My installation of Movable Type 3.2 was, finally, a success. Curiously, when I installed it on my own local computer, it worked just fine.

I've switched from Movable Type's BerkeleyDB to the more recommended (and apparently more stable) MySQL backend. For some reason, my hosting company, ICDSoft, upgraded me to two MySQL databases. So, now I have one for Movable Type and one for everything else.

I'll alter the styles so that everything looks approximately like it used to.

Posted by Mark at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're one of the misguided fools who believes that digital rights management (DRM) is a good idea, then what would you think if DRM were spyware?

Mark Russinovich's Sysinternals blog reveals that a CD published by Sony installed spyware on Russinovich's computer. The spyware, like all spyware, goes to great lengths to hide the fact that it exists and a uses Windows process-sounding name so that, in the event it is discovered, the user (who probably isn't very computer literate) thinks it's a legitimate Windows process that shouldn't be deleted.

Russinovich first became suspicious when he found evidence of a rootkit on his system. A rootkit is designed to hide files and processes from Windows. After doing a lot of stuff that I could never begin to understand, he discovered that the rootkit came from a company called "First 4 Internet." After doing some research (that part I understood), he found out that the software is DRM software and that First 4 Internet's clients are, among others, Sony. The DRM software is designed to hook into the computer's CD-ROM drivers. Delete the DRM files and your CD-ROM drive disappears from the list of devices.

The problems with this are many-fold. First, copyright law does not allow a company to hack your computer in order to protect its copyright. Second, as Russinovich notes, "the software is poorly written and provides no means for uninstall." The software can actually have an adverse effect on your computer. You are being punished when you purchase copy-protected music. Music industry executives have concluded that you will probably copy the music from the CD, which is your right to do as the buyer of the CD. They have further decided that you will probably share this copyrighted music with others, and to forestall such a thing from happening, they have taken measures above and beyond the bounds of copyright law to prevent you from sharing that music online. They have placed software on your system without your knowledge, and indeed, have gone to great lengths to hide from you the fact that such software is on your computer. If this software were to screw up your system, you would have no recourse. The software is unsupported and uninstallable. And it appears to be poorly written. Who knows what else it might do? Who knows how a hacker might exploit this software for his own nefarious use?

Don't buy music from Sony/BMG. The only way to stop DRM is to refuse to buy music from publishers who put DRM on their CDs. The only way the music cartel (and, in the sense that economists use the word as it applies to an oligopolistic market, the RIAA qualifies as a cartel) will listen is if they're hit in the pocketbook. Refusing to buy DRM-crippled music shows them that consumers will not tolerate being forced to use their legally purchased products at the pleasure of music industry executives.

[Via Boing Boing.]

Posted by Mark at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (New York: William Morrow, 2005). Available only in hardcover (for now) for $25.95.

He's not exactly "rogue" (he won the John Clark Bates Medal, awarded every two years to the best American economist under forty), but co-author Steven D. Levitt is definitely not your run-of-the-mill economist. He does not, for example, dabble in issues of supply and demand. "I'm not good at math, I don't know a lot of econometrics, and I also don't know how to do theory. If you ask me about whether the stock market's going up or down, if you ask me whether the economy's going to grow or shrink, if you ask me whether deflation's good or bad, if you ask me about taxes -- I mean, it would be total fakery if I said I knew anything about any of those things," Levitt says in the book's introduction. Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner instead use economics as a tool. It might be better to say that they use the statistical methodologies of economics to analyze data and come to conclusions about those data.

True to form, Levitt doesn't talk about banking or finanace or national income accounting. He talks about things that might be interesting to the average person without a Ph.D. Do teachers cheat? Are human beings really thieves at heart? How are real estate agents like the Ku Klux Klan? What caused the dramatic drop in crime during the 1990s? These are fascinating questions, and above all, Levitt doesn't enter data analysis with an agenda, political or otherwise. He merely wants to know what the data show about a particular issue.

In each chapter, Levitt and Dubner deal with a different issue and demonstrate how analyses of particular data sets speak to those issues. How are realtors like the Klan? It turns out that both use a lack of information to their advantage. The authors begin that chapter by talking about how information asymmetry -- in which one side has more information than the other side -- is used by a variety of people, from stock brokers to realtors to insurance salesmen and car salesmen. They're counting on the fact that you, as a consumer, don't know much about the field of realty or insurance. The authors then parallel this information asymmetry with the Ku Klux Klan, the white supremacist secret society founded in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Klan, say Levitt and Dubner, remained enticing to people because of its secrecy. By the 1950s, the Klan was no longer committing many violent acts. They rested on the threat of violent acts and existed mostly as a place for middle-class white men to come to gripe about how blacks, Jews, and Catholics were destroying the world. The Klan's secrecy was destroyed when an activist named Stetson Kennedy infiltrated the Klan and told the producers of the Adventures of Superman radio show all about the Klan's structure, secret passwords, and secret bible. When Superman fought Klansmen every week, this information became well-known, and new Klan membership dropped. Why? Because the society was no longer secret anymore. The allure was gone.

Levitt, the economist, provides analyses backed up by data. Dubner, the journalist, puts all of this information in a fun and easy-to-read format. Readers who have no background in economics or statistics will find themselves at ease. Whenever a concept from economics or statistics is introduced, it is explained in such a way that the lay person can understand what's going on when Levitt uses regression analysis to see what external influences most affect a child's intellectual growth (children with well-educated parents tend to have high test scores, whereas the amount of time a child spends watching television has no relationship to his or her test scores).

Most impressive about the book is that Levitt is honest. He has no axe to grind. When presented with an issue, such as whether or not sumo wrestling is rigged, he delves into the data to come up with an answer. He lets the data speak for themselves (and, thankfully, he uses the word "data" in the plural, which is as it should be) rather than trying to make the data conform to a pre-existing conclusion. Levitt also takes "conventional wisdom" to task. Conventional wisdom, he says, is often wrong. Even the person who invented the term "conventional wisdom," economist John Kenneth Galbraith, didn't mean for it to be used in a positive light. "We associate truth with convenience, with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem," wrote Galbraith. Levitt sums up Galbraith's view of conventional wisdom as that which is "simple, convenient, comfortable, and comforting -- through not necessarily true." Contrast this with the methodology of noted conservative anti-environmental scientist Dixy Lee Ray, who places "common sense" and "conventional wisdom" higher than scientific analysis (probably because scientific analysis would prove her assertions wrong).

"Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work -- whereas economics represents how it actually does work," the authors write. This statement should be engraved into the forehead of every United States senator and representative. All too often, our leaders become confused between morality and economics, between the ideal and the actual. Sure, it would be nice to have a world in which teenagers don't have sex before marriage, but that just isn't going to happen, and pretending that it doesn't happen is either ignorant or a sign of mental illness. Morality becomes psychotic when ideals are enacted as national policies even when those ideals are proven to be untrue here in the real world. Not liking the idea of premarital sex is one thing, but creating policy around it is ludicrous. Every study shows that abstinence-only education is, at best, just as effective as Grandma's down-home sex education in preventing STDs and teenage pregnancy. At worst, abstinence-only education does a much poorer job. People who would like the world to work in a way that is contrary to the world's actual operation would do well to read Freakonomics. They might learn that data analysis is much more effective in getting things done than having faith.

In this book, Levitt and Dubner get to the hidden side of only a few things. I would enjoy reading a sequel in which they get a little closer to exploring everything.

Posted by Mark at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The University of California at San Francisco, one of the nation's foremost medical colleges, published a brief [PDF] about the efficacy of parental notification laws in other states. This is, of course, completely related to the upcoming Proposition 73 vote.

The brief, from the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at UCSF, suggests that parental notification laws are not effective in curbing abortions, which is what they are designed to do.

The first argument in favor of parental notification laws is that they will force families to communicate (although if it says in any constitution that families must communicate, I'm hard-pressed to find it). The UCSF study suggests that notification laws don't increase communication:

A comparison of adolescents visiting abortion clinics in states with (Minnesota) and without (Wisconsin) notification requirements demonstrates that adolescents involve their parents in their decision at similar rates (65.3% and 62.1%, respectively). There is no evidence that a government mandate will positively increase the frequency or quality of communication for adolescents and their families.

Notification laws are also designed to delay the abortion process, something that can make the abortion more dangerous.

Perhaps most compelling is the suggestion that, in the absence of convenient abortion, adolescents will just travel to a state that doesn't require parental notification:

In the 20 months following the implementation of Massachusetts’ parental consent law, half as many minors obtained an abortion as had done so prior to the law’s implementation. During this same time period, more than 1800 minors (88% of the decrease in abortions) traveled to 5 neighboring states to have an abortion.

Not only does parental consent not significantly influence abortion numbers, it causes teenagers to travel out-of-state to seek abortions and causes them to delay abortions to the point at which the abortions are physically dangerous.

Posted by Mark at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Eagle-eyed reader Andrew read my earlier post about Prop. 77 and didn't care at all for my reading of the initiative. He pointed out that, in my tirade, I omitted the portion of Prop. 77 that people object to -- the part that allows a redistricting plan to go into effect before the voters can decide on it:

(g) The final redistricting plan shall be approved by a single resolution adopted unanimously by the Special Masters and shall become effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State for use at the next statewide primary and general elections, and, if adopted by initiative pursuant to subdivision (h), for succeeding elections until the next adjustment of boundaries is required pursuant to this article.

So, it appears I was completely wrong. Upon being approved by the Special Masters, a redistricting plan becomes law, temporarily, for the next election. For it to become permanent until the next census, it must be approved by the voters. Section (i) of the initiative says that anyone elected under a redistricting plan that is approved by the Special Masters but rejected by the voters shall serve out his full term "notwithstanding the voters’ disapproval of the plan for use in succeeding primary and general elections."

In the face of this startling new information (which would not have been so startling if I knew how to read), I'm changing my mind: VOTE NO ON PROP. 77.

Posted by Mark at 7:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, Elizabeth and I bought pumpkins at the corn maze in Fremont. Yesterday, we carved them. I decided on a simple jolly roger design. But Elizabeth went crazy and wanted to carve all the Elvish letters from the One Ring into her pumpkin. (This is the One Ring The Lord of the Rings, by the way.) According to Gandalf, the letters written on the outside of the One Ring are in the Elvish alphabet, but the language of Mordor ("Which I will not repeat here," he says). Translated into the Common Tongue (i.e., English) this is what the inscription reads on the One Ring:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Well, all of this won't fit on a pumpkin. So, Elizabeth settled on the first phrase: "One Ring to rule them all." Halfway through the carving, I suggested that we should have looked up how to write "pumpkin" in Elvish, so that it would read "One Pumpkin to rule them all." But, she was halfway through carving her pumpkin, and besides, we may be giant dorks, but we're not that giant of dorks. It took Elizabeth about four hours, using a pen-knife, to carve out the letters.

