Originally, I was going to travel to San Francisco via I-80, an interstate that goes through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California before stopping in Berkeley. The trip was going to take two days, with one stop in Nevada, but that would be okay: it would be efficient.

Elizabeth said that she wanted to come out to Denver to accompany me back with her, so she spent her own money on a plane ticket, flew out to Denver on Wednesday, and left with me on Friday morning. We had Thanksgiving at my house. For the past week, Elizabeth had been nervous about something. She claimed that she had something in store for me that she hoped I would like. Then I became nervous.

Friday morning, at 12:30 AM, we set out into the vast, unknown west. We took I-70, which is a lot more scenic than I-80. It goes right through the Front Range in Colorado and there are dozens of little mountain towns/ski resorts (Vail, Breckenridge) along the way. When we stopped for gas in Silverthorne, Co., the temperature was 3 degrees! It reached only 2 degrees on our trip through the mountains, but we hoped it would get down to 0 sometime.

After Colorado came Utah. Elizabeth's idea was for us to go to Arches National Park on the way back to Berkeley, so about an hour into Utah, we got off of I-70 and traveled south to Moab. It was 7:30 AM when we got into Arches.

There are a lot of arches in Arches. Some of them are free-standing, others are in the hills. The arches there formed because of a salt lake that was in the area millions of years ago. Over time, the lake flooded and receded about 29 times, leaving different layers of sediment and salt behind. The salt in the rock expanded horizontally, forcing the rock to expand vertically. This rock then began to erode from the ground up, leaving a hollow -- the arch that everyone knows and loves today.

Arches is good if you like arches. Turns out I don't like them a lot, but I was also kind of cranky, since I hadn't slept in seven hours. But after some Wendy's, I felt better.

Elizabeth also decided that we should visit Canyonlands National Park and Dead Horse Point State Park, since they were both in Moab. Dead Horse Point State Park is very small and its centerpiece is a large piece of rock that juts into the Colorado River. I thought it was spectacular: the river is 2,000 feet below you and you can see for miles in any direction. There's lots of canyons, which I liked. Canyonlands National Park was even more chock-full of canyons. Again, it's 2,000 feet up, and you can see for miles. There's even canyons in the canyons. We watched the sun set there and then drove off to our next destination.

But where would that be? I had no idea.

Elizabeth drove through Utah while I slept. Sometime in the night, she told me that she was lost and that we'd have to just stop at a motel for the night. I was tired and agreeable. But let me fill you in on some facts. Prior to the trip, Elizabeth told me she had booked two hotel rooms, one with a fireplace. She also told me that she'd be doing a lot of lying on this trip so as to conceal the surprises that were in store for me. Was this a lie? I thought. Were we really lost?

Turns out not. We arrived at exactly the motel we were supposed to, a Best Western that included one room with a fireplace! It was totally awesome. Guess what was more awesome? We were a few miles from Bryce Canyon National Park! I had told Elizabeth that I visited Bryce Canyon National Park many years ago as a kid. She was heartened when I said that I liked canyons, because apparently her anxiety for a week before was due to the fact that she wasn't sure if I would like the trip she had planned. She also told me we would be visiting Zion National Park, since it was very close to Bryce Canyon. Awesome!

Bryce Canyon National Park was amazing. Each bunch of canyons has its own unique thing. Bryce Canyon's unique thing is that it was a lot of orange-and-pink rock layers, as well as tall rock towers called "hoodoos." It snowed a little the night before, which should give you an idea of how cold it was. The temperature was about 30 degrees and the wind was a-blowin'. Walking around the rim of the Bryce Canyon Amphitheatre, their largest canyon, was bone-chilling. Nevertheless, we drove around the park, looking at all the different sites to see. The views are amazing and sometimes terrifying, especially when a vista point is located on a narrow rock bridge that juts into the canyon, with only a short metal fence to keep you from careening into the canyon.

At about noon, we left Bryce (it's pretty small) and drove to Zion National Park. Zion is different from the other parks; it's primarily a driving tour. You drive down into the canyon and see the different sites. Of course, there are lots of trails to hike, but we only had until sunset that day, and besides, you could spend a week at any one of these parks if you wanted to. We only had a few days to see all of them. Zion has a lot of interesting natural rock formations, but again, its rock stuff is different from the rock stuff in any other national park. There was a really cool waterfall -- more like a water trickle -- that came from mud that filtered through the sandstone.

We left Zion at sunset and I wondered where we would go next. Elizabeth said that her plan was for us to go around the Grand Canyon at night and head to a mystery location, which I would see in the morning. How intriguing!

