So I was wrangling about the gay marriage thing, trying to mediate the Fourteenth Amendment with MB's comment that there is no "right" to gay marriage. But neither is there a "right" to heterosexual marriage. So I asked a friend about this. And she said that the problem is that there are really two kinds of marriage in the United States. The first kind is the legal marriage, what you get when you go to the courthouse and file an application for a marriage license or get married by a justice of the peace. When we talk about "gay marriage," this is really what we're talking about, since this is the kind of marriage that confers legal benefits on the partners, and this is what gay marriage advocates are fighting for. I have no problem with this.

The second kind of marriage is the religious marriage. Don't forget that marriage is also a religious ceremony, and in this country where Puritan religious ideals blend in with the law, the religious ceremony has a secular counterpart. No one would advocate a law forcing churches to confer the sacrament of marriage upon gay couples if it didn't want to, and no one is. Churches will decide whom they want to marry, and I have no problem with this.

But why do people like President Bush (who said yesterday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage) insist on using the word "civil union"? Largely because the word "marriage" is loaded with quite a bit of meaning. MB told me that he doesn't agree with the analogy between interracial marriages and the current gay marriage controversy because the dictionary never defined marriage as between two people of the same race; it does, however, define marriage as between two people of opposite genders. But even the Oxford English Dictionary, the staunch lexicon of English, admits that the word "marriage" is being used to describe same-sex couples who enter into a binding relationship just like heterosexuals do. The dictionary does not set the meanings of words in stone; rather, it reflects the current usage of words. Even though the singular for data is datum, the dictionary admits that the plural form is commonly used in both the singular and plural senses. It is we who define words by their use, and then these uses make their way into the dictionary. The dictionary is a reflection of words; it does not explain the "correct" definitions of words and it is not a keeper of the Platonic forms of words. Thus, we may alter the definition of "marriage" and the dictionary definition cannot stop us, for meanings of words are altered all the time. (Although, this only happens when many people start using words in an altered sense; when only a few people go against the grain, they are not innovative, but "incorrect.")

Homosexuals insist on the use of the word "marriage" not for its legal value but for its cultural value. To say that gay marriages are merely "civil unions" is to say that they are a second-class marriage, not a "real" marriage as far as our culture is concerned. The use of the word "marriage" amounts to an endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle. It brings it up from the depths of cultural abberation to something as normal as Ward and June's lifestyle. I have no problem with this, either; I am still free to think that it is a cultural abberation if I wish (even though I don't). As long as I am not impacted by the choice of a particular group of people, that group can do whatever it wants.

But in comes the proposed constitutional amendment. Why? It's the "activist judges" again. How are these so-called activists wrenching the definition of marriage away from the people? Perhaps they are wrenching the definition away from Bush and other conservatives, but it is not their job to pander to the opinions of a particular group of people. The definition of marriage is changing in this country, whether Bush and the Religious Right want to admit it or not (this is the same head-in-the-sand attitude that they take with sex education; by funding solely abstinence-only programs, he can pretend that sex among teenagers doesn't happen). Court judges do not set standards of how people should live. That's not their job, and it is not the government's job to teach people a particular set of morals. I assert that it is Bush who is the activist in his attempt to force a particular moral standard on the United States, to prevent things from changing. Society does change, and it is the job of the courts to acknowledge and respect these changes, as long as they don't break any laws. If they do, then it is their job to look to the higher form of Justice, just as the justices in Brown v. Board of Education did when they realized that an earlier Supreme Court decision had legally rendered blacks second-class citizens. Would Republicans argue that that decision was a case of "activism"? Because it was, by Bush's definition -- and built into that definition is a particular appeal to the idea that "we are the majority, and we make the rules." Plessy v. Ferguson was acceptable because of the ethics of the day, not the law. In the same way, Bush's definition of "activism" encompasses his ethics, not the law.