Pictures of pumpkins

The Jolly Roger
The One Pumpkin
Both pumpkins together

Man, I love Halloween!

Posted by Mark at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

California Proposition 77 would remove control of the redistricting process from the legislature and governor and place it in the hands of a panel of retired judges. The left-leaning blog Daily Kos has been looking for reasons to vote against 77, since it's supported by the Governator, but it can't find any. And besides, notes Chuck Todd, quoted in the Daily Kos entry,

Bottom line, California initiatives are like colds, they're very catchy. If this reform measure passes in California, every other state with an initiative/referendum process would likely follow suit. And there are far more gerrymandered states in favor of the GOP right now than the Democrats. Redrawing the districts in these states would lead to Congress being much more representative of the national mood.

But there's still something that worries me. One of the arguments against Prop. 77 says, "Redistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS" (hysterical caps in original). Where is this in the text of the legislation? If it's there, it's worrisome. If it's not, then the opponents are lying.

Here's how the proposed process would work, as explicated from the text of Prop. 77 (which you too can read by clicking on "California Proposition 77," above):

1. Within 20 days of the passage of Prop. 77, the legislature must appoint a panel of "Special Masters" (the three judges who will redraw the districts). The process will be repeated after every national census.
2. The Special Masters are nominated by lot from a group of 24 retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters. But not just any judge will do; only judges who have never held a political party office or partisan public office, and who haven't received income from the state legislature ir the U.S. Congress or any committees thereof. Oh, and only a maximum of 12 of the 24 nominees may be from the same party. And Special Master nominees must pledge that they won't run for public office within five years of serving as a Special Master.
3. Eight high-level members of the legislature each nominate three judges, and no judge can be nominated by more than one legislator. And the three judges each legislator chooses cannot be of the same political party as the legislator.
4. Out of the 24 nominees, three are drawn by lot. This party is sticky: three judges are drawn at random. But the lot isn't completely random; at least one Special Master must be from one of the two largest political parties in the state.
5. So, we've chosen the judges. Next, we have meetings, all of which are announced publicly and all of which are open to the public. We make a schedule to consider redistricting plans and we entertain comments from the public and the legislature. Only one person from each of California's legislative bodies -- the Senate, Assembly, U.S. Congress, and Board of Equalization -- can be elected from a district into that particular body. The districts must be approximately equal in population and they must be contiguous (i.e., you can't have parts of districts physically separated from one another) and they must conform as closely as possible to existing city or county boundaries.
6. Once we've come up with a redistricting proposal, it's put on the next ballot as a ballot initiative to be approved by the voters.
7. If the redistricting plan is approved, that's great. It becomes law and that's how the districts will be drawn. If the plan isn't approved, then we appoint a new panel of Special Masters within 90 days and the whole process starts all over again.
8. If someone objects to the redistricting plan selected by the Special Masters on the grounds that it does not follow the rules of Prop. 77, he or she must submit that objection within 45 days of the filing of the plan with the Secretary of State (which happens after the Special Masters approve the plan and go to put it on the ballot). If necessary, the courts can rule upon whether or not a plan adopted by Special Masters follows the rules of Prop. 77 or not. (This doesn't mean that a redistricting plan would automatically go into effect while the court was hearing an objection to it; the court might issue an injunction to temporarily halt the redistricting process while a trial was being held on the matter.)

So, is it a false statement to say that "[r]edistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS"? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 requires that a redistricting proposal be approved by voters for it to go into effect.

Is it a false statement to to say that "PROP. 77 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE VOTERS to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect" (hysterical caps in original)? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 allows anyone to object to a plan approved by the Special Masters, but it does institute a window of 45 days for such an objection. Imposing such a limitation is not unheard of and not uncommon.

In summation, the opponents of Prop. 77 are out-and-out lying about what Prop. 77 does and does not do. (The same goes for opponents of Prop. 75, who suggest, in a radio advertisement, that almost any union would be restricted under that initiative. That suggestion is completely untrue; Prop. 75 would affect only public employee unions. While I oppose Prop. 75, I do not approve of its opponents making completely untrue statements about Prop. 75. if you're going to oppose something, oppose it with a reasoned argument, not lies and scare-tactics.)

Even though Prop. 77 is supported by the Governator, there's nothing wrong with it. There's no reason not to vote yes on Prop. 77.

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

As I was writing the last entry, I flipped over to Yahoo! News to search for that AP story about George Takei, and guess what headline greeted me? "Cheney Adviser Indicted in CIA Leak Case." Earlier this morning, Al Franken reported on The Al Franken Show that Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's office was being boxed up. He said he was serious and that his source was ABC News. He then said that there would be no indictment announcement until 2 PM EST (7 PM GMT).

Apparently, there are indictments now.

The Associated Press reports that Libby was indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice, perjury, and making a false statement. The indictment says that Libby lied, under oath, about who told him that Valerie Plame was a covert agent with the CIA and when he received the information. Documents obtained by government prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald suggested that Libby learned about Plame's identity from Dick Cheney himself and that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame's identity, as well as ways in which they could exploit that identity, at least a month before Chicago Tribune columnist and SEDHE Villain of the Forever Robert Novak published a column in which he revealed Plame's identity.

And just within the last hour, Libby announced that he was resigning as Cheney's chief of staff.

Posted by Mark at 10:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

U.S.S. EXCELSIOR -- After years of commanding the USS Excelsior, the pride of the Excelsior class, Capt. Hikaru Sulu has revealed a secret that he has kept with him since his days as a helmsman on the USS Enterprise: he is a homosexual.

Capt. Sulu chose to come out by traveling to the past and telling Frontiers, a Los Angeles-based magazine covering the gay and lesbian community, that he was gay. Capt. Sulu used his time-traveling alias, George Takei, when speaking with Frontiers, but researchers at the Starfleet News Network knew it was him, anyway.

"Takei" said that his current stage role as psychologist Martin Dysart in the play Equus helped him decide to come out. Takei, a Japanese-American, lived in an internment camp between the ages of 4 and 8. He feels very strongly about racism and speaks frequently about Japanese internment. Takei likens prejudice against homosexuals to racism.

He also said that the state of the world helped him decide to come out. "The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for being gay," Takei told the Associated Press. "The issue of gay marriage is now a political issue. That would have been unthinkable when I was young."

Of course, upon returning to the 23rd century, "Takei" (who will then be known once again as Capt. Hikaru Sulu) will be accepted by his friends, family, and colleagues. His announcement will be a non-issue because the 23rd century is very tolerant of difference. Unless your only son was killed by a Klingon. Then you might have some issues.

[This is an actual news story. George Takei really did come out yesterday. --Ed.]

Posted by Mark at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan's Neuropsychiatry Research Unit reported that rats that were given a compound called HU-210, a synthetic cannabinoid 100 times more powerful than THC, experienced generation of new brain cells in their hippocampuses. The finding was reported this month in the magazine Nature and will be published in November in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Today, a study from the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs reveals that marijuana smoke may not cause lung cancer as tobacco smoke does:

The difference rests in the often opposing actions of the nicotine in tobacco and the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana, says Dr. Robert Melamede of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs.

He reviewed the scientific evidence supporting this contention in a recent issue of Harm Reduction Journal.

Whereas nicotine has several effects that promote lung and other types of cancer, THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke, Melamede explained in an interview with Reuters Health.

"THC turns down the carcinogenic potential," he said.

For example, lab research indicates that nicotine activates a body enzyme that converts certain chemicals in both tobacco and marijuana smoke into cancer-promoting form. In contrast, studies in mice suggest that THC blocks this enzyme activity.

Okay, so maybe marijuana isn't good for you. But alcohol and tobacco are worse for you from a health standpoint than marijuana. Why are they legal? They got in the door first. Then, when we became Puritans, alcohol and tobacco were already there, and so we said, "Okay, you can stay, but every other drug has to leave!"

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, according to the DEA. ("Schedule I" just means that, according to the Controlled Substances Act, a drug has a "high potential for abuse" and "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Cf. 21 U.S.C. 812.) Also listed in Schedule I are heroin, GHB (the "date rape" drug), LSD, mescaline, and peyote. Let's get serious, kids. Marijuana is lumped into the same category as heroin, even though there is no such thing as a physical addiction to marijauana and there has never been a substantiated case of a marijuana overdose. It just doesn't happen. It can't happen. Marijuana is far safer for your body than alcohol, and yet marijuana is the subject of restrictions that are not equal to the dangers it causes.

Posted by Mark at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, has withdrawn herself from nomination.

I can't tell you how good this makes me feel. Miers was in no way qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land. She was barely qualified to be a judge on one of the nation's 13 second-highest courts.

Several factors helped to make Harriet Miers unlikeable by anyone. First, the hardcore neo-cons didn't like her. These people, which consist of half religious fanatics like James Dobson and half corporate executives, couldn't be sure how she would rule on the abortion issue if it were to come before her as a justice. After discovering than John Roberts wasn't as hard-right as they thought, the neo-cons wanted a nominee who they could be sure was 100% anti-abortion. And they wanted proof. Harriet Miers brought no proof of her opinions to the table, save apocryphal conversations with Dobson and Republican leaders in which she assured them that she was pro-life. But this wasn't good enough; the neo-cons want abortion illegalized now.

Second, the regular Republicans didn't like her because she was patently unqualified. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in Oct. 5's Washington Post, "Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists." Miers had no previous judicial experience and no experience working for the government. Her only governmental experience was that of White House Counsel, not a position in which she would have to deal with constitutional issues of national importance. (Contrast this with John Roberts' position as Deputy Solicitor General.) Miers spent twenty-some years as a private practice lawyer in Texas. In no way did she have the minimum qualifications to deal with constitutional issues of national importance.

Third, Democrats didn't like her because she was extremely close to the president. Since Bush became governor of Texas in 1994, Miers has been close to him. In 2001, he brought her to the White House in the position of White House Secretary. In 2005, when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General, Miers became White House Counsel. Democrats were rightly concerned with whether or not she would be objective in dealing with issues of executive power. If there were any cases dealing with torture or prisoner abuse or the War on Terr', she would probably have to recuse herself, since she was in on the policymaking behind these issues. And, as we found out earlier this week, any and all work she did as White House Counsel would not be given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, since it would be under executive privilege protection. So, whatever little we knew about her already, we would know even less.

Now the search is on for another (female) Supreme Court nominee. This is some retirement for Sandra Day O'Connor; she won't get to move to Florida until at least January, and by then all the tourists will have snagged the good parking spaces.