At about 11:00 that night, Elizabeth announced, "Oh no, I've lost us again. We're at the Grand Canyon." The saucy minx had lied again! The Grand Canyon was our mystery destination! We stayed at a hotel in Tusayan which is more the gateway to the Grand Canyon than Williams, Az., which claims to be the "Gateway to the Grand Canyon®." (And, yes, they've trademarked that phrase.) Tusayan is two miles from the south rim entrance to the Grand Canyon; Williams is about an hour away. Many a foreign tourist has booked a hotel in Williams, thinking that it was really close, but was horrified and annoyed to find that it wasn't.

The Grand Canyon is amazing. It's so big that it's more like an omnibus canyon -- a giant canyon made out of little canyons. It's about a mile deep, which makes Canyonlands, with its 2,000-foot depth, look like a ditch. It's also ten miles across and over two hundred miles long. That's a big freaking canyon. It was carved over the course of millions of years by the Colorado River. Looking a mile down into the canyon, you can see the river, and it's mind-boggling to think that something so tiny carved a canyon so monstrously huge. We took a little shuttle around the scenic points on the South Rim, the more developed side of the canyon. After a stop at Hermit's Rest, a little shop on the South Rim (that's on the South Rim -- as in, twenty feet from the rim), we headed back.

And that was Ed's Whirlwind Tour of the West. For the next several hours, we drove back to Berkeley, finally getting there at 6 AM on Nov. 28. All of Elizabeth's friends said she was crazy to attempt such a tour of five of the nation's national parks in three days. Elizabeth was terrified that I'd hate it. But you know what? We did it. And I loved it. It was a hundred thousand times better than just driving to Berkeley along I-80. And she figured, hey, we'll be in the area, why don't we visit these places? And that's the truth. Don't do things hurriedly and efficiently if you don't have to; instead, stop and look at nature along the way. It make take a few more days, but you'll be glad you did it. And I'm glad I got to see the nation's canyons on my way to my new home.

Posted by Mark at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Details to follow. The trip here was awesome. There will be pictures.

Posted by Mark at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You heard me.

Posted by Mark at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By Richard D. Erlich

There is currently a debate going on in The Miami Student (Oxford, Ohio) over Miami's becoming more fully a research university, and various professors have argued well both pro and con. I'd like to extend the argument with a discussion of the advantages of what I'll call "the Big U Model for higher education."

I draw here on the work of Murray Sperber in Beer and Circus (2000), Michael Moffatt in Coming of Age in New Jersey (1989), and my own informal research at Miami at Oxford, Ohio, in the mid-1980s.

Briefly, the Big U -- the large, public research university -- works.

You should now ask, "Works for whom, and to what ends?" The system works for employers, the university as an institution, established faculty, and for most students.

It does not work particularly well to educate on an advanced level large numbers of Americans; but, as an old joke has it, "Most jobs require only a decent high-school education, which is why employers require college degrees." For employers, any system works that certifies potential employees who are able to work their ways through complex bureaucracies. A college degree does that, certifying graduates have "satisfied in full the requirements for the degree of" whatever, and are therefore people who can show up fairly regularly, follow orders, and get a job finished more or less on time.

For the university as an institution, in part a business operation, there is this from a former Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs: "The purpose of Miami University is to process the maximum number of students in the most cost-efficient manner." For cost-effectiveness, that VP and economist insisted on "maintaining the value of the Miami degree as a piece of social currency": i.e., our degrees had to certify enough competence to make them exchangeable for a chance at a good job.

Since the 1980s, add to necessities for the university as business "The Three Rs" of Recruitment, Retention, and Renewal: Bring them to your school, keep them there, send them out happy and ready to contribute money ("renewal"). Which brings us to students and faculty.

Students are and should be attracted by the status of universities, and that status rests to a large extent on an impressive faculty in terms of impressive published research. If that research takes time and emphasis away from undergraduate education, well, research still serves the interests of many faculty members, whose personal status is increased by well-received research more than by teaching. And less faculty attention to teaching and to undergraduate students may not be altogether negative for students in terms of the desires of students.

Murray Sperber suggests revising somewhat and recycling an old "taxonomy," yielding for students the subcultures Collegiate, Academic, Vocational, and Rebel (3-11). We can discount "Rebel" for most schools, and note that high percentages of undergrads desire most what has been politely called "The full collegiate experience" and less politely called--in titles from two of my students--"College: Half-Way House to Adulthood" and "College: The Four-Year Vacation."

Some Miami students are very serious about school; I found about one-third of our students work hard. Far more students want College! ("The Four-Year Vacation") plus the "paper": a degree with a decent transcript as "social currency."