To those who maintain that the Constitution is not a living document, I ask: why the amendments? Why amendments 9 and 10, which state that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all of a person's rights and also says that any rights not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people? Sounds pretty open to interpretation to me. If the writers of the Constitution had intended for it to be read to the letter, they would have enumerated all of a person's rights. Similarly, if the writers wanted to keep the United States in an 18th-century mindset, they would have prevented it from being amendable, but they understood that times do change and the law must change with the times (there were laws once that sanctioned the treatment of blacks as second-class citizens. Where did they go? Oh, yeah: society's opinions changed, and the law changed with them. Otherwise, we'd still be living in the 19th century).

Posted by Mark at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Remembering my interest in the Supreme Court, Scott told me about an upcoming Supreme Court hearing (March 22) that will prove to be very interesting, especially in light of "the trying times we live in." Hiibel has a website, but it's very slow and awfully one-sided, but the police cruiser's camera caught the whole thing on tape. The following information comes from www.epic.org.

A Humboldt Country sheriff's deputy responded to a concerned bystander's phone call reporting that a man had struck a female passenger inside a truck. The officer arrived on the scene and was directed by the citizen to Hiibel standing next to a parked truck with his daughter inside. The officer observed skid marks which led him to believe that the truck had been pulled over "in a sudden and aggressive manner." After speaking to Hiibel and observing his behavior, the officer became suspicious that Hiibel might have been driving while intoxicated. Hiibel refused eleven times to provide identification and was subsequently arrested under Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime.

Hiibel was charged with and convicted of resisting a public officer in violation of state law, and he appealed the conviction. The Nevada District Court determined it was reasonable and necessary for the officer to ask for Hiibel's identification, and asserted that the public interest in requiring Hiibel to identify himself outweighed his right to remain silent. Hiibel filed a petition asking the Supreme Court of Nevada review the case, challenging the constitutionality of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3).

The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition, determining that the statute is consistent with the rights against unreasonable search and seizure protected by the Fourth Amendment because it "strikes a balance between constitutional protections of privacy and the need to protect police officers and the public." The court first pointed out that federal appeals courts disagree on the question of whether an individual may refuse to identify himself to an officer before an arrest. Noting that a government invasion of privacy does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as it is reasonable, the court found that any intrusion of privacy under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) is reasonable when weighed against the benefits to law enforcement and public safety. "Knowing the identity of a suspect allows officers to more accurately evaluate and predict potential dangers that may arise during an investigative stop," the court explained. With regard to the privacy implications of case, the court claimed "[t]o hold that a name, which is neutral and non-incriminating information, is somehow an invasion of privacy is untenable. . . . Requiring identification is far less intrusive than conducting a pat down search of one's physical person," which is permitted by law. The court also found that Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) is narrowly written and applies only in situations where an officer has an articulable suspicion that a person is performing criminal behavior, and thus is constitutional.

In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, three Nevada Supreme Court Justices disagreed that the government seizure in this case was reasonable. The dissent first noted that anonymity is included in the right to privacy, which in turn is protected during pre-arrest frisks performed by officers. In such situations, the dissent argued, "[i]t is well known that . . . an officer's authority to search is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons. The officer may investigate a hard object because it might be a gun. An officer may not investigate a soft object he detects, even though it might be drugs. Similarly, an officer may not detect a wallet and remove it for search. With today's majority decision, the officer can now, figuratively, reach in, grab the wallet and pull out the detainee's identification." The dissent then pointed out that the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court not only upholds the right to refuse to provide identification to an officer before arrest, but has specifically found Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123(3) unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The dissent opinion criticized the majority for "reflexively reasoning that the public interest in police safety outweighs Hiibel's interest in refusing to identify himself," noting that no evidence exists that an officer is safer for knowing a person's identity. "What the majority fails to recognize," the dissenting opinion continued, "is that it is the observable conduct, not the identity, of a person, upon which an officer must legally rely when investigating crimes and enforcing the law."

