosecutor who slept together to condemn a man to death]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If anyone had any doubt that the Texas justice system operates in a parallel universe, look no further than the latest decision by the state's highest court in the case of death-row inmate Charles Dean Hood. On Wednesday the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) said it wasn't interested in examining whether there was a conflict of interest in Hood's 1990 trial simply because District Attorney Thomas S. O'Connell Jr., Hood's prosecutor, had had a long-term sexual relationship with presiding Judge Verla Sue Holland, an affair the two tried to hide for 20 years.</p><p>In 1989, Hood was convicted of murdering Ronald Williamson and Tracie Lynn Wallace. The Holland-O'Connell affair was first reported by Salon in 2005, quoting anonymous sources. Judge Holland refused to either confirm or deny the affair at the time. A year ago this month, Holland and D.A. O'Connell, both since retired, acknowledged under oath that they had had a long-term sexual relationship, which was never revealed during more than a decade of appeals by Hood's lawyers. In her defense, Judge Holland said the affair ended more than two years before Hood's trial. But O'Connell also testified that the two had discussed marriage, and recalled that the affair continued as late as mid-1989 -- just before Hood's trial. He said the two continued to have a "good relationship," sans sex, during and after the trial. He said the two took a trip together in 1991.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/09/21/hood_case/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/09/21/hood_case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>116</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ardor in the court, Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/14/hood_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/14/hood_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death Penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/14/hood</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Salon reported on an alleged affair between judge and prosecutor in a Texas murder trial. Now, days before Charles Hood's scheduled execution, his lawyers make the allegation in court papers.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rarely in the annals of criminal justice does a conflict of interest get more sordid or have greater consequences than this. Charles Dean Hood is scheduled to be executed in Texas on Tuesday morning. In 1990, when he was on trial for capital murder in the Dallas suburbs, the presiding judge who imposed that death sentence and the local prosecutor who was trying to have Hood put to death had been involved in a "long-term intimate relationship." </p><p>That's according to papers filed by Hood's attorneys in two Texas courts Thursday. Hood's lawyers allege that Texas state court Judge Verla Sue Holland had a "personal and direct interest in the outcome of the case," and was disqualified from trying the case under the Texas Constitution because of her ongoing affair with Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell. Hood's lawyers are seeking a stay of execution and the reversal of his conviction and death sentence. </p><p>Allegations that Judge Holland and District Attorney O'Connell were romantically involved when Holland presided over the murder case prosecuted by O'Connell were <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair/index.html">first reported in Salon</a> in June 2005. But yesterday's petition, which cites the original Salon report, marks the first time Hood's lawyers have taken the matter to court. The "wall of silence that has long protected Judge Holland must now come down," the lawyers argue in their filing. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/06/14/hood_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/06/14/hood_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who would Antonin Scalia torture?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/lethal_injection/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/lethal_injection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Torture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2008/01/02/lethal_injection</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Next week, when the Supreme Court hears a case challenging the use of lethal injections, we may learn more about the legal limits to state-sanctioned pain.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last June during a panel discussion in Ottawa about terrorism and the use of torture, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stood up for the TV torturer extraordinaire and hero of Fox Broadcasting's <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/24/">"24."</a> Scalia insisted that the fictional spy had "saved hundreds of thousands of lives" using tough interrogation tactics to stop a terrorist from nuking Los Angeles. </p><p>"Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?" Scalia scoffed. He went on to argue that when it comes to torture, "the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes." </p><p>The clear implication was that Justice Scalia does not believe in an absolute ban on torture -- at least when it comes to suspected terrorists. That's a popular view these days, particularly among members of the Bush administration, although the hard questions of whether there are any limits on the use of torture have yet to be fully tested in the courts. We may get a somewhat better idea of just how far Scalia and his colleagues would go in tolerating abusive treatment of prisoners -- or what some would call torture -- next week when the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/supreme_court/">Supreme Court</a> considers a case challenging the use of lethal injections in execution. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/lethal_injection/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/lethal_injection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>94</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The politics of injustice</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/12/09/warner_clemency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/12/09/warner_clemency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/09/warner_clemency</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The testimony of one bogus witness put Larry Fowlkes away on murder charges for 45 years. Will presidential hopeful Gov. Mark Warner set him free?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> With his decision in late November to spare the life of condemned killer Robin Lovitt, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner avoided the dubious distinction of presiding over the nation's 1,000th execution in the modern era of capital punishment. Instead, it fell to his neighbors in North Carolina, who put Kenneth Lee Boyd to death on Dec. 2. </p><p> Warner, a moderate Democrat, is expected to devote himself full-time to a run for the White House in 2008. But with a month left in his term as governor, the 51-year-old presidential hopeful is not out of the woods when it comes to messy questions of murder and justice in the American legal system. While the media focus on the pending execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the notorious Crips gang leader seeking clemency in California for rehabilitating himself in prison, Warner finds himself embroiled in a struggle over the blatant miscarriage of justice. Before departing office, he must address no fewer than three major cases involving possible wrongful convictions in the Virginia courts. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/12/09/warner_clemency/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/12/09/warner_clemency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ardor in the court</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Death Penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the judge and prosecutor involved in a capital case are sleeping together, can the defendant possibly get a fair trial? Meet Charles Dean Hood, on Texas' death row.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's a not very tough question of legal ethics to ponder over the morning coffee: Let's say you're on trial for murder, and the judge and the prosecutor in your case have been having an affair. Is it possible for you to get a fair trial? </p><p> In the case of Charles Dean Hood, the short answer is, "Don't bet your life on it." </p><p> Hood, who was sentenced to death for a 1989 double murder, is scheduled to be executed by the state of Texas on June 30. Unfortunately for Hood, in the 15 years since he arrived on death row, the issue of the strange and not-so-secret relationship of State District Court Judge Verla Sue Holland and Collin County District Attorney Tom O'Connell has never been raised in a single state or federal court. </p><p>Now, it should be stated at the outset that the private affairs of public officials, including extra-marital relations, should under all but the most extraordinary circumstances remain solely the business of the parties involved. </p><p>But when a person is charged with a serious crime and his life hangs in the balance, such a private relationship may well become a matter of public interest, because the public has a right to know that the judicial process that prosecutors and judges swear to uphold will not be compromised. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/06/24/texas_court_affair/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Death knell for the death penalty?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/10/texas_death_penalty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/10/texas_death_penalty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 19:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/10/texas_death_penalty</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Texas legislators -- yes, Texas -- are on the verge of approving a law that could result in a decline in executions nationwide.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In January 2001, Texas Gov. Rick Perry concluded that it was time for the Texas Legislature to "take a good hard look" at allowing juries to sentence capital defendants to prison for the rest of their lives, with no chance for parole, instead of executing them. Three years later, Perry himself still had not made up his own mind on whether to give Texas juries the authority that jurors in 36 of the 38 death penalty states have. And that was too bad for Kelsey Patterson, a psychotic death-row inmate who believed his actions were controlled by implants in his brain. On May 18, 2004, Perry said he was compelled to deny Patterson clemency, despite an unprecedented 5-1 recommendation by the Texas parole board that the sentence be commuted to life in prison. </p><p>"After carefully reviewing all the facts in this case," the Republican governor said, Patterson would have to be executed because Texas had no statute mandating life without parole "and no one can guarantee this defendant would never be freed to commit other crimes were his sentence commuted." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/05/10/texas_death_penalty/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/05/10/texas_death_penalty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gonzales&#8217; unbelievable argument</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/14/gonzales_22/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/14/gonzales_22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/14/gonzales</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The attorney general nominee claims he and then Texas Gov. Bush held "rolling" discussions before executions were approved. He's almost certainly not telling the truth.