Michael Moffatt handles such issues in his comments on the 1968 sociological work, Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life: "Three sociologists have written an excellent ethnography of the grading process at the University of Kansas based on research in the late 1950s that proves that the pragmatics of 'making the grade' came first for almost all the students and that substantial intellectual understandings of the material they were learning came a distant, optional second." Moffatt's more recent study of Rutgers undergrads showed the same result, and he wonders, given the institutional system, "why three otherwise intelligent sociologists should have expected" anything else (287).

Most students are Collegiate and/or Vocational and in college for College! and for the "paper"; for those whose primary goal is academic, there are Honors and other small programs, such as Miami's Western College Program.

High-quality, published research improves the reputation of a university, hence improves the value of its "paper"; and the Big U Model serves "Collegiate" goals.

Emphasis upon research requires freeing faculty time for that research, which in turn means--money always being short--many classes taught in a cost-efficient manner: large lectures with machine-graded exams.

"When thinking about formal learning," Moffatt notes at Rutgers, "the students clearly disliked the herd approach to higher education. In other ways, however, this aspect of academia contributed to the students' freedom and autonomy in college." Moffatt sums up, "You could, in other words, take it very easy indeed in the Rutgers classroom in the 1980s if you so desired. Or you could pace yourself exactly as you liked. And so the students did" (292-93), in many cases freeing up time for Collegiate social life.

Unlike training, about all education is good for is helping people become well-informed critical thinkers, capable of citizenship in a Republic. So one can attack the Big U for not earning its keep as a support of the Republic and the life of the mind. But to do so is to speak a language foreign to important constituencies for which the Big U works just fine.

Richard D. Erlich has taught at Miami University (Oxford, Ohio) since 1971.

Sources

Erlich, Richard D. "It's Time to Rethink How Colleges Are Financed." The Chronicle of Higher Education 4 Dec. 1985. Rpt. in Points of View on American Higher Education. Ed. Stephen H. Barnes. Vol. 2. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990. 56-60.

---. "Rethink College Financing." The Plain Dealer 10 Apr. 1985: 2B.

Moffatt, Michael. Coming of Age in New Jersey: College and American Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1989.

Sperber, Murray. Beer and Circus (How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education). New York: Holt, 2000.

Posted by Mark at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Remember last November, when Ohio voters decided that they didn't like the gays? The amendment to the Ohio Constitution prohibiting gay marriage went beyond mere marriage and said that state entities could not confer marriage-like status upon people who were not married. Gays could not get married, and therefore, they could not receive marriage-like benefits.

The summer before that November, Miami University's Board of Trustees voted to allow "domestic partners" to receive the same benefits as spouses. Onlookers suggested that, due to the wording of the Ohio constitutional amendment, such benefits could be interpreted as "approximat[ing] the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." And we waited for someone to sue.

Well, wait no more! Ohio state representative Tom Brinkman, Jr. has filed suit against Miami University, "claiming its same-sex partnership policy violates an Ohio constitutional ban on civil unions that went into effect a year ago." Brinkman is also the father of two Miami University students.

Miami, to its credit, claims that it will not rescind domestic partner benefits, so it isn't scared by the prospect of a lawsuit. That's good, even for a university as conservative as Miami.

For attempting to take away the rights of an entire class of people, Tom Brinkman, Jr. is a SEDHE Villain of the Forever.

Posted by Mark at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A lot of people think that I have a good Arnold Schwarzenegger impression. Most of these people are my dad, who dared me to make a CD of Christmas carols as sung by Arnold. He wanted this as his Christmas present. Slightly daunted, I set out in October to figure out how the heck I would do this.

Fortunately, I had a PowerBook. Macintosh computers are 100% super-perfect for making homemade anything: CDs, movies, whatever. It's a multimedia powerhouse. I obtained a copy of Apple Soundtrack Pro, a Griffin iMic, and one of those skinny computer microphones. I already had a bunch of symphonic Christmas music, fortunately. Over the course of a few days, I recorded voice tracks. I think they sound really good, even though I was using just a regular old computer microphone.

The recordings were made and composited in Apple Soundtrack Pro. I designed the cover art in Adobe Illustrator. The album is licensed under an attribution, non-commercial, share-alike Creative Commons license. This means that you can share this stuff all you want, provided you (1) don't sell it for money, (2) cite me (Mark Wilson) as the author, and (3) provide the same license to all subsequent reproductions or remixes.

Download all 15 tracks of A Very Arnold Christmas as MP3s in a zip file (65 MB) in a torrent file. The MP3s have been encoded at 192 Kbps. Included are JPGs of the cover art.