This article, though, also misses a fascinating part of the case. The woman with whom Hiibel was arguing (his 17-year-old daughter) tried to stop the officer from arresting her father, but another officer who had arrived on the scene held the door of the truck shut so she couldn't get out. She managed to get out of the truck but was thrown to the ground and handcuffed by the other officer. She was charged her with resisting arrest. At the arraignment, the court threw out her charge, noting that she could not be charged with resisting arrest since she wasn't being arrested!

At the core of this case is the issue of whether or not citizens must be required to identify themselves to law enforcement upon request. In this case, the officer noted that he thought Hiibel had been drinking, and he had a possible battery charge to look into; however, the officer should have investigated the battery charge before quibbling over the production of identification. But then again, there's the issue of his intoxication and the appearance that the truck had been pulled over suddenly. This one will be a doozy for the Supreme Court; I'm not even sure what to think about it. While I am on the side of civil liberties, it seems reasonable (given these specific circumstances) for the officer to have asked for his identification. The Nevada statute in question, "which allows an officer to detain a person to ascertain his identity when there are circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime," seems fair enough. It would not permit an officer to pull someone over merely to see his identification; there must be some probable cause involved first.

Posted by Mark at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nevada Revised Code 171.123(3), the statute in question, reads thus: "The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer." Section 123 of Chapter 171 of the NRC is titled "Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations." This means that a peace officer may detain a person suspected of of criminal behavior only to ascertain his identity and also to find out what he's doing there. Mr. Hiibel was suspected of criminal behavior and refused to identify himself. Case closed. And this statute certainly doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. The police in this case have the probable cause necessary to begin an investigation (someone called the police, the position of the truck, possible alchohol), the first step of which is to find out who this guy is.

The main page of Hiibel's website claims, "One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with 'failure to cooperate' for refusing to show ID on demand." This is most definitely not the case and makes it sounds like we are living in a police state where people are required to produce their "papers" on demand for no reason at all. In fact, there was a reason, and a very good reason, at that. I recently watched the video, and Hiibel definitely seemed intoxicated; moreover, the officer was very polite and Hiibel was very resistant. Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Posted by Mark at 4:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Happy Birthday, Mr. Washington! Eleven hours of Law and Order!

Posted by Mark at 1:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you received an instant message from a buddy urging you to "check this out . . ." and then a link to a web page beginning with www.wgutv.com, rest assured that it is bogus. The link points to the "WGU News Player," where you can find out about Osama bin Laden's capture (not true). In order to do so, you must first download the WGU News Player, an ActiveX control. This ActiveX control is, of course, spyware and hooks into your instant messaging client. It automatically sends people on your buddy list IMs advertising products and services and also entices them to download the ActiveX control so that they, too, can become unwilling purveyors of advertising.

Step one of the process is don't download ActiveX controls from companies you don't trust! Everyone must be chastised for this. Why do you need ActiveX controls from Microsoft? So you can get Windows Updates. Why do you need ActiveX controls from Macromedia? So you can view Flash animation. Do not download ActiveX controls from companies that you are not familiar with! And if you aren't sure, read their terms and services. The WGU News Player is provided by PSD Tools, Inc. This is what their terms and services say: "In addition, the Software will interoperate with your current instant messaging client so as to permit the automatic sending of advertising messages originating from your Computer to your contact or 'buddy' list regarding Content offered by PSD Tools or its suppliers."

Step two: go to Add/Remove Programs and find a program with "buddylinks.net" in the name. Remove it. Also remove "PSD Tools v1.0" or anything similar. You will probably have to turn off your instant messenger (but I'm sure you can survive for ten seconds).

