The USM controversy grows gills: Mississippi's ACLU wants to support the professors. Those professors are already ably represented by my friend and colleague Mike Adelman, who is a transplanted Yanqui (like me) and a top-notch attorney.

The Mississippi ACLU is, however, a fucking joke. In the space of 20 months, they have 1) had their charter revoked by the national organization (secretly); 2) reportedly replaced the director, a personal friend of notorious Jackson attorney/slumlord/businessman Isaac Byrd, because she embezzled tens of thousands of dollars from the organization; 3) removed the entire board of the Mississippi ACLU (including Isaac Byrd, whose license to practice was suspended because of tax fraud, information totally unrelated but fun nonetheless); 4) reinstated the board minus Isaac Byrd; and 5) hired a new director who doesn't owe Isaac Byrd anything.

Now, this is not something that most people know, because most Mississippians could give a flying fuck about the ACLU chapter in Jackson. But if I'm Mike Adelman, I don't want their help, and I don't need it. Their "good name" is tarnished, and the new director has a long way to go to repair their image. Just how bad was it? From February 2003, when Gail Chadwick was removed, they had no staff in Jackson until October 15, 2003, when Nsombi Lambright took over.

Hat tip to Signifying Nothing. And guys, thanks for the link re: the Oliver Diaz case.

Crescat Sententia is having a debate over surnames and femmes taking their husband's surs. The subject of surnames is deeply interesting to me. I'm of Russian stock (not summer stock), and my last name is, to put it mildly, distinctive in sunny Hattiesburg (and even cloudy Hattiesburg). My Christian name is Alexander, and I go by Alex professionally. Oftimes I'm referred to by my clients as "Attorney Alex" or "Mr. Alex," the South being one of those places where Attorney is still a title like Doctor, Judge, or Parson.

I am always intrigued by the question of whether women should take their husband's names. In the South, this really isn't much of an issue, as it's a given. I am reminded of the scene in When Harry Met Sally when Harry and Sally are talking on the airplane: Harry remarks that his soon-to-be bride Helen Hillman is keeping her name. That's from the 1980s, and it's still something that would, no doubt, wrinkle some brows in the South. I have held disparate opinions on this in the past, and no doubt shall continue to do so up until the time I am married (God forbid!) or even after.

If you are a woman seeking a distinctive surname, attracted to young, overweight Russian-American lawyers, living in the American South or interested in relocating, drop me a line. But only if you're hot. A man has to have some standards, after all. We can debate the assumption of surnames.

Thank you for your support.

Sandefur points to an Unlearned Hand post re: Conrad's The Secret Agent. It's an excellent novel, and topical given its plot of terrorism. I would like to recommend to all the movie starring Bob Hoskins, which is a brilliant translation to film of the book.

What does the Spanish election mean to Al-Qaeda?

1. June 30th, the Spanish armed forces leave Iraq. This is practically guaranteed.

2. AQ has confirmed what it suspected: bomb a parliamentary democracy where the war in Iraq is unpopular a week before the election, and you throw that country into chaos, possibly toppling the government. Also, that democracy is weak in the face of terror, the example of the US notwithstanding.

These are just suppositions, but if you were an AQ operative, what would you think? Surely, the unintended consequence of Spanish disgust with Aznar's cynical use of the bombing to try to gain votes in Basque country is that AQ will conclude that terrorism does, under certain conditions that are rarified but not necessarily unique, work. Let us therefore assume that terrorist activity will likely increase as elections near in parliamentary democracies worldwide.

Now, a gedanken experiment: is this necessarily a bad development? I'm not talking here about the potential loss of innocent lives (which we can all, excepting the terrorists, agree is bad), but successful terrorists are those that are hidden, that they may better repeat the crime. What if, as a result of this election, terrorists become more confident/arrogant and thus more active and more accessible? This may be a long-term unintended good (although I admit it's a colossal stretch).

Still, overall, a bad message to be sending terrorists, although I think the Spanish election is not a referendum on the war on terror, but a referendum on Aznar's electioneering. Maybe Spain will elect to keep troops in Iraq after June 30th. Let's hope so, or if they don't, let's hope that those troops are no longer needed.