Merry Christmas!

UPDATE: Thanks to Scott for creating a torrent of this file so that my bandwidth doesn't get shot. See, Hollywood? Watch as we use the BitTorrent network to legally distribute files!

Posted by Mark at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

WASHINGTON -- In a move that startled both Republicans and Democrats in the nation's capital, President Bush became the first president in U.S. history to not pardon the White House turkeys.

Traditionally, the White House has been given a turkey and one alterate turkey to be killed for the White House Thanksgiving dinner. Each year, presidents "pardon" the turkeys, sparing them from being killed. This year, however, President Bush announced that he would not pardon "Marshmallow" and its alternate, "Yam."

"Killing these turkeys will send a message to turkeys everywhere: we will not bow down under pressure from animal rights groups. We will not cower in the face of challenges to our freedom. These turkeys are vicious killers, possibly carriers of the bird flu, and pardoning them would tell the animal kingdom that it is okay to infect us with diseases which threaten our American way of life," said Bush this morning on the South Lawn of the White House.

Bush also suggested that the turkeys may have links to al-Qaeda, but a senior White House official told SEDHE that the intelligence supporting that link was questionable, at best. "We heard that the turkey Marshmallow may have met with Mohammed Atta in Prague, but that information comes from a source we know to be uncredible."

Nevertheless, the White House has not mentioned that the informant's credibility was in question and chose to act as though the intelligence were sound.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized Bush's handling of the situation. "Every president before him has pardoned the White House turkey," he said. "I have introduced a bill into the Senate that would require the president to pardon every turkey from now on."

In response, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) called McCain a "coward" and suggested that years of torture in Vietnam had driven him crazy. "He also adopted a black baby," she said in a statement on the Senate floor that drew jeers from Democrats and some Republicans.

President Bush has said that he will veto any legislation that requires him to pardon the White House turkey. "We're in a war on turkeys. We need to be able to confront the enemy any way we can." Bush said that alternate turkey Yam would not be killed immediately; rather, he would be held at an undisclosed location, without being charged for a crime, and interrogated until he told CIA officials how to cure the bird flu.

Posted by Mark at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

With the administration running damage control in the wake of Bush's and Cheney's insane comments ("It's perfectly all right to question why we want to war, as long as you don't question why we went to war"), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sent out to take bullets on no fewer than four Sunday news shows: FOX News Sunday, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, This Week, and Face the Nation.

What's most fascinating are the comments Rumsfeld made on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer tells Rumsfeld that the administration's push for war was made based on faulty intelligence. He cites an instance in which the administration claimed that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, only to have its source for that information discredited later. Rumsfeld's response:

There is no question that there are fabricators that operate in the intelligence world. And there's also no question you can find intelligence reports on every side of every issue.

When you look at the reams of intelligence information that the United States develops from different agencies, they gather from other friendly foreign liaison services, you can find in any given week intelligence that conflicts with each other. The implication that there's something amazing about that is just ridiculous.

Finally! An administration official that actually answers a question instead of bringing up September 11, al-Qaeda, or "Saddam Hussein was a very bad man."

Rumsfeld's response to this question is, "There will always be bad intelligence." Fair enough. And it's the job of intelligence experts at the CIA to separate the "good" intelligence -- substantiated information based on credible sources -- from the "bad" intelligence -- unsubstantiated information that comes from uncredible sources (like the implication that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Iraq officials -- that one comes from a source known to be uncredible).

And then, in a moment that I will remember forever, Rumsfeld said this:

It's clear the intelligence was wrong.

Whaaa? Whoosa-- ? Whaaa? Is this a Bush administration official telling the truth? Start the presses! Alert the newsmedia! Get Hearst on the phone! Prepare the teletype!

Yes, Rumsfeld admitted that the intelligence was wrong. So, what do we have here? On Veterans Day, Bush said that it was irresponsible to suggest that the administration manipulated intelligence, and besides, he said, Democrats got the same intelligence and they still voted for war. Bringing together Rumsfeld's statement that the intelligence was wrong, we can come to the following conclusions:

1. The Bush administration knew the intelligence was wrong and disseminated it, anyway, in which case, Bush is lying and the administration did manipulate intelligence; or,
2. The Bush administration didn't know that the intelligence was wrong.

In the first case, the administration is malicious; in the second, the administration is incompetent. If we take Bush at his word -- I know, you'll have to suspend disbelief for a second -- then the administration's overarching reason for going to war was, "We were too dumb to be able to discern the bad intelligence from the good intelligence." They're pleading stupidity as a reason for sending 2,000 people to die! "Oops, our bad" is the administration's position on the war. "But, hey, we're there already and we can't leave now."