In other news

President Bush un-suspended the Davis-Bacon Act yesterday. The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors performing work for the federal government to pay their employees the prevailing wage in the area (not the "union wage," as critics of Davis-Bacon often claim). A Wall Street Journal piece sent to me by Ned reinforces the old conservative talking points about Davis-Bacon: it's unnecessary, it's a holdover from the 1930s, it's racist, it's only good for unions, etc. The article is very small, so here it is, reprinted in full, from Ned's email to me:

George W. Bush compares favorably with his father when it comes to his commitment to free-market economics. But the elder President Bush at least had the good policy judgment to suspend an expensive and cumbersome law called the Davis-Bacon Act to facilitate reconstruction after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 -- only to see President Clinton reinstate it as a pay-off to organized labor in one of his first acts in office.

Now, less than two months after doing the same in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, this Bush White House has reversed itself on the issue. We're told yesterday's decision to reinstate Davis-Bacon in the affected Gulf states on November 8 came after a meeting last week between Chief of Staff Andrew Card and about 20 Republican Congressmen from union-heavy districts. The move can only increase the cost and slow the pace of reconstruction. And as an act of unprincipled political calculation it ranks right up there with the decision to impose tariffs on imported steel during Mr. Bush's first term.

Davis-Bacon is almost always cast as "worker-friendly" legislation that requires federally funded construction projects to pay the "prevailing" wage rate in a given area. But in reality the anti-competitive 1931 law is a relic of the Jim Crow era. New York Congressman Robert Bacon was upset about an Alabama contractor who had brought a largely black construction crew to build a federal hospital in his district. "Colored labor is being brought in to demoralize wage rates," complained the American Federation of Labor at the time. Many economists and minority leaders recognize that Davis-Bacon continues to be a cause of minority unemployment in the construction sector to this day. In addition to that ugly history, Davis-Bacon is known for creating mountains of paperwork and unnecessary compliance costs.

We know the White House is well aware of all these points, since it alluded to them when it suspended Davis-Bacon on September 8. So the sudden reversal now -- well before hurricane reconstruction is finished, and at a time when the administration should be using all means necessary to expedite it and lower the price tag -- is a special disappointment.

What about worker protection? Just as people loudly proclaim that we don't need affirmative action or feminism anymore -- ostensibly because racism and sexism have been eliminated -- so, too, do people proclaim that unions are obsolete. All they do is drive up the market-clearing wage, leading to a shortage of jobs, since firms will hire 5 employees at $10 an hour instead of 10 employees at $10 an hour. But the world is more than hard economics. Classical economics provides a model for looking at the world, but it is by no means a complete picture of the world. It fails to take into account the welfare of the workers; in this case, we have people from New Orleans trying to rebuild their lives, something they can't do when wages are ridiculously low. And in the latter case, wages are artificially ridiculously low, since firms can charge a very low price for labor, and since demand for labor after Hurricane Katrina is inelastic, workers will work at any price. Davis-Bacon equalizes the playing field, offsetting one counter to the market with another.

Posted by Mark at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are eight ballot measures being voted upon in the state of California. Come Nov. 8, if you live there, you'll need to make some tough decisions. Here's how I would vote on each of these propositions.

Proposition 73 requires a minor child to notify her parents before getting an abortion. The parents don't need to approve the abortion; they just need to know about it. This is dangerous because (1) parental notification laws are designed to make abortion more difficult to obtain; (2) this is an amendment to the state constitution, and (3) language in the measure refers to an embryo or fetus as an "unborn child." VOTE NO ON PROP. 73

Proposition 74 makes it easier to fire teachers. This is a Governator-backed ballot initiative focused on punishing teachers, who really don't like him. If Prop. 74 were passed, "permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations" could be fired. These evaluations could come from anyone, including principals who don't like them or school board members who are trying to cut the budget by firing experienced teachers and hiring new, cheaper teachers. VOTE NO ON PROP. 74

Proposition 75 would mandate that public employees unions could not donate money to political candidates or organizations without the express, written consent of all their members. These organizations will never be able to get the express, written consent of all their members, so the ballot measure is designed to limit unions' freedom of speech. VOTE NO ON PROP. 75

Proposition 76 changes the state's budget process, most notably by giving the governor newer, broader authority to "unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations." This is dangerous, especially for a governor who is a killer cyborg from the future and wants to cut social programs. VOTE NO ON PROP. 76

Proposition 77 changes the way the state draws congressional districts. As it is, the legislature draws new districts and the governor approves the changes. Under the system envisioned by Prop. 77, political districts would be drawn by retired judges (picked by the legislature) and the new districts would have to be approved by voters. This makes the redistricting process harder -- which is good -- and puts control in the hands of the voters. VOTE YES ON PROP. 77

Proposition 78 allows people who are too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid and too young to qualify for Medicare to receive discount prescription drugs. Proposition 79 is practically the same thing. Prop. 79 requires drug manufacturers to provide prescription drugs to the state at a discount, while Prop. 78 does not. On the flip side, the eligibility requirements for the program are explicitly listed in Prop. 78. Prop. 79 says that the State Department of Health Services will determine eligibility requirements. But Prop. 79 also establishes a drug-discount program to assist certain businesses, creates a panel to review drug prices, and makes it a civil violation for drug manufacturers to engage in profiteering from the sale of drugs. Prop. 79 does more for the people and the state than Prop. 78. VOTE NO ON PROP. 78; VOTE YES ON PROP. 79

Back in 1998, the California legislature voted to de-regulate the electric utilities industry. This, of course, was a disaster and led to rolling blackouts, high prices, and the Enron scandal. Proposition 80 repeals all of that de-regulation stuff, making the electric utilities once again regulated by the state. I think -- and someone correct me if I'm wrong -- that most states regulate electric utilities; Ohio certainly does, with PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio). VOTE YES ON PROP. 80

For more information, including the text of the legislation, legislative analyses, and arguments for and against each of these initiatives, visit the California Secretary of State's "Elections and Voter Information" page regarding these eight initiatives.

Posted by Mark at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) went on Meet the Press this past Sunday to disseminate the new Republican talking points: Democrats are "criminalizing politics" with their attempts to prosecute people for crimes. What?! Prosecute people for committing crimes! In what kind of backwards Arab society do that do that?!

Most startling, hypocritical, and stupid were Sen. Hutchison's comments regarding RoveLibbyCheneyNovakWilsonPlameCooperGate:

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people's lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let's just see what the charges are. Let's tone down the rhetoric and let's make sure that if there are indictments that we don't prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.

In case you're shocked by Sen. Hutchison's outrageous comments, let me explicate them for you. In the first paragraph, Hutchison calls perjury a "technicality" that is leveled against people when "they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars." Does that sound like anyone we know? Let's see, here: two years of investigation, no solid evidence of a real crime being committed, so they indict on perjury. Seems to me like ... oh, geez, what was his name?

Oh, yes. Bill Clinton. That's right, kids. When Bill Clinton committed perjury, it was a "high crime" and "misdemeanor" enough to get him impeached. When Karl Rove is indicted for perjury, it's a "technicality" because they're just trying to get him. No, wait. It gets better. Bill Clinton lied about oral sex. Karl Rove lied about national security. If I were an evangelical Protestant, I would have to say ... yup, the oral sex is definitely more threatening to the nation than endangering national security. Come to think of it, I don't understand why they didn't execute Bill Clinton for having an illicit relationship outside the holy bonds of marriage. (They didn't execute Republican congressman Henry Hyde, either, but that's because they're hypocrites.)

But Sen. Hutchison says that Bill Clinton's case was different; he had other charges brought against him, charges that were substantive and not mere "technicalities" like perjury and obstruction of justice. The House of Representatives approved four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998:

1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. [Perjury]
2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition. [Perjury]
3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. [Obstruction of justice]
4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. [Abuse of power?]

You know, Hutch, you're right. Bill Clinton's case is different because they added another "technicality" indictment to the already extant technicality indictments of perjury and obstruction of justice. So, it seems to me that what Hutch here is doing is trying to justify the Republicans' ridiculous persecution of Bill Clinton for perjury while at the same time suggesting that it was okay for Karl Rove to commit perjury. Even though Bill Clinton lied about sex and Karl Rove lied about endangering national security. Oh, and by the way, Clinton's impeachment wasn't political because the impeachment articles were approved completely along party lines. (Oh, damn, that statement supports the assertion that the impeachment was for political reasons!)

So, Hutch has a point. (Hang on a second, let me stratch that out. It doesn't look right.) Hutch has a point. Hutch is a moron. (Yes, that's better.)

And how is it that we see district attorneys and juries go after people based upon technicalities? Because people are so sleazy that the only way to go after them is a technicality. Al Capone, the man who ran Chicago's South Side gang in the 1920s, owned the city. He couldn't get a conviction in Chicago. He owned the judges. He owned the police. He owned the juries. So, what did the treasury department do? Convicted him for tax evasion. Yes, a technicality. Because Capone had covered his ass when it came to convicting him of real crimes.

Did Bill Clinton commit a "real" crime when he lied about sex? No. Sex was the hang-up of the Gingrich Republicans and Kenneth Starr. It was also the only tactic they had to "get" him. They had been trying to get Clinton for years with no success, and lying about sex, they thought, was the only way they could do something to him.

Did Karl Rove or I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby commit a "real" crime when they lied about who told them about Valerie Plame's identity? Yes. Revealing Valerie Plame's identity put her and anyone who worked for her front-company, Brewster-Jennings, in jeopardy. It also destroyed a source of intelligence and put her informants in danger. And, worst of all, some people in the administration thought they could get away with punishing Joe Wilson by leaking his wife's identity as a CIA operative.

Rove fought the law, and the law won. At least, I hope it will.

Posted by Mark at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

BERKELEY, Calif. -- It's been quite a weekend. Friday, I went with Elizabeth and one of her co-workers to Petaluma to help them get some old dentists' chairs. It was a fun ride, and Bill, her co-worker, is about 50 and has one hundred thousand stories to tell about being a hippie. That night, we tried to watch Citizen Kane, which is loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, but the CD was messed up. I have to go to Blockbuster and demand a complimentary rental.

Saturday, we went to The MAiZE in Fremont. It's a five-acre corn maze and it was a blast. On the same property, they had Indian corn, gourds, squashes, and pumpkins for sale. We got some pumpkins for carving and Indian corn for putting on the wall somewhere. Indian corn is pretty.

Saturday night we visited The Pirates of Emerson, a nationally-recognized haunted house. But we weren't terribly impressed, having visited Cincinnati's U.S.S. Nightmare the year before. U.S.S. Nightmare is also nationally renowned, and it's a lot bigger. What The Pirates of Emerson did have was a 3-D haunted house, something I had never seen before. All of the drawings on the walls are done with a 3-D effect, so when you put on the 3-D glasses you're given at the beginning of the haunted house, the wall drawings look like they have depth. Ultimately, though, The Pirates of Emerson was only "okay." If you're in Ohio, visit The Haunted Schoolhouse and The Haunted Laboratory in Akron. For the low, low price of $11 per person per haunted house, you get about six floors each of terror. I'd bet the whole experience takes about an hour and a half, which is incredibly long by haunted house standards. The Haunted Schoolhouse and Laboratory are friggin' huge and provide top-notch scares. It's probably been ten years since I've visited them, but I hope they're still as amazing as when I went to see them.