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In seven hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Alberto Gonzales demonstrated astute powers of evasion, obfuscation and equivocation when it came to the Bush administration's torture policy, leading one Democratic senator, Joseph Biden of Delaware, to ever so gently suggest that the attorney general nominee might be less than totally forthcoming. "So we're looking for candor, ol' buddy. We're looking for you when we ask you questions to give us an answer, which you haven't done yet. I love you, but you're not very candid so far." </p><p> In the end, few senators wanted to sully the Gonzales love-in just because the sworn testimony of the soon-to-be rubber-stamped head of the nation's chief law enforcement agency was not entirely responsive. But if Gonzales was lacking in candor on the subject of torture, the main thrust of the hearing, he almost certainly crossed the line from half-truth to untruth when it came to a discussion of his role in the execution of 57 Texas death row inmates. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/01/14/gonzales_22/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/14/gonzales_22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The facilitator</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/06/gonzales_death/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/06/gonzales_death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/06/gonzales_death</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Alberto Gonzales briefed George W. Bush on the cases of Texas death row inmates up for clemency, his memos were so shabby they seemed intended solely to make it easy for Bush to send prisoners to their deaths.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that conventional wisdom has focused attention on "moral values" as our paramount national concern, it might be worth spending a few minutes considering how President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, dealt with one of those values -- human life -- on 57 occasions. </p><p>Gonzales' values, to say nothing of his legal judgment, have come in for scrutiny of late due in part to his supposedly aggressive questioning of homeland security nominee Bernard Kerik (which failed to uncover extramarital affairs, unpaid taxes on an illegally employed nanny, a warrant for his arrest related to unpaid condo fees, and alleged links to organized crime), as well as to two highly controversial memoranda Gonzales authorized for Bush that laid out the case for torturing prisoners taken in the "war against terrorism." Whether Gonzales' central role in designing policies that may have led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and other military facilities should disqualify him for the job of attorney general will be a major focus of his Senate confirmation hearing set to begin Thursday morning. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2005/01/06/gonzales_death/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2005/01/06/gonzales_death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Supreme Court shocker</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2001/07/04/oconnor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2001/07/04/oconnor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2001 22:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/07/04/oconnor</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sandra Day O'Connor's criticisms of the death penalty couldn't have come from a more unlikely source.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> What makes Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's suggestion to a group of Minneapolis women attorneys Monday that the judicial system "may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed" particularly eerie is that it came 25 years <i>to the day</i> after the Supreme Court handed down its Gregg vs. Georgia decision, which reinstated the death penalty after a brief hiatus. </p><p> And yet, it might be more surprising that such a speech even came from O'Connor. The Justice, the latest in a growing chorus of conservative death penalty supporters -- some of whom have been severely critical of how it is applied -- has rarely expressed any misgivings about the way the states mete out death sentences. Rather, she has been a key swing vote on numerous of the Court's death penalty decisions, including several in which profound questions of innocence and due process were raised. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2001/07/04/oconnor/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2001/07/04/oconnor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Janet Reno&#8217;s fatal decision</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/22/death_10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/22/death_10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/12/22/death</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The attorney general must soon decide whether to try to save a possibly innocent man from the electric chair -- or leave the case for an incoming administration unlikely to do so.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does <a href="/directory/topics/janet_reno/">Attorney General Janet Reno</a> really want to allow David Ronald Chandler to become the first person executed under federal law since 1963? That's a question the nation's top law enforcement officer has had several months to ponder. She faced a Dec. 27 deadline to make up her mind, but then filed for an extension. Now, she has until Jan. 20, when she leaves office. </p><p> And based on her own professed beliefs about criminal justice reform, this case is likely making for a wrenching decision as her eight-year term comes to a close. </p><p> Chandler, a 48 year-old former marijuana grower from Alabama, was convicted in 1991 on murder and drug conspiracy charges. His case is exceptional for several reasons, not the least of which is that he may be innocent. When the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals voted last summer to uphold his conviction and death sentence by a 6-5 vote, the majority acknowledged that "the evidence of guilt [on the murder charge] was not overwhelming," a standard of guilt even some death-penalty supporters should have a hard time swallowing. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/12/22/death_10/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/12/22/death_10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas justice</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/31/ochoa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/31/ochoa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/10/31/ochoa</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What made timid honors student Christopher Ochoa confess to a rape and murder that he almost certainly did not commit?