It's a sorry sign when the administration has to resort to pleading stupidity in order to save its own ass.

(By the way, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that case number one -- the administration disseminated intelligence as fact even though it knew that said intelligence was false -- is actually what happened. Take, for example, Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger and his conclusion that documents showing that the Iraqis bought yellowcake uranium were obvious forgeries, a conclusion every other intelligence agency in the world came to. Bush is also lying when he says that every other intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was willing to use them.)

Posted by Mark at 3:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Thursday, Representative John Murtha (D-PA) called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Friday, House Republicans said, "Okay, you want to withdraw troops? Let's withdraw troops" and presented a resolution for withdrawing troops. While the Democrats were brave enough to suggest an Iraq withdrawal, they completely -- how shall I put it? -- pussied out when it came to an actual resolution. An AFP story about the resolution observes, "Republicans put up their own version of the resolution, calling for 'the deployment of United States forces (to) be terminated immediately,' aiming to make the Democrats appear unpatriotic if they voted for the measure." The resolution, H.R. 571, was defeated 403 to 3, with spineless Democrats voting to defeat the resolution. Which House members aren't spineless? Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, José Serrano of New York, and Robert Wexler of Florida. Apparently, Democrats will talk all day long about doing things, but when it comes to actually doing things, they're afraid of appearing "unpatriotic."

Why are they so afraid? President Bush is on the defensive, or at least, he should be. He attacked his critics on Veterans Day and followed up earlier this week. He sent Cheney out to repeat the talking points that war critics are trying to "revise history." Any junior high school-level debater should be able to take these speeches down; Bush and Cheney make a lot of claims, but offer no evidence to support their assertions. In contrast, war critics offer a plethora of evidence indicating that the administration cherry-picked intelligence -- whether true or not -- in order to support its attempt to convince the world and the American people that we needed to go to war with Saddam Hussein right now!

Instead, the Democrats do nothing. If Bill Clinton's White House were in charge of the Democratic Party, we would be seeing a lot more criticisms of the war and we would be seeing the Democratic Party trying to "win the hearts and minds" of moderate Americans who are unsure of what to believe.

Instead, they send Howard Dean to Meet the Press with the nebulous promise that "sure, we have ideas, and our ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas, but we can't tell you what our ideas are. Just trust us on this one."

The strongest criticisms of the administration are coming from what might be considered the fringes of the Democratic Party -- blogs like Daily Kos, and Air America Radio. Put these people on Capitol Hill and you'll see the Republicans quaking in their boots, which are made from the skin of the poor.

But the Republicans have a coordinated media strategy, something Democrats don't have. The RNC sends out daily talking points, and Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh all obediently repeat the talking points like the syncophantic, despicable lap-dogs that they are. This means that, in the heartland of America (and I dare you to find a state in the midwest where you hear Rush on more stations than you hear Air America shows), voters hear day in and day out that Democrats are lying, and Republicans are just trying to spread freedom, and the Iraq War is going really swell, and by the way, if you keep voting for us, we'll take care of that whole gay marriage and abortion thing and we'll give the richest one percent of Americans cherry tax breaks because, hey, they work really hard and deserve it more than you do.

If the Democrats want to do anything about the administration, they have to be unafraid to challenge the administration where it counts.

Oh, and in other news, THOMAS, the Library of Congress's searchable database of legislation, has updated its look. The web page no longer looks like it was designed in 1995.

Posted by Mark at 4:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

GYEONGJU, South Korea -- Barely a week after first going on the offensive by suggesting that Iraq War critics want to "rewrite history," President George W. Bush yesterday leveled his harshest criticism yet against war critics while on a multi-nation Asian tour.

"Now, I understand when the American people want to criticize the conduct of my war," Bush said, "the First Amendment gives them that right. But I want to let them know who else uses the First Amendment. Osama bin Laden uses the First Amendment. He uses freedom of speech to spread his message of violence and hate. He uses the First Amendment to recruit dangerous killers who want to murder women and children."

At a press gaggle later in the day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan assuaged reporters' fears that the president somehow equated war critics with terrorists. "I want to be very clear on this point," said McClellan, "the president did not suggest that people who exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech are like Osama bin Laden. I think that if you go back and look at what the president said, you'll find that he said exactly the opposite of that."

King Features Syndicate columnist Helen Thomas, however, challenged McClellan. "I don't know why you would say that. The president very clearly equated people who utilize free speech with Osama bin Laden," she said.