Step three: if you have your Internet Explorer or Netscape (or Mozilla, Firebird, or Opera) browsers set to automatically install ActiveX controls, don't. This is extremely stupid. Reset your security settings to their defaults. They're the "default" settings for a reason: they keep security at a reasonable level. if you're concerned that the crappy file-sharing program you downloaded is full of spyware (and it is: Kazaa, LimeWire, Bearshare, Morpheus, P2P Networking -- they're all full of spyware) download Spybot Search & Destroy. If you download two spyware-removal programs, they should be Spybot and Ad-Aware (from Lavasoft). Do not download any other spyware-removal programs! Chances are good that they will install more spyware under guise of removing it. If all of this sounds a little angry, it should be. In tech support, I see ten thousand computers a day that are loaded with spyware junk because people don't know how to take care of their computers and then they wonder why they get ad popups every ten seconds. Not to mention that the file-sharing programs they use to get their Justin Timberlake music is terrible, anyway. Your computer is not a toy; take care of it or you will end up having to call tech support (and some computer companies -- Dell, for example -- will not tell you how to remove spyware, so you'll be on your own). Only download Spybot and Ad-Aware; they are the only ones to be trusted as legitimate spyware-removal programs.

And for crying out loud, have an antivirus program installed! Especially if you do the file-sharing, because files with enticing names can be viruses! Serenity now!

Posted by Mark at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And there wasn't an explosion. In fact, the only discernable difference between them was their stance on abortion. Nader is pro-choice and Keyes is pro-life.

Posted by Mark at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was reading a website (here it is) which explains why the president's budget deficit will be $520 billion. It purports to show that spending is the cause, not tax cuts. It does this in a sneaky way.

In high school economics class, everyone is taught that you cannot compare amounts of money from one year to another simply as amounts of money. This is a nominal amount. Inflation causes the value of money to change every year. The Consumer Price Index measures the change of baskets of goods from year to year and calculates an inflation rate. Using these numbers, we can compare amounts of money from one year to another year by converting, say, 2001 dollars into 2004 dollars to prove a point about spending increases or something like that.

Table 1: Spending is Driving the Deficit

Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff_presidentperspective.html

The website contains a table which shows revenues versus outlays (expenses) for 2001's budget and 2004's proposed budget. The difference between prices (using a basic formula for calculating inflation rates) in 2001 and 2004 is 3.883%, which means that prices increased 3.883% between 2001 and 2004. The "fake" table (drawing from Al Franken) says that government revenue in 2004 (projected, no doubt) will be $1,798.1 trillion (probably; the author, obviously a statistician, has not told us anything more than "$1798.1"). But this is in 2004 dollars. If we put this in 2001 dollars, revenue is actually $1728.27 trillion, while spending is $2228.76 trillion (not $2318.80 trillion). This means that the revenue change from 2001 to 2004 was not -$193.1 billion, but -$262.93 billion! This is not a decrease of 9.7%, but an increase of 15.21%. Outlays aren't as dramatic: adjusting the numbers for inflation, we see that the size of the budget has increased 16.38% instead of 24.4%. I have no idea what the final "share of deficit swing" column means. It could be the equivalent of Hannity's "cumulative percent difference" column (cf. Al Franken, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (New York: Dutton, 2003), pp. 96-101).

Table 2: Is Spending Driving the Deficit?

What do these numbers mean? The person who compiled this chart (I got this link from townhall.com, so you know there's a rightward slant here) either doesn't understand inflation, or has intentionally misled his readers. He (or she) also can't do math: a change from a $127.4 billion surplus to a $520.7 billion deficit is not a change of -$648.1 billion; since one number is negative, the resultant change is -$393.3 billion. And we can calculate the percent change in the deficit; it's not "not applicable." The percentage change (in terms of real dollars) is an increase of almost 300% from 2001's deficit (remember that deficit is not cumulative; that's the national debt. Deficit is how much more we spend than we take in per year.

Table 2B: Corrected version of "Is Spending Driving the Deficit?"

MB posted a comment to tell me that my math was wrong in the previous table. He also identified the purpose of "share of deficit swing": it's "percentage of deficit/surplus change caused by revenue/outlay changes." Table 2B is the correct table: it shows that decreases in revenue are 41.88% responsible for the deficit increase, not 29.8% as the author of the article claims.

Posted by Mark at 1:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)