Sunday, we visited Santa Cruz. The showpiece of Santa Cruz is the Boardwalk, which has been styled in the tradition of seaside amusement parks like Coney Island. It was here that I met a figure from Cleveland's past: Laffing Sal. Laffing Sal was an animatronic woman with red hair and a giant, gap-toothed smile who greeted visitors to Cleveland's now-defunct Euclid Beach Park. All she did was shake back and forth, accompained by a laugh soundtrack. She just kept on laughing. When Euclid Beach Park closed in the 1970s, like most of the seaside amusement parks around the country, Laffing Sal was purchased at auction.

Walking along the boardwalk at Santa Cruz, I spotted an animatronic figure in a window. I immediately, instinctively knew what it was. An actual-factual, functioning Laffing Sal. Holy crap! So Santa Cruz had one, too! I suddenly remembered everything my mother and great-grandmother had told me about Euclid Beach Park. They were right: Laffing Sal was freaking scary.

As it turns out, Laffing Sal was not unique to Euclid Beach Park. A placard next to her proclaimed that she was one of 300 such animatronic figures manufactured between 1930 and 1950 -- the heyday of seaside amusement parks. This particular one resided in San Francisco's Playland at the Beach amusement park until it closed in 1972.

We bought saltwater taffy and walked along the boardwalk. We rode one of the dark rides. I can't stress how awesome it is to ride an actual, old-timey dark ride. Everything in modern amusement parks -- Disneyland, Six Flags, Universal Studios -- owes its existence to rides at seaside amusement parks like this one. The Spiderman 3D ride at Universal Studios Islands of Adventure in Orlando is just a very expensive version of rides invented in the 1920s at Coney Island.

We drove back north via Half-Moon Bay and ate at a Hawaiian restaurant called Ono Hawaiian Grill, which has fantastic Hawaiian food. Go there. I demand it!

Assorted news items

If you value copyright, then don't upgrade to iTunes 6.0 just yet. JHymn, the program that allows users to retake their rights, isn't compatible with iTunes 6.0 because the encryption scheme is different from the scheme in previous versions, but the author is working on it. The iTunes Music Store's Fairplay DRM imposes limitations on end-users that are greater than the statutory limitations that copyright imposes. Copyrighting does not allow the publisher to control how you use the work in the privacy of your own home. Copyright allows you to copy a song to as many CDs as you want; iTunes does not. How odd that we must break the law (circumventing a copy-protection scheme is illegal under the DMCA, even if that copy-protection scheme breaks copyright law by being overly restrictive) in order to exercise our rights.

President Bush decided to try something new and appoint to a government post someone's who actually qualified for the job. Alan Greenspan, who has chaired the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for twenty-some years -- through Republican and Democrat administrations -- will step down Jan. 31, 2006 when his term expires. Bush's nomination for his successor, Ben Bernanke, is a former Princeton University professor, a former Federal Reserve governor, and current chief of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. Naturally, he's a Republican, but at least he knows what he's doing. Hopefully, he'll do more than "a heck of a job" as the person who can make the stock markets go up or down with a flick of the wrist.

Under the stupid guise of guarding against terrorism, the government has ordered "hundreds of universities, online communications companies, and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications." Because when government is given broad surveillance powers, it will use them wisely. Oh, wait. No, it won't.

In a last-ditch attempt to save his own ass, Tom DeLay has requested that Judge Bob Perkins, who will be overseeing DeLay's prosecution for money-laundering, recuse himself since Perkins made recent donations to the Democratic Party. Dick DeGuerin, DeLay's lawyer, is really grasping at straws. Given who some of DeGuerin's past clients were (David Koresh, e.g.), DeLay's going to need all the administrative and technical stuff in his favor that he can get.

And, finally, Harriet Miers is unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee asked her for a "do-over" with regard to a 50-page questionnaire she filled out for them. Both the committee's Republican leader -- Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- and its highest-ranking Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont -- asked Miers to resubmit the questionnaire in light of "incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar." For example, the questionnaire asks if Miers had ever talked to anyone else about how she might rule on particular issues. Her answer: "No." One word. That was her answer. In general, the problem with her answers is that they were insufficient and not specific enough. They don't even offer do-overs in college for poor answers on essays. Why should the Supreme Court questionnaire allow a do-over if COM 135 doesn't?

That's all for now. The world is a safer place.

Posted by Mark at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So, Elizabeth and I went to see Everything Is Illuminated on Tuesday. The film is so indie that it's playing only in particular areas. It stars Elijah Wood as a man looking for the Ukranian woman who saved his grandfather's life. Newcomer Eugene Hutz is the grandson of the man who runs a business helping descendants of Holocaust victims find their families. It's a good movie.

Well, Eugene Hutz really is Ukranian, and for the past several years he's been the frontman for a Gypsy/punk rock band called Gogol Bordello. Hutz actually is a Gypsy, too, and he spent his childhood roving Europe, living the Roma lifestyle. On Thursday, we were casually flipping through the newspaper at about 4:30 and saw that Gogol Bordello was actually playing at a club called Slim's on 11th St. in San Francisco. This will be awesome, we thought.

But on the BART ride over there, we began to equivocate: we have to get up early tomorrow, why don't we go Friday night, maybe we should have just driven, because, you know, there might be parking after all, but who knows, this is San Francisco, etc. But I finally decided -- after Elizabeth placed the onus of decision on me -- that we would go see Gogol Bordello. Waiting in line for tickets, we saw Eugene Hutz -- sporting his trademark ridiculous moustache -- get off a bus that was parked in front of Slim's. It was him! The guy from Everything Is Illuminated! And, you know, he's not that much taller than me in real life.

We went into Slim's and got some drinks. Another band was playing, and a second was sure to follow them before Gogol Bordello. I looked around the room and saw a guy standing by himself about two feet behind us. He was wearing a fedora-style hat and what looked to be a Blazer. It's the typical uniform of punk rockers: a blazer made of odd material and a weird hat. But this guy seemed familiar.

"There's a guy in a hat behind us who looks an awful lot like Elijah Wood," I told Elizabeth. She turned and looked behind us.

"Yeah, it does." And so we kept on looking at this guy, coming up with reasons why it wasn't Elijah Wood, because Elijah Wood doesn't come to clubs in San Francisco where we happen to be and just stand by himself. "But look. He's singing the lyrics to this band's songs. He must be one of their friends," she replied. Naturally, if Elijah Wood were there, he would be singing along with Gogol Bordello, since he became friends with Eugene Hutz while the two of them were making Everything Is Illuminated. And besides, if it really were Elijah Wood -- which it definitely wasn't, because that's crazy talk -- he would be surrounded by throngs of screaming fans.

But we couldn't stop looking over at him. He was about how tall we thought Elijah Wood might be, and he had the right profile and -- especially -- he had the eyes. Elijah Wood has large, expressive eyes, and this guy had them. So we got closer.

After the band finished playing, a bunch of people huddled around this guy, who had previously been alone. A beautiful woman started kissing him. Okay, fine. So this guy has some friends and a girlfriend. But so does everyone else.

We got nearer to this crowd of people. Elizabeth asked some guy in this crowd, "Is that Elijah Wood?"

"Yes, that's Elijah Wood."

Holy shit. Holy fucking shit! I was right! We were standing two feet in front of Elijah Wood. Yes, the guy who played Frodo.

We got closer.

After some girls got a picture, we sheepishly walked up to him, not sure of whether or not we were being tacky. After all, he's a human being, too, and he probably wants to spend some time with his girlfriend.

"Hi, I'm Elizabeth," said Elizabeth, extending her hand.

"Hi, I'm Elijah," said Elijah Wood, shaking her hand and smiling that Elijah Wood smile of his. The two of them talked and I sort of stood off to the side, marveling that we were meeting a celebrity. After about a minute, he looked at me and said, "Are you two together?"

"Yeah," I said. I'm Mark."

"I'm Elijah. Nice to meet you."

That was what struck me immediately -- he was a genuinely nice guy. He didn't say, "I'm Elijah Wood." He just said, "I'm Elijah," as though he were saying, "I'm Bill" or "I'm Carl." I told him about the happenstance that brought us there, and how we were thinking about not coming. It turns out that his being there was a happenstance, too. Gogol Bordello was going to come to Los Angeles, where he lives, but he thought that the crowds would be smaller in San Francisco, so he just drove up here to see them (it's only about a five hour drive, the distance from Cleveland to Cincinnati).

After a few minutes of talking, he said goodbye and went outside to have a smoke. And we stood there, marveling that we had just met a celebrity. For Elizabeth and me, it was the first time we had met a celebrity. She called her sister and I called mine. I told Cathy amid the noise of the club, "I just met Elijah Wood." She replied, "No you didn't."

"Yes, I did."

"No, you didn't."

"Yes, I did."

"Did you tell him I love him?"

Elizabeth talked to her sister, Jessica. "I told you I'd be calling you later tonight, but I didn't tell you I'd be calling you tonight after I met Elijah Wood."

"You what?"

"I met Elijah Wood."

"What?"

The next band was so-so, but Gogol Bordello rocked our socks. Even though we couldn't understand a word they were saying because (1) it was too loud and distorted or (2) they weren't speaking English, it was the most awesome rock show ever.

(Elizabeth's editorial note: Gogol Bordello is fuckin' bad-ass spastic shit; don't let Mark's sophomoric "rocked our socks" deter you.)

Posted by Mark at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I feel like California is my adopted home state. Sure, some people deride it as a state where only crazies live, but that's okay. I'm pretty crazy.

There's a ballot initiative called Proposition 73 [PDF] that would require a girl's parents be notified if she tries to get an abortion. Proponents of the ballot initiative -- which would amend the California state constitution -- say that parents have to be notified of other medical procedures. Proponents also contend that allowing "secret abortions" allow older men (statistics suggest that the mean age of men who impregnate girls in California is 22.4) to conceal their crimes. Opponents of the measure say that government can't mandate family communication, and also, the last thing a pregnant girl wants to do is have to find a lawyer and speak to a judge. It also makes an abortion difficult to obtain.

And that is exactly the point of this law: to make abortion harder to get. Prior to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), each state had its own laws regarding abortion. Some states allowed it and others didn't. The Roe decision said that, since the right to privacy, and by way of the right to privacy, the right to an abortion, is in the federal constitution, then no state can outlaw abortion, since doing so would conflict with the federal constitution. The "right to privacy" had been articulated in cases prior to Roe, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Griswold found that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated "the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra [umbrella or sphere of influence] of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights." In other words, it's not the state's business what consenting married adults do in the bedroom.