"No, Helen, that's not what he said," replied McClellan. "I'm not going to stand up here and listen to you play the blame game. I'm not going to stand here and watch you play politics and take the president's comments out of context. The president was very clear on this point and I'm not going to watch you endorse the actions of dangerous killers."

Vice President Richard Cheney, appearing later that day in a press conference in Washington, D.C., defended the president's comments. "I don't know how any American who pretends to call himself patriotic can criticize the president's handling of the war, especially when we have such convincing intelligence that Osama bin Laden, the person responsible for the horrific, terrible events of September the eleventh, is such an ardent defender of free speech. I think it's reprehensible that any person who loves this country would be doing the same thing that terrorists do," he said.

Following Bush and Cheney's speeches, the Department of Justice released a new policy initiative aimed at cutting down on what Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called "the problem of aiding terrorists by lowering troop morale at home." The policy paper recommended solving the problem by declaring critics of the war to be "unlawful comabatants" and placing them in secure military prisons where they would be held without a trial or other constitutional protections. "A strict reading of the Geneva Convention of 1949 reveals that war critics cannot be guaranteed the same protections as other citizens." Calls to the Department of Justice were not returned by press time.

"Finally, we're seeing a policy that makes sense," said FOX News host Bill O'Reilly on his radio show, The Radio Factor. "I'm glad that the liberal terrorist sympathizers are finally going to be dealt with in a fitting way. Their vile words have demoralized the troops and provided aid and comfort to the deranged killers that we are trying to fight around the world."

Lance Eddington, a Professor of Law at the Pakled University School of Law, said that the president's comments were wildly out of proportion. "The suggestion that war critics are like terrorists is very offensive and dangerous," said Eddington. "The First Amendment is one of our most sacred protections, and yet the president is suggesting that people who exercise this right are attempting to kill Americans. This is a dangerous precedent."

Argyle Schotenstein of the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research disagrees. "The president's statements are not at all without precedent," he said. "In order to stave off war, James Buchanan suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anyone who suggested that the United States should go to war to deal with the issue of slavery. William McKinley routinely imprisoned critics of the Spanish-American War. And I won't even go into the issue of John Adams and the Sedition Act. This president is only exercising all the options available to him. We're involved in a global war on terror, and we can't afford to send our troops mixed messages, messages that only increasing the terrorists' resolve."

The White House has not yet indicated when it would implement the Justice Department's policy, or if the policy would apply to members of Congress or other government officials. Requests made to the White House for interviews or clarification were repeatedly and systematically denied.

Posted by Mark at 2:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was writing the previous blog entry while watching John Hodgman on The Daily Show. Hodgman appears occasionally on NPR's This American Life. He appeared on The Daily Show today to promote his new book, The Areas of My Expertise. I actually stopped writing the last entry, saved it, and then wrote this entry before I forgot what I was thinking.

John Hodgman is, I think I can safely say, the funniest human being alive. He came up -- without missing a beat -- with the most hilarious responses to Jon Stewart's questions, all perfectly deadpan. I'll post video as soon as I can.

Among the things in his book are "700 hobo names" (which is apparently a song), something that we've seen before on Boing Boing. In that instance, Boing Boing linked to a website that was drawing cartoons for each of the 700 hoboes chronicled in Hodgman's song.

The more I watched Hodgman during his brief appearance, the more I was completely stupified how perfect his timing was, and how quickly he came up with hilarious answers to Stewart's questions. Even Jon Stewart was cracking up, even though he was trying to play along.

I'm going to buy Hodgman's book now.

Posted by Mark at 2:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Most high school students who learn about the 1950s have been trained to hate Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy, who intimidated the government from 1950 to 1954 with his allegations of communism. Students who learned about McCarthy in a history class should probably have been told that most of the people he accused of being communists turned out to be communists. "McCarthyism," though, was always about using the lowest of tactics, usually intimidation, to get someone to admit something. It was also about casting a wide net in an attempt to catch a few people who may have been genuinely guilty of a crime.

But Good Night, and Good Luck isn't about whether or not McCarthy's ends were right. The film -- as Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) makes clear -- is about the means by which McCarthy goes about accusing actors, Congressmen, and Army officers of being communists. McCarthy's strategy was to break down his opponents, embarass them, and generally bully them with rhetoric that didn't make sense but sounded good on television. In the film, Murrow acknowledges that, while it is important to investigate allegations of Communist infiltration, it is equally important to adhere to due process. McCarthy's tactics revived the phrase "witch-hunt," meaning an investigation undertaken with guilt presumed and all facts used to support that presumption of guilt. Indeed, Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible during the 1950s as an allegory of "McCarthyism," the modern-day synonym for "witch-hunt."