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At 9:55 p.m. on February 27, 1991, an inmate named Richard Danziger at a Texas prison near Amarillo was brutally assaulted by another inmate, who threw him to the ground and kicked him in the head repeatedly with his steel-tipped boots. Danziger was taken to a nearby hospital where emergency surgery was performed and part of his brain was removed. The other guy, Armando Gutierrez, was serving an 18-year sentence for assaulting a police officer, and had an additional 25 years put on his sentence for nearly killing Danziger. And as it turns out, Gutierrez had thought Danziger was someone else entirely. He'd jumped the wrong man. </p><p> So too, it now appears, did the State of Texas. Two of them, in fact. </p><p> At the time Danziger was attacked, he and another man, his onetime roommate and friend, Christopher Ochoa, were serving life sentences for the brutal 1988 murder of 20-year-old Nancy DePriest, the mother of a 15-month-old baby girl. According to the sordid testimony in Danziger's trial, the two men repeatedly raped De Priest at an Austin Pizza Hut where she was working, including twice after she'd been shot in the back of the head. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/31/ochoa/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/31/ochoa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gov. Bush&#8217;s office ignored murder confession</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/13/texas_10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/13/texas_10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/10/13/texas</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two and a half years later, the two men convicted of the crime still sit in prison.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Feb. 25, 1998, the office of Texas Gov. George W. Bush received an extremely unusual <a href="/politics/2000/10/13/prison_letter/index.html">letter.</a> Handwritten in curly script across the top of the first page, just above the salutation -- "Dear Governor Bush Sir" -- were the words "RE: Murder Confession." </p><p> In the four-page letter its author, Achim Josef Marino, a 39-year-old state prison inmate serving a life sentence for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, described how he had "robbed, raped and shot" 20-year-old Nancy DePriest at a Pizza Hut in Austin in October 1988. Marino explained that at the time of the murder "I was insane," and that since then he had undergone a "Christian conversion" and "spiritual awakening" and was fully prepared to be executed for killing the young woman. </p><p>Perhaps most startling about Marino's letter was his assertion that two innocent men were serving life sentences for a crime he himself committed. "Governor Bush Sir, I do not know these men nor why they plead [sic] guilty to a crime they never committed," Marino wrote, "but I tell you this sir, I did this awfull [sic] crime and I was alone." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/13/texas_10/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/13/texas_10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s big lie</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/bush_74/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/bush_74/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2000 18:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/10/03/bush</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[His "not me" excuse for the 145 executions in Texas on his watch relies on the kind of legal hairsplitting that would make the president proud.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When <a href="/directory/topics/george_w_bush/index.html">George W. Bush</a> promises to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House, everyone knows that, although he's talking about the <a href="/directory/topics/monica_lewinsky/">Monica Lewinsky</a> sex scandal, he's not just telling us he won't have sex with cherubic interns in the Oval Office or that he's a fiercely devoted, monogamous family man. Bush is making a point about "character." </p><p> "Character" is the mantra of Bush's campaign against Vice President <a href="/directory/topics/al_gore/">Al Gore</a> and <a href="/directory/topics/president_clinton/">President Clinton.</a> He mentioned "character" nine times in his <a href="/politics/feature/2000/08/04/bush/">acceptance speech</a> at the <a href="/directory/topics/republican_national_convention/">Republican Convention.</a> In other speeches he's made as many as 20 references to character. He's even pledged doubling funding for "character education," whatever that is. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/bush_74/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/10/03/bush_74/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prescription politics</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/08/bush_healthplan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/08/bush_healthplan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/09/08/bush_healthplan</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What's the difference between the Bush and Gore health plans?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In laying out what would be the most radical reform of the <a>Medicare</a> program in its 35-year history, Texas Gov. <a href="/directory/topics/george_w_bush/index.html">George W. Bush</a> has offered a bold alternative to the plan offered by Democrat <a href="/directory/topics/al_gore/index.html">Al Gore.</a> But Bush's plan is difficult to explain and may be difficult to sell, and it is fraught with political risks. </p><p> Bush not only wants to provide senior citizens a drug benefit; he also wants to change the basic structure of Medicare by having the federal program compete with a smorgasbord of new government-subsidized HMOs and insurance plans. </p><p>Bush's free-market proposal, which closely tracks a bill favored by Republicans in Congress, is sure to appeal to the party faithful. It attacks what Republicans see as Medicare's "big government," "one-size-fits-all" approach to healthcare. Yet it is not at all clear that Medicare's 39 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries are anywhere near as disillusioned with the program as Bush and more conservative members of his party who have long viewed Medicare as the prologue to socialized medicine. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/09/08/bush_healthplan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/09/08/bush_healthplan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bitter pills</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/31/prescription/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/31/prescription/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/08/31/prescription</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical companies are apoplectic over Gore's prescription drug pricing proposal]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the Bush campaign unleashed a new television ad Monday attacking Al Gore's prescription drug plan for senior citizens, 73-year-old Violet Quirion was on a bus from Waterville, Maine, to the Canadian border town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick, to purchase a three-month supply of the medicines she takes for arthritis and a stomach condition. </p><p>Quirion, a retired quality-control worker at the local Hathaway Shirt factory, walks with two canes and lives on $1,000 a month from Social Security and a small pension. And as one of 70 million Americans who has no prescription drug coverage, she offers a glimpse into the emerging battle over prescription drug prices in this year's presidential race. </p><p>Quirion was heading for Canada because she can purchase her drugs there -- Relafen, an anti-inflammatory arthritis drug, and Prilosec, which treats her stomach problem -- for nearly 60 percent less than she would have to pay at the drugstore in Waterville ($399 instead of $979). Like many seniors on fixed incomes, Quirion is acutely sensitive to the price of prescription medications, which have risen at rates of 10 to 14 percent in the past five years and are projected to rise another 10 percent annually until 2008. She says she simply can't afford to pay U.S. prices for all the medications she needs. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/08/31/prescription/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/08/31/prescription/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s death penalty dodge</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/death_8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/death_8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//feature/2000/06/12/death</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Texas governor has issued his first reprieve in a death penalty case; the question is whether he's seen the light or is just playing politics.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When George W. Bush announced a 30-day reprieve June 1 for condemned murderer Ricky McGinn, the Texas governor said he took the action because "I want the man to have his full day in court." But a "full day in court" in Texas may not be what most Americans have in mind. </p><p> Less than a week after Bush's announcement, the Texas attorney general's office was in New Orleans trying to convince a federal appeals court that Calvin Burdine had received his full day in court and adequate legal representation despite the fact that Burdine's lawyer slept through major portions of his murder trial. "He must show harm," the state's deputy solicitor general told the judge. "Burdine has not done that." There was, however, the small matter of Burdine's death sentence. ("But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?") </p><p> Bush's decision in the McGinn case has been widely seen as an astute move by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee to moderate a perception that he may be <a href="/news/feature/1999/08/07/death/">too zealous</a> about executing people. "By granting a reprieve to a convicted murderer," a Time magazine headline opined, "Bush highlights the first part of compassionate conservative." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/death_8/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/06/12/death_8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The hanging governor</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/11/bush_56/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/11/bush_56/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2000 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2000/feature/2000/05/11/bush</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did execution-happy George W. Bush sign off on the lethal injection of an innocent man?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>O</b>n June 22, 36-year-old Gary Graham, who has been on Texas' death row for more than half his life, is scheduled to be executed. If all goes according to plan, Graham, who now goes by the name of Shaka Sankofa, will become the 22nd person put to death in Texas this year, and the 135th since George W. Bush became governor. Although Texas executions have become fairly routine -- 13 are scheduled for May and June alone -- the execution of Graham is certain to prove notable.</p><p>You wouldn't expect Graham to evoke much sympathy from the governor - or many people, for that matter. As a teenage thug, Graham went on a weeklong rampage of 22 robberies and assaults. He was found passed out, drunk and naked, in the bed of a 57-year-old taxi driver who accused him of raping her, at which point he was arrested for the murder of Bobby Lambert. Today Graham, who has been taken to the Texas death chamber on three previous dates, insists he will "fight like hell" and "physically resist" efforts to kill him, and he has called on his supporters to "take up arms to defend our rights by any means necessary."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/05/11/bush_56/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2000/05/11/bush_56/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