But pro-lifers tried to make abortion very hard to obtain, so that while it wasn't illegal, the effect of such laws was to discourage people from getting abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), said that such laws were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a Georgia statute required a woman not only to have a doctor determine whether or not she could have an abortion, but also required a hospital committee to approve the doctor's findings. The purpose of all of this administrative mumbo-jumbo was not to better safeguard the woman; rather, the administrative garbage was designed to make the process long and complicated so as to discourage people from getting abortions.

The Texas Supreme Court dealt with parental notifications -- in fact, it dealt with them when current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was sitting on the court. In 2000, the Texas Supreme Court dealt with four "Jane Doe" cases regarding the state's Parental Notification Act. A Jane Doe petitioned the courts to let her bypass Texas' parental notification law. A lower court denied her application, but the Texas Supreme Court, with Gonzales concurring in the majority opinion, reversed the lower court's decision. (This is why religious conservatives were so irked at the possibility that Gonzales could be nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court -- they knew that he was not completely anti-abortion.) Addressing the dissenting opinions in three Jane Doe cases from 2000, Gonzales wrote, "[T]o construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Priscilla Owen, one of the dissenters in these cases, has seen been appointed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Proposition 73 is dangerous because it is not merely enacting a statute; it's amending the California state constitution. This means that if the initiative were passed, the judiciary could not overrule it. It's also a step toward a bad precedent of putting issue-of-the-day legislation into a constitution, which is a very big deal. The constitution is supposed to create the framework of the government, not provide safe haven for bad laws. The proposition requires a physician to notify a girl's parents -- in writing -- of the girl's intention to have an abortion. The proposition then mandates a 48-hour "reflection period" before the procedure can be carried out. If the girl doesn't want her parents to be notified, she can file a petition with the juvenile court. "If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is suffi ciently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice of a parent or guardian." If the judge doesn't find all that stuff, then the girl can appeal the judgement to the Judicial Council.

Curiously, Prop. 73 uses the words "unborn child" to describe an embryo or fetus. Is this the precursor to something more? (Now that "unborn child" has found its way into the state constitution, what other rights does an "unborn child" have? Is it a legal person? Does this mean that abortion is illegal?) Many things about this ballot initiative make me raise my eyebrows quizically.

Posted by Mark at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The charges facing Tom DeLay are so baseless and frivolous that a Texas court has issued a warrant for his arrest. Not only is Ronnie Earle a partisan witch-hunter, and not only are the two grand juries that indicted him partisan witch-hunters, but the judge who issued the warrant is also a partisan witch-hunter. Clearly, DeLay is 100% not guilty of the charges facing him, and clearly all of the twenty-plus people who believe that DeLay has committed a crime are being bribed by George Soros.

The warrant was issued after a detective with the Acme Detective Agency identified DeLay after conducting several interviews with people at visitors centers and museums around the country. Witnesses described the suspect as having "mahogany tresses" and that "he was wearing a Talking Heads T-shirt" and carried cave-climbing equipment. He also asked where he could get some huevos rancheros. After entering this information into an Acme CrimeNet computer, the suspect was identified as Tom DeLay and a warrant issued for his arrest. The detective then proceeded to Austin, Texas, where, instead of finding informants, the detective found a knife being thrown at his head and a flowerpot that nearly landed on him. At the third location he visited in Austin, the detective found DeLay and arrested him. The detective would have been promoted to Senior Inspector after successfully capturing DeLay, but he could not identify the first letter of the third word on the first line on page 672 of his Fodor's USA travel guide.

Posted by Mark at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Set your VCR to start taping C-SPAN starting Nov. 7. That's when Harriet Miers' confirmation hearings start. The Republicans want a vote in the full Senate before Thanksgiving.

Posted by Mark at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Harriet Miers continues to be the object of speculation for both Democrats and Republicans. President George W. Bush continues to try and push her as a candidate in spite of the fact that she is not the most qualified candidate.

Electoral officials are looking into "unusually high" vote tallies in certain parts of Iraq, indicating voting irregularities. Iraqis voted Saturday on a new constitution for the country, one which would give the northern, Kurd-dominated "Kurdistan" provinces greater autonomy. The new constitution would also make the Qur'an and shari'a (Islamic tradition or law) the supreme law of the land. Critics of this new constitution say that the country would turn into an oppressive Islamic theocracy, exactly the opposite of what the Iraq War was supposed to accomplish. Now it appears as though there were some problems with high vote tallies, an indication of a rigged election.

In its second super-duper presentation in a week, Apple released updates to both the Power Mac and PowerBook lines. The new Power Mac models have dual-core processors and DDR2 RAM (previous models had DDR RAM). PowerBooks received brighter screens with higher resolutions and DVD-RW drives with support for dual-layer discs. PowerBooks were also upgraded to DDR2 RAM.

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

If you guessed Yali's Cafe on University Ave. in Berkeley, Calif., then you are correct. I'm taking some time off in Berkeley right now. Elizabeth and I spent the weekend in Big Sur, which is a long stretch of California coast about three hours south of San Francisco. What we did was drive four hours south on Friday and then gradually work our way back up the coast, so that the drive on Sunday from Monterey to Berkeley was only two hours. On Friday, we went camping in San Simeon State Park for a whopping eleven dollars total, plus five dollars for a wheelbarrow-full of firewood.

Saturday, we got up early to drive to Hearst Castle, the sprawling home of media magnate William Randolph Hearst. The place is gigantic: one large main house and three guest houses with about a dozen rooms each. The castle sits on top of a hill 1,600 feet above sea level and has spectacular views of the mountains and the ocean. If you're ever going to see Hearst Castle, do what we did and go to the 8:20 tour. At 8:00, there's not that many people to fight with, and it gives you a lot of opportunity to do other stuff throughout the day.

After Hearst Castle, we drove about an hour and a half north to Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park. We stayed in a sweet lodge and went hiking in other parks around the area, including Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park, the only place on the Pacific coast where a waterfall feeds directly into the ocean. After a long day of driving, what better way to spend the evening than by eating in Carmel-by-the-Sea, Big Sur's crazy artist retreat? (Bring money.)

The next day, we left for Monterey, home of the world-famous Monterey Bay Aquarium. The aquarium contains hundreds of species of plants and animals that can be found in and around Monterey Bay, which is a beautiful, clean bay two hours south of San Francisco. (If you're a fan of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, you will see the Monterey Bay Aquarium playing the part of the "Cetacean Institute," home of the two humpback whales George and Gracie. The aquarium's Great Tide Pool gets some matte painting effects and becomes the exterior shots of George and Gracie's tank. Interior shots of the whale tank are bluescreens placed behind the real interior windows that look into the aquarium's Kelp Forest.) In getting from Carmel to Monterey, we took the longer-but-scenic Seventeen Mile Drive. It costs eight bucks to drive this stretch of highway that includes spectacular views of the ocean and some views of golf courses, if that's your thing.

Monterey also has literary significance, as it was the setting of John Steinbeck's Cannery Row. At its heyday, Cannery Row in Monterey had 21 fish canneries. Demand by the military for canned fish during the world wars caused this booming business, but overfishing caused a steep reduction in the quantity of fish during the 1950s, and by the 1970s, all of the canneries had gone out of business. Now, Cannery Row is home to -- what else? -- shops and restaurants! There's a Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. here, and it's fantastic. Each of the fourteen Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. restaurants around the world have different pieces of memorabilia from the film Forrest Gump, and based on what I experienced at the one in Monterey, they have excellent seafood.

So, this is what I've been up to recently. Next weekend, we're going to Santa Cruz and Fremont. The latter contains a world-rated haunted house and what's touted to be the world's largest corn maze. Awesome!

Posted by Mark at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I just happened to be watching the last inning of tonight's ALCS match pitting the Chicago White Sox against the Los Angeles Angels, and I tuned in just in time for a travesty of justice. Angels catcher Josh Paul caught a very low pitch thrown by relief pitcher Kelvim Escobar, striking out White Sox batter A.J. Pierzynski. Right?

Apparently not. The pitch was so low that Pierzynski thought it had hit the ground. If the ball hits the ground on a third strike, a batter is allowed to run for first base. And that's exactly what Pierzynski did. The home plate umpire, Doug Eddings, apparently called a third strike, but Pierzynski didn't hear the umpire call him out, so he assumed that the ball had hit the ground and ran for first base. Sure, I enjoy baseball. But I have no heartfelt connections to either the Angels or the White Sox. Looking at the replay, it's clear that Josh Paul caught the ball before it hit the ground. It was extremely close, but he did it. Eddings apparently didn't call Pierzynski out, and after an umpire conference, the head umpire determined that the ruling had to stand. The score was tied 1-1 and it was the second out of the ninth inning. The inning should have been over. But the next batter up hit the ball to deep left field, allowing the runner on second to score. The White Sox won -- but they shouldn't have.

So, catcher Josh Paul now has an error on his record that doesn't belong there. Sure, maybe if he had thrown the ball to first, things would have been fine. But he knew he caught the ball and that Pierzynski was out. "So why throw it to first?" he thought. But the error on his record is actually the umpire's record, since the home plate umpire failed to let Pierzynski know that he was out. This game will go down in history as one of the great disputed sports matches. The White Sox didn't win because they were superior to their opponents; they won because of a bad call, a technicality. At least this wasn't game seven, or there would have been riots in the streets.

Posted by Mark at 9:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

At a conference today announcing its fourth-quarter sales figures, Apple CEO Steve Jobs also unveiled some new Apple products. Speculation had been circulating at places like Think Secret that the next version of the iPod would have video-playback capability. It was the next logical step, after all. Jobs revealed the fifth generation iPod, which has a larger (2.5" diagonal) backlit, color LCD screen and a smaller click-wheel a la iPod Nano. The fifth-generation iPod is available in standard white or glossy black. It comes in two sizes: 30 GB ($299, the same as the fourth-generation 20 GB iPod) and 60 GB ($399, the same price as the fourth-generation 60 GB iPod). The iPod U2 Edition has been phased out. I suspect many people bought it because of its glossy black color, but now that Apple makes a glossy black regular iPod, there's no reason to pay more money for DRM-crippled U2 songs just so you can have a black case.

Jobs announced a deal with ABC in which the iTunes Music Store would provide full-length episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives for $1.99 each the day after they air. The iTunes Music Store also has a new video download department. I don't suspect all television viewing will now move to the iPod -- since viewers like large screens -- but it will certainly allow people to be distracted by their iPods while walking around town in a new and different way.