The film depicts Murrow as a crusader for democracy, armed with only producer Fred Friendly (George Clooney, who also directed the film) to defend him against the power of television. CBS, the station on which Murrow appeared, wasn't as worried about the political bent of Murrow's newscasts against McCarthy as it was worried about the loss of advertisers due to the broadcast of such a controversial topic. The end of the film reinforces a truth that holds to this day: no matter how good a televison program may be, if it doesn't bring in ratings, it's gone. Clooney depicts Murrow as someone who stands up for what he believes in; Murrow suggests it's his duty to take on McCarthy, as he believes that there is no justification for what McCarthy is doing. He urges the higher-ups to let him take on McCarthy because, as he puts it, sometimes there aren't two sides to an issue: sometimes, something is just flat-out wrong. There's no way to present McCarthy objectively because there is no objective way to say that his tactics are somehow justifiable; any moral person would understand that what he is doing is totally wrong, and for the press to pretend that there is a morally upstanding "pro-McCarthy" side would make them complicit in his witch-hunting.

Given this article from The New York Times Review of Books, it looks the media today are in trouble. Large media corporations -- Clear Channel, Infinity Broadcasting, Viacom, the Sinclair Group -- are buying each other up and consolidating within markets. A few years ago, Congress eased restrictions on how many media outlets a company could own within a given market. News is no longer about reporting facts; it's about making money. Arguably, our pining for a time long since past when the media were objective might be romanticizing the history of media, but what about Edward R. Murrow? What about Woodward and Bernstein? What about people who have searched for the truth? I'm remided of the motto of my hometown newspaper, The News-Herald: "Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man; its publication is a virtue." (Turns out that that quote comes from ... Joe McCarthy! No, just kidding; it comes from a 19th century French writer, Anne Louise Germaine de Stael.)

The lesson -- and there is a lesson -- to be learned from Good Night, and Good Luck is that you shouldn't back down when you know you're right. There are a lot of people out there who are afraid to speak up about the truth of things like, oh, I don't know, the Iraq War. We've seen that the administration consistently smears these people, even when they come from the Republican party. We've seen that corporate news companies -- the "mainstream media" -- will print only what will sell newspapers, not what is true. It's high time for this to change. Anchors from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and the major networks -- as well as the owners of all those networks -- should look at Strathairn's Edward R. Murrow and be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by Mark at 3:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's about time for Bill O'Reilly to be a SEDHE Villain of the Forever. Here's a list of things he has done to put himself into such a nefarious group:

• Created a show with the tagline "the no spin zone" even though O'Reilly repeats the Republican talking points, which are themselves "spin"
• Suggested that Cindy Sheehan was not speaking for herself, but rather was a puppet of George Soros and the "hate America" crowd
• Made mistakes of fact and then refused to admit that he made such mistakes
• Sanctimoniously acted as though he were in a position to lecture Americans about morality, then was caught sexually harassing an employee
• Represented himself as a person with some sort of hard news background when in fact his job prior to working at FOX News was as an anchorman for the tabloid show Inside Edition

Well, last week, O'Reilly became incensed after San Franciscans overwhelmingly approved Proposition I, a ballot initiative that would prohibit military recruiters from being given information about public school students in order to recruit them. The city, though, cannot legally enforce such a measure, so the 59% of voters who favored the measure were making a symbolic statement.

On his syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, O'Reilly had this to say to San Franciscans:

Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

O'Reilly later tried to weasel his way out of this statement by suggesting that it was a "satirical riff" and that of course he wasn't really calling for terrorists to blow up Coit Tower. And I have no doubt that if a liberal talk show host had said the same thing, Republicans wouldn't pounce on that person, because Republicans would understand that the statement was meant satirically.

(That last paragraph was a satirical riff, by the way. Republicans would tear the talk show host apart and demand that he or she be fired, crucified, and shot into the sun.)

Military recruiting at public schools is a complex issue, and suggesting that recruiters shouldn't recruit on high school and college campuses does not -- as O'Reilly suggests -- mean that those who oppose such recruiting hate the military or love terrorists. I wonder if O'Reilly has even read the measure and understands what it means. Taking things wildly out of context would just be par for the course for him.

According to the text of Proposition I, the measure opposes "U.S. military recruiters using public school, college and university facilities to recruit young people into the armed forces" and suggests that the city provide college scholarships to underprivileged students so that they don't have to join the military in order to pay for college or earn money (what the measure calls an "economic draft").