Apple also unveiled its new iMac G5, which looks a lot like the old iMac G5, except this one has a remote control and a built-in iSight camera. The new iMac G5 is available in a 1.9 GHz 17" model ($1299) or a 2.1 GHz 20" model ($1699). The new iMac G5 still sports a PowerPC processor, but it contains DDR2 RAM instead of DDR RAM. Think Secret expected to see updates to the PowerBook and Power Mac lines, but they were not unveiled today. The only updates possible for the PowerBook would be a change from DDR to DDR2 RAM and a switch to a slightly faster G4 processor. Any Power Mac update is expected to be a switch to a dual-core G5 processor. Don't expect a G5 PowerBook anytime in the near ... ever.

Along with a new iPod came a new version of iTunes, iTunes 6, which interfaces with the iTunes Music Store's new video download section. And along with a new version of iTunes came a new version of QuickTime, QuickTime 7.0.3.

Posted by Mark at 7:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and New York Times reporter Judith Miller went back to the grand jury this week. Appearing before a federal grand jury for the second time, Miller revealed the existence of another, undisclosed conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The conversation suggests that there may have been a concerted effort to disclose Plame's identity in an attempt to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson, you'll recall, published an op-ed in The New York Times in 2003 in which he criticized the Bush administration's intelligence regarding the war in Iraq. A scant week later, Chicago Tribune columnist and SEHDE Villain of the Forever Robert Novak revealed very non-chalantly that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, an act that was probably a violation of federal law.

And remember Bill Frist? The Senate majority leader's shares in HCA, the nation's largest private hospital corporation, which was founded by his father, were mysteriously sold in 2005 right before the company's stock value dropped by nine percent. While Frist maintains that the shares were in a blind trust so that there would not be any conflict of interest between Frist's stock holdings and legislation Frist may have voted for that could directly affect the price of that stock, onlookers were correctly skeptical, and Frist is being investigated for insider trading (the use of inside knowledge about a company's business and finances to make decisions about buying or selling the securities of that company). Now it appears as though Frist accumulated shares of HCA stock outisde of the blind trust. Frist was part of a partnership called Bowling Avenue Partners, which held shares of HCA stock outside the scope of Frist's Senate-approved blind trust. Frist's brother, Thomas, was in control of Bowling Avenue Partners. Frist was required to place his shares of HCA stock in a blind trust when he joined the Senate because of a possible conflict of interest. But why did he hold shares of HCA that were outside the blind trust? Answer: because he thought he could get away with it. Frist will be indicted for insider trading. Oh, yes.

And Tom DeLay's lawyer has put Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle on the defensive, attempting to subpoena Earle for improperly seeking charges against DeLay. The judge in this case is on vacation, so no orders have been handed down. Aren't public officials ususally immune from prosecution like this?

Posted by Mark at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With Alberto Gonzales channeling the spirit of John Ashcroft in order to engage in a War on Pornography, there's some question as to what "pornography" is. Justice Potter Stewart, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio (378 U.S. 184), famously opined, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Stewart said the comment followed him for the rest of his days on the court.

But there is no legal standard for "pornography." The million-dollar word is obscenity. Current case law regarding obscenity was defined in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Appellant Miller conducted a mass-mailing campaign to advertise "adult" material and was convicted by a jury for "knowingly distributing obscene matter." The U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction and, after twenty years of obscenity cases, created a standard for determining what is "obscene."

Like most Supreme Court tests, the Miller test has three prongs. To be deemed "obscene," a work must meet all of the following criteria:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., having to do with sex).
2. The work must describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law. ("Patently offensive" means that it must be overt; it's not enough that sexual conduct is suggested or described in a roundabout way.)
3. The work must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This prong is often called the SLAPS test.

Thus, most of the stuff that we would today call "pornography" is classified as "obscene" and is not protected by the First Amendment. Of course, if "applicable law" doesn't prohibit particular sexual conduct, then there's no legal issue. Also, the Miller test takes into account "contemporary community standards" instead of creating a blanket standard for the entire nation, since community standards of obscenity may vary from city to city or state to state.

So, Gonazles' War on Porn is legally permissible. Does that mean the Justice Department should spend its time worrying whether or not consenting adults watch other consenting adults do obscene things? I think there was another war going on, a war on ... ah yes, terrorism! And yet, our neo-con friends in the Bush administration have decided that it's just as important to prevent consenting adults from becoming morally corrupted (as defined by the Bush administration, which is populated by evangelical Protestants) as it is to prevent terrorists from killing us! But "adult pornography is a threat to families and children," possibly a bigger threat than terrorism.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage." [Source.]

The world is a safer place. Mission accomplished.

Posted by Mark at 2:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(1) Verizon Wireless

I'm better off using tin cans and string. I can't talk for four minutes before I'm disconnected! And I'm standing still! Not doing anything! This is no way to run a cellular phone company. In Europe, the technology is light-years head of what we have here. Why can't the most powerful country in the world have cell phone service that doesn't crap out every five minutes?

(2) Intelligent design advocates

Who are they kidding? It's just creationism in disguise. They failed in the '80s when they tried to get creation into science classrooms, as the Supreme Court said, "No dice." Then they regrouped and came up with a new plan: intelligent design, which is as much science as Alf is President of Uganda. It's nothing more than a marketing scheme: sow some seeds of doubt amongst the people, take advantage of the fact that the gum-chewing public knows nothing about how science actually works, and pretend that there's some sort of "controversy" within the scientific community about evolution. Yeah, and there's controversy about whether or not gravity is real or the Lord Jesus Christ just affixed double-sided tape to our feet. The jury's still out on that one!

(3) Traffic in Denver

Everyone here drives like an old lady! In a 55 mph zone, I guarantee you that half the people are doing 45. There's no excuse for this! Plus, there's always traffic. From 3 PM to 7 PM, it's rush hour. For four hours! So if I want to go anywhere, it will take me twice as long than it would any other time of day.

(4) Commercials before movies

I didn't pay six bucks to learn about how great Coca-Cola is, or how much I need a new SUV. I like the movie trailers because they're something I haven't seen before. I know what commercials look like, and I hate them. I don't need to see them again on a twenty-five-foot screen (well, golly, if they're bigger, then they must be better!).

(5) Companies that use DRM

Look, buddy; it's my music. I bought it. So don't tell me how to use it. Copyright law doesn't give you the authority to tell me when, where, and how I can watch or listen to the content that I bought. The more DRM you pack onto a CD or an MP3, the more I'm going to avoid your content like the plague.

(6) Neo-cons

They finally did it: they got middle America to vote themselves into the poorhouse. Under the guise of religion, the Neo-con party (formerly the Republican Party) has usurped everyone in the United States. If you're the CEO of a giant, multinational corporation, then you vote Republican because you know that the Republicans will help your company out, since you donated thirty million dollars to the RNC. If you're a Democrat, but you're a Christian, then the neo-cons will use the fear of gays or abortion to get you to side with them. "If you vote Democrat, the queers will pass a law requiring you to be sodomized by RuPaul every night of the week!" Or, "If you vote Democrat, the godless communist abortionists will mandate that everyone must have abortions. And godless anal sex will be the law of the land!" So, the God-fearing Democrats voted Republican, and in the process, voted to screw themselves over. The rich get richer, the middle class shrinks, and the poor get poorer. And Karl Rove goes home at night and supplicates himself before the altar of Satan while Ann Coulter dresses up in bondage gear and whips Sean Hannity unconscious (but that's okay, because he likes it). Has America gone stupid? Don't Americans know what's going on?

(7) George W. Bush

Okay, this is an extension of (6), but he deserves his own category. First, the guy is a moron. He brags about how he doesn't read very much. He has people summarize important issues for him because he either can't be bothered to learn about an issue for himself or because he's too stupid to learn about an issue for himself. Then he proceeds to appoint people to important positions for which those people are extremely unqualified. Now, every administration has experienced cronyism, but the cronies are usually in unimportant positions, like Ambassador to Micronesia or Deputy Assistant Undersecretary for Housing and Urban Affairs. But Michael Brown? Harriet Miers? These are people who were (or will be) in important positions, and they were (or are) incredibly unqualified for the job. Oh, and George W. Bush was chosen by Karl Rove to be the next president not because he was smart, but because Karl Rove could meld him into a candidate that appeared good. And George W. Bush looks like a monkey, the way he furls his brow sometimes as he desperately tries to remember a talking point that someone told him to mention during a Q&A session.

(8) People who drive SUVs but have no reason for doing so

If you have thirty-seven kids to haul around, then go buy an SUV. Arnold Schwarzenegger owns eight Hummers. That's profane. Just because he's a killer cyborg from the future doesn't mean he shouldn't respect the environment of our own time period. Seriously, folks, the world's natural resources are becoming depleted, and with China an up-and-coming industrial superpower, the oil is going to run out a lot faster. It's time for Detroit to get with the program.

Is there something you hate? Something you want to complain about? Add a comment. We must all gripe together, or must assuredly, we shall gripe separately.

Posted by Mark at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A lot of people, all of them named President George W. Bush, are comparing Supreme Court nominee Harriet "The Curse of Michael" Miers to Justice Byron White, who served on the court from 1962 until his retirement in 1993. He died in 2002.

The comparison is largely due to the fact that White, like Miers, had never been a federal judge prior to his appointment. But the comparison ends there. White received a Rhodes scholarship and attended Hertford College at Oxford University. He graduated first in his class from Yale Law School. He clerked for Chief Justice Frederick M. Vinson. He went into private practice. He served as Deputy Attorney General. Byron White's record is closer to William Rehnquist's than to Harriet Miers'.

Posted by Mark at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's called El Día de la Raza in Latin American countries, Discovery Day in the Bahamas, Hispanic Day in Spain, and El Día de la Resistencia Indígena in Venezuela. Here in the United States, we call it Columbus Day. In the United States, it's celebrated on the second Monday in October, supposedly the date that Columbus landed in the Bahamas and "discovered" the New World. Of course, there are plenty of European explorers who visited the Americas before Columbus, and we have credible evidence of their voyages. And it's hard to say that Columbus or any Europeans "discovered" anything, since there was a thriving population of people living in the Americas already. Nevertheless, in elementary school social studies textbooks, Columbus discovered America. Then, in high school history textbooks, a lot of other people discovered America. Oh, and they gave the native populations smallpox. (Joke's on the Europeans, though; the natives gave them syphillis!)

But the controversy surrounding Columbus Day is more complex than who gave smallpox-laden blankets to who, and who gave venereal diseases to who. The first issue is, why is Columbus so much more important than Leif Ericsson, Eric the Red, or Amerigo Vespucci, all of whom explored the Americas before Columbus? Columbus was a man with a plan: find a faster route to India. European trade with India was hot stuff, since that area of the world contained a lot of exotic items not to be found in Europe -- yes, including spices that could only be found in that part of the world. But the only route to India was overland, and it was looong. And that meant it was expensive.

Contrary to popular belief, practically every learned person of the time knew that the Earth was round. Columbus was one of these people, and he did not travel to the New World to prove that the Earth wasn't flat. His problem, though, was that he -- and every other European since the map-maker Ptolemy -- thought the Earth was smaller than it really was. Maps created since the 4th century B.C. reflected only the existence of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Columbus theorized that, instead of traveling east overland, he could just travel west, and he would bump into India. And his idea was pretty sound -- except that he didn't know the Americas were in the way. Thus, when he ran aground on the shore of an uncharted desert isle (the Bahamas), he thought he was in the Indies. Hence "Indians" and "East Indies." Turns out he didn't land in India.

Nevertheless, Columbus became popularized as the person who discovered America. According to Wikipedia -- which is not authoritative but is good enough for a two-bit blog -- the first Columbus Day was celebrated Oct. 12, 1872 by New York's Tammany Society, also called the Colombian Order. It was celebrated by Italians in San Francisco in 1869, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the day a U.S. holiday in 1937.

But for some crazy reason, people of Native American descent don't like Columbus. Probably something about enslaving Native Americans and all that jazz. Around the country, while many cities are having Columbus Day festivities, Native Americans-rights groups are having counter-festivities in which they vilify Columbus as a mass murderer. University of Colorado Professor of Crazy Ward Churchill -- who is not a Cherokee[1] -- has said before that Columbus Day is a celebration of genocide. Which, to some degree, it is.

But that still doesn't explain why Columbus gets all the credit for killing Native Americans. As much credit can be given to President Andrew Jackson or General "Mad Anthony" Wayne. What about Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés, the man who brought down the Aztec empire? Or Francisco Pizzaro, who supposedly ransomed the Incan leader Altahualpa for two roomfuls of silver and one roomful of gold? Why do we set aside a day just for Christopher Columbus, a guy who didn't discover America and a guy who didn't kill as many Indians as people say he did? It's like creating an "Albert Einstein Day" to celebrate Albert Einstein as the first president of the United States. Maybe it has something to do with Italian-American influence in the early part of the century. Columbus was Italian and could, I guess, be considered a hero to Italian-Americans.

Nevertheless, many places will be closed today. I drove through the snow to the bank, only to find that the bank was closed. It's not a federal holiday, but it's a holiday for a lot of people. Why? To celebrate genocide? To celebrate lies? Come on, people. We can come up with better holidays than this.

Footnotes

1. Ward Churchill is a Cherokee in the same way that Bill Clinton is a Cherokee. Churchill is an "associate member" of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. The program that allows non-Native Americans to become honorary Cherokees has been since discontinued.

Posted by Mark at 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Matt complains that I don't talk enough about how my life is going. So here's an update.

It's freaking snowing right now! That's right. Two days ago, it was in the 80s. Yesterday, it was in the 50s. And today, it's snowing in Denver. Never in my 22 years have I seen snow this early in the season. Or maybe I'm used to Cincinnati, where it rains and rains and rains and then sometime in December, there's a little snow.

This is kind of surreal.

Posted by Mark at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Charles Krauthammer, one of The Washington Post's token conservative columnists, made a good point about Harriet Miers. Conservatives who want to increase the power of the president claim that Harriet Miers, having been part of the White House for four years, has first-hand knowledge of the necessity to increase the president's power. But this, says Krauthammer, is also her flaw:

Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much.

That's right: she's useless to us in matters of expansion of executive authority because she was one of the people who crafted the expansion of executive authority. She'll have to recuse herself in all of these cases regarding presidential authority, and thus the only apparent reason for her nomination is moot, anyway. In other news, Charles Krauthammer has a face like a turtle's.

[Via The Randi Rhodes Show.]

Posted by Mark at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I wrote a pretty long article the other day after listening to a University of Chicago law professor on The Al Franken Show talk about Justice Stephen Breyer's new book, Active Liberty. It's six pages, so I figured I'd distribute it in Adobe PDF rather than make it a gigantic blog entry.

Download "Originality and Active Liberty" [48 KB, PDF]

Here's an excerpt:

I wholeheartedly agree with Breyer’s assessment of originalism. In the world of literary theory, which is arguably much more subjective and less precise than the law, it’s a cardinal sin to try and divine the author’s intent. This is called the “intentional fallacy”: you can never know why the author did something in a novel. You can never know the author’s intentions. And if the literary world thinks it’s wrong, then certainly the legal world – a world based in precision of language and thought – would think it’s wrong, too. But, no. Originalists believe that they can divine the intention of the framers of the Constitution, and to some degree, as the University of Chicago professor said, this is true. You can know that the Founding Fathers wanted the federal government to have very specific powers and the state governments to have very broad powers. You can know that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for states to be able to usurp the authority of the federal government. You can know that the Founding Fathers valued individual liberty above all else.

But gay marriage? In the world of the 18th century, there were people that we would today call homosexuals, but even these proto-homosexuals themselves would never dream of marrying another homosexual. It just wasn’t done. It wasn’t even thought of. Sure, you could be a man and have a sexual relationship with another man, but you wouldn’t marry the guy. Why would you? It was the same as a married man having an affair with another woman, which was also done plenty in the 18th century, sometimes by the Founding Fathers themselves. And so they didn’t insert provisions about gay marriage into the Constitution – not because they were against it, but because the idea didn’t cross their minds and thus they didn’t think they would need to create a contingency for it.

The article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.

And even if you don't read it, that's okay. Because I'll just slash your tires.

Posted by Mark at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Apparently I have been out of synch with the universe for the last week. Michael Eisner, who has been chairman of the Walt Disney Company since I was a kid, resigned Sept. 30 as CEO. Now, I hadn't heard about this, and it's a big deal. Eisner has been CEO since the 1980s, but some shareholders felt that he was running the company into the ground (every weekly episode of The Wonderful World of Disney began with Michael Eisner walking into frame, saying, "Hi, I'm Michael Eisner, Chairman of the Walt Disney Company, and introducing that week's film). Even Roy E. Disney, brother of the late Walt Disney, resigned from the board of directors as an act of protest against Eisner's policies. Eisner's successor, Robert Iger, apparently made amends with Roy Disney.

Now, it is Eisner who has also resigned from the board. In fact, he hasn't just resigned from the board. He's "severed all ties" with The Walt Disney Company, according to the story by the Associated Press. Even though his employment agreement entitled him to remain with the company as a consultant, he's not exercising that option. Hmm. This is even more curious than when Eisner dumped Jeffrey Katzenberg for Michael Ovitz back in 1995 (at least, I think it was 1995).

Posted by Mark at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Critics of Harriet Miers suggest that, since she didn't go to an Ivy-league law school, she's not qualified for the Supreme Court." Is this true? Well, Daily Kos says that Ann Coulter says this, and indeed, she does:

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Nonwithstanding her stupid point that "conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities" (George H.W. Bush: Yale; George W. Bush: Yale; George Will: Princeton; William F. Buckley: Yale; Alan Greenspan: NYU; even Coulter herself received a B.A. from Cornell University and her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, which is ranked #8 in the country by U.S. News and World Report), she does say that SMU doesn't qualify her for the Supreme Court.

On that Brit Hume show on FOX News last night, a bunch of commentators talked about the issue of going to an elite university or not. But is that really the point?

Not at all. The point is that Harriet Miers, while perhaps an able corporate lawyer, has not shown that she can think like a Supreme Court justice. They cannot think of the law in merely pragmatic terms; they must look at the law almost like philosophers. They must be legal scholars who think about the theory of the law as well as lawyers who understand the practice of law. They must think about how the application of the law applies to the entire nation and the nation's future, not just how the law applies to a particular client in a particular instance. Nothing in Miers' resume suggests that she is capable of doing this; every other justice on the court right now has dealt with legal issues on a national, theoretical scale, whether as a circuit court judge or as a member of the attorney general's office.

I believe it may have been George Will who said that if you made a list of the 10,000 most qualified lawyers in the country to be a Supreme Court justice, Harriet Miers' name wouldn't appear on that list. So why did Bush pick her? Oh, yes: the cronyism!

Posted by Mark at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wonkette held a poll yesterday asking readers which celebrity or character Harriet Miers most resembled. Today, it looks like the leader is Emperor Palpatine.

Posted by Mark at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ned pointed out that Pat Buchanan has visited the issue of Harriet Miers' qualifications. I hate to say it, but Pat Buchanan is right:

This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Even George Will is upset about the nomination of Harriet Miers:

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

Many other Republican commentators are using the word "competent" to describe someone other than Harriet Miers.

The last paragraph of Buchanan's excerpt is important, though. Whereas there was some question as to whether or not the Reagan Library had to give up documents that John Roberts wrote back when he was in the Solicitor General's office, there is no question about Harriet Miers' documents. Since she spent the last four years working directly for the White House, every single document she wrote in the last four years can legally be withheld by citing "executive privilege." In selecting Miers, Bush has selected a Supreme Court nominee who is bulletproof in the sense that no one knows what she thinks because no one is allowed to know what she thinks from her writings.

This tactic, while demonstrating the kind of shrewdness only Karl Rove is capable of, could backfire. Democrats won't want to vote for her because they don't know what she believes. Hardcore neo-cons won't want to vote for her because they don't know her position on several key neocon wedge issues, Roe v. Wade not being the least of them. They wanted to be sure that Bush would appoint a hard-right Republican in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas in order to move the court right and secure their control over the three branches of the federal government. Since John Roberts turned out to be not-so-hard-right as everyone thought, the solid, inner neo-con core of Bush's world will demand a candidate who is definitely, no-foolin' hard right. The fact that we don't know much about Harriet Miers puts that in jeopardy. And not even celebrity jeopardy.

Interestingly enough, Daily Kos has found some documents on Harriet Miers ("Sure, if you want to spray your shirt with documents!"). Apparently -- and this should be disconcerting to neo-cons -- Miers loves the gays. In 1989, when she was running for Dallas City Council, Miers filled out a gay rights questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas. According to the questionnaire, she supports increased AIDS research funding and believes that gays should have the same rights as straight people. Remember, now: this was 1989. In Texas. That's a big deal. Back in 1989, even Rosie O'Donnell wanted to stone the gays.

John Roberts is a hard act to follow; one Senate judiciary member said that he could very well be the most brilliant legal mind of our time. While we don't know very much about Harriet Miers (and that's the way Bush & Co. want it), we do know this: she ain't no John Roberts. And John Roberts' keen legal mind was able to get him through the nomination process: after all, who in his right mind could argue that Roberts wasn't qualified? Any arguments about his partisanship would have to take a back seat to the fact that he was really, really smart. In the case of Harriet Miers, she's not nearly as qualified, and thus questions about her partisanship could get through her shields, even if she re-routed emergency power to the shields and randomized the shield frequencies.

But my dad came up with the best explanation as to why Bush nominated her:

She's got pictures. And they're of her. And every day she shows them to George Bush, and she says, "Nominate me to the Supreme Court and I'll stop showing you these pictures." And she was president of the Texas Bar Association, right? So maybe Bush never got over his alcoholism and thought, "Bar? She's president of the Bar Association? That's my kind of woman!"

Posted by Mark at 2:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are some numbers regarding current members of the U.S. Supreme Court, including John Roberts and William Rehnquist:

• 2 justices received their law degrees from Stanford University
• 5 justices received their law degrees from Harvard University
• 4 justices worked for the U.S. Department of Justice before becoming federal judges
• 6 justices worked in private practices
• 8 justices worked for a federal circuit court of appeals before becoming a Supreme Court justice
• 1 justice held elected office
• 1 justice worked for the ACLU
• 4 justices were law professors
• 0 justices had personally worked for the president who nominated them
• 10 justices worked for a federal or state legal body (a court or an attorney general's office)

These last two items are the problems I have with Harriet Miers, President Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor (in the above list, O'Connor is one of the two with a law degree from Stanford and the only one to hold elected office). What's troubling about Harriet Miers is the degree to which she has been involved with George W. Bush. In 1994, she was his General Counsel while he was trying to get elected governor of Texas. She's worked for the White House since 2001 and has known George W. Bush since 1994. Note that working for the White House is not the same thing as working for the Attorney General's office, which several justices did in the past: her boss is the president. No other Supreme Court justice currently on the bench ever answered directly to the president who appointed him or her. Is she perhaps too close to the president? How much of a loyalist is she? Would she rule against executive power if she had to? These are questions that must be asked during her confirmation hearings.

The other issue is her qualifications. The highest office she has ever held was as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. This is an administrative, not a legal position. Contrast this with the other justices, who either worked for state or federal courts or for the U.S. attorney general. What experience does she have in dealing with complex legal issues, the scope of which are beyond a municipality or a state? She spent most of her professional life (24 years) as a member and then a partner at the Texas law firm Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney, & Neely (the firm changed names twice over the years, to give you an idea how long she was there). We don't know anything about any judicial rulings she might make, and indeed, there is some question as to how qualified she is to make judicial rulings on the U.S. Supreme Court level. Sandra Day O'Connor, whom she would replace, was a state court judge for four years and a U.S. circuit court judge for two years. That's six years of experience as a judge. Why is Harriet Miers' first big legal job that of Supreme Court justice? Every other justice has done something significant on the national level before becoming a Supreme Court justice, and yet Harriet Miers would walk into the job with no experience as a judge. Only Rehnquist and O'Connor never worked for a federal court before becoming justices, but as I just mentioned, O'Connor spent six years as a judge and Rehnquist spent three years as an assistant attorney general. Also, they both attended Stanford University. Southern Methodist University, while I'm sure is nice, is no Stanford.

If I were the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would vote against her because she lacks the qualifications necessary to do the job. The other justices have set the bar of qualifications very high, and she fails to meet that bar.

Posted by Mark at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Two new stories from today. The first is that President Bush named his pick to be Sandra Day O'Connor's successor. White House lawyer Harriet Miers is his woman. But Miers presents a problem. First, she has no judicial experience. She has never served as a judge at any level of government, and as a result, we have no idea what her past rulings would be. Then again, thirty years ago, Richard Nixon nominated a man who also had no judicial experience to be an associate justice. And that man's name was William Rehnquist. And now you know ... the rest of the story.

Story number two is that the charges against Tom DeLay are so baseless and frivolous that he has been indicted on another charge, this time for money laundering. The money laundering charge comes stems from the fact that DeLay's PAC, Texans for a Republican Majority, routed money through the RNC in Washington in order to get it from corporations to Republican candidates for the Texas legislature. It is illegal, under Texas law, for corporations or labor unions to donate money to candidates.

Posted by Mark at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

At roughly sometime in the morning EDT, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin its 2005 term. What exciting things -- besides the Anna Nicole Smith case -- are on the docket? Oh, man: there's a lot.

Today, Monday, Oct. 3, is the court's -- and John Roberts' -- new term. Roberts takes his seat on the court less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate. Today, the court will hear two oral arguments in two cases. The first is so boring that I want to punch myself. In BP, Inc. v. Alvarez et al., the Court will answer the burning question of

Whether walking that occurs between compensable pre- and post-shift clothes-changing and the time employees arrive at or depart from their actual work stations constitutes non-compensable “walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee[s] [are] employed to perform”

Turns out that a 1947 law says that an employer is not obligated to pay an employee for the time that employee spends walking to work. But does time spent changing into a work uniform count? For thousands of years, man has been concerned with this question.

The other case that Roberts will hear on his first day on the job is Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, the Court will decide some stupid thing about taxing fuel receipts off of an Indian reservation, and whether or not this tax applies to the Prairie Band Potawtomi Nation because it sells fuel to consumers.

But the biggie comes on Wednesday: Gonzalez, et al. v. Oregon, et al.. This case has been going on since John Ashcroft first became Attorney General. Remember when he invalidated Oregon's assisted suicide law? Remember when the Supreme Court said he didn't have the power to do that? Well, now they're hearing the case. This case will decide the constitutionality of assisted suicide laws, all within Roberts' first three days in office (well, two -- Tuesday is a non-argument day). At issue is whether or not the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) "prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of any state law purporting to authorize such distribution." So, does Oregon's voter-approved law allowing assisted suicide invalidate the Controlled Substances Act, since these substances are being used for something that is legal under state law? Since this is a conservative court, don't bet on it: federal laws always trump state laws, regardless of intent. In this way, Ashcroft tried to use the Controlled Substances Act to foist his personal religious beliefs about assisted suicide on the voters of Oregon. Now Ashcroft has to take up the reigns of the case since he is the current Attorney General.

I'm excited about the Oregon case; I was turned off to Ashcroft ever since I read about what he did. Oh, it was long ago: the year was 2001. I was a freshman at Miami, eating breakfast at Ovations, a subsidiary of Scott Dining Hall. And it burned me up that Ashcroft would try crap like that because he's a crazy Christian. But I hold out hope that the Supreme Court will rule his actions illegal.

Posted by Mark at 12:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How many people who have been sued by the RIAA have been innocent? The RIAA's tactics for finding file-sharers are sketchy, especially given that they use IP addresses to identify people. IP addresses, like email addresses, can be falsified and are unreliable. And yet the RIAA files thousands of "John Doe" lawsuits in which they name a defendant by IP address, then tell an ISP to find out the person's name. This is all without a subpoena or a warrant, by the way, because ISPs are pushovers. And so the RIAA identifies the person and basically blackmails them:

RIAA: Either you pay us some amount of money or we'll financially destroy you by putting you through expensive litigation.
Grandmother: But I never shared files.
RIAA: We don't care whether you shared files or not; our software says you did, and we refuse to acknowledge that our software could be wrong. Due process could reveal this fact, but you don't have the money for a trial, right?
Grandmother: Right. Ouch, stop kicking me in my hip. That's my bad hip.
RIAA: I'm afraid I can't stop kicking you in the hip. The DMCA allows me to kick you in the hip, so I'm going to do it. Also, I punched your cat and made it into a stew.

One woman, tired of being the object of frivolous litigation and secure in the knowledge that she didn't do anything wrong, is filing a counterclaim against the RIAA. Tanya Andersen "is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security," says the counterclaim. The counterclaim further alleges that the RIAA's activities violate Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (ORS 646.605 et seq.), the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (ORS 165.715 et seq.), and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030).

Finally, someone is challenging the sketchy tactics of the RIAA. And it's significant that her lawyer chose to use Oregon's RICO Act, in part, to justify the counterclaim: RICO Acts were enacted for prosecuting mobsters. And that's precisely what RIAA is: the mafia, but legalized. They use the same strong-arm extortion tactics, and if you don't like them, then we'll inflict (financial) damage upon you. Hopefully, Ms. Andersen's example will spur other people to take the RIAA to court rather than give in to the mafia-like tactics of the RIAA's Settlement Support Center.

[Via Slashdot.]

Posted by Mark at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Lord: Please stop making it easy for people who have no idea how to design a web page to make web pages. Thanks a million. Oh, and P.S.: If could find time to firebomb Xanga, that would be great.

Posted by Mark at 1:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A federal appeals court ruled in May that the FCC lacked the authority to institute a broadcast flag, but it said that Congress could require broadcast flags. Congress, not one to turn down bribes from the motion picture and recording industries, is hard at work crafting legislation that turns your digital TV, TiVo, or PC tuner into a slave of the MPAA or RIAA.

Here's what Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA, has to say about the broadcast flag:

The broadcast flag does not inhibit copying, nor does it prevent redistribution of programming over a personal home network--it only restricts unauthorized redistribution of programming over the Internet and other digital networks.

Dan Glickman is lying to you! The broadcast flag is not a thing whose function will be determined by Congress. The broadcast flag is like a checklist of things that you can't do with a particular program, and this legislation would require that any device capable of receiving a digital TV signal must respect that checklist. So, if a content provider doesn't want you to be able to time-shift the content (something that is your right to do), you won't be able to tape a show and watch it later. If a content provider doesn't want you to be able to format-shift the content (something that is your right to do), you won't be able to copy a show to your hard drive or to a DVD. ABC, CBS, Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Sony, or whoever provides the content are the people who will check off within the broadcast flag what you can and cannot do with it.

So, in short, the broadcast flag inhibits whatever a content provider wants it to inhibit. And this can definitely (and will definitely) include copying and redistributing the programming over any network, whether it's local area network or Internet.

Do not believe what Dan Glickman says! Earlier in the year, legislators, having unsuccessfully introduced a broadcast flag law into Congress as a separate bill, tried to sneak it into an omnibus spending bill. Thankfully, it was removed by -- what's this? -- legislators who had some sense.

As EFF spokesman and Boing Boing contributor Cory Doctorow observed in a recent talk to engineers at Hewlett-Packard,

Copyright is a limited monopoly over the public copying, performance, display and adaptation of original works. Copyright governs the ability of commercial entities and a few noncommercial entities to make copies, dis-play them, etc.

Copyright does not confer the right to control “remote viewing” -- the ability to store a show in one place and watch it in another. It does not confer the right to control time-shifting. It doesn’t confer the right to control regional playback, as with DVDs that can only be viewed on a US player or a European players. Copyright does not confer the right to control re-sale or lending of lawfully acquired works.

In short, a broadcast flag would be a violation of copyright law. The intent of "preventing piracy" is a red herring. The real intent is to allow media companies to have complete control over a copyrighted work, as though copyright itself were a law of nature. (Turns out that copyright, not the absence of copyright, is the abnormality. Read Larry Lessig's Free Culture for a Brief History of Copyright Law.)

Posted by Mark at 12:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)