Interestingly, the measure also mentions that the No Child Left Behind Act, in addition to leaving children behind, compels public schools to provide personal records of children in those schools to the military for recruiting purposes. Prior to No Child Left Behind, a piece of legislation called the Federal Educational Records Protection Act Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act made it a federal crime to disclose student records denied federal funding to schools that provided personal student information to anyone other than the student and the student's parents. But since we're living in a militaristic society, it's okay to violate FERPA make stupid exceptions for the purpose of sending more bags of meat to die in a pointless war. (And by the way, George Bush, Democrats did not receive the same intelligence you did prior to the war. They received only the intelligence that you elected to show them!)

Perhaps O'Reilly is unaware of a court case called Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (04-1152). Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) is a coalition of over 30 law schools and faculties. In 1997, Congress added to an omnibus spending bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill of 1997 an amendment called the Solomon amendment. The amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to deny federal funding to colleges and universities that prohibit ROTC or military recruiting on campus.

FAIR protested the amendment, calling it a violation of campus' freedom of expressive association. Forcing college campuses to accept military recruitment would foster the impression that the colleges condoned military recruitment, as well as the policies of the military. Especially at issue are the military's anti-homosexual policies. The colleges' ban on military recruitment was an expressive act protesting the military's ban on gays, says FAIR. The government says the Solomon amendment doesn't impinge upon freedom of speech; colleges are free to dissent by banning military recruitment, but the federal government is also free to deny them federal funding.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals didn't buy the government's argument and sided with FAIR. The court said that the Solomon amendment creates "compelled speech" by forcing students to support the military's stance on gays. This, of course, violates the First Amendment: the government cannot, through some action, compel a particular organization to take a stance on an issue that is counter to what that organization actually believes. (This is the flip side of the same coin that we saw in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 99-699 [2000]). The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR on Dec. 6.

For being the World's Most Colossal Jerk, Bill O'Reilly is a SEDHE Villain of the Forever.

UPDATE: § 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires public schools to "provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings." This is not in violation of FERPA, as FERPA allows schools to release such "directory information" (as defined by 20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A)) without the consent of the parent or student.

Posted by Mark at 8:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, appeared on Meet the Press yesterday. Tim Russert says, "Do you believe that Democrats have a clear message, a vision for the future? Fifty-two percent of independent swing voters say no. One in four Democrats say you have no clear vision, no agenda, no clear message."

Sounds good. This is Howard Dean's big chance to prove that the Democrats do have a clear agenda.

Dean responds:

We have an alternative agenda. We made it very clear. We want a strong national security based on telling the truth to our people at home, our soldiers and our allies. We want jobs in America that'll stay in America, and we believe that renewable energy is one of the areas where we can do that. We want a health-care system that covers everybody, just like 36 other countries in the world. We want a strong public education system. And most of all, we want honesty back in government. I think that's a pretty good agenda.

Okay, you've got an agenda. Russert asks, "What do the Democrats stand for?"

Dean replies, "Tim, first of all, we don't control the House, the Senate or the White House. We have plenty of time to show Americans what our agenda is and we will long before the '06 elections."

Okay, Howard Dean. Fair enough. I mean, right now you don't control the Senate or the House or the White House. But, I mean, you're on national television and you could persuade all those swing voters that your ideas are better than the Republicans' ideas. So, come on, humor us. What do Democrats stand for?

Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It's our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America. And that's what we're going to do. We're doing our best. Look at the trouble they're having putting together a budget. Why is that? Because there's still a few moderate Republicans left who don't think it's OK to cut school lunch programs, who don't think it's OK to do some of the appalling things that they're doing in their budget. I saw a show last night which showed a young African-American man in California at the UC of Davis who hoped to go to law school. The Republicans want to cut $14 billion out of higher education so this kid can't go to law school. We're going to do better than that, and together, America can do better than that.

You're killing me, Howard Dean. I mean, it's great to talk about what the Republicans are doing wrong. We've been talking about that for years. Seriously; I want to know what the Democrats are going to do to fix the country. I mean, I don't like George Bush or the Republicans. I was going to vote Democrat, anyway. But what about all those people on the fence? How are you going to persuade them by merely criticizing the Republicans? You need to make a positive argument! Tell me why you're better than the Republicans! If you guys want to get elected in 2006, it sure is your job to give out specifics.

Okay, Howard Dean, you get one last chance. Tim Russert, lead the way.

MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."

DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.

MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?

DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.

MR. RUSSERT: This year?

DR. DEAN: In 2006.

I give up. Howard Dean is as bad as any political pundit out there. This is why the Democrats can't get elected, even in the face of a corrupt and incompetent Republican party. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that if you "build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." Howard Dean and the DNC are still trying to figure out how to make cheese.

Posted by Mark at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Time columnist Joe Klein, in last week's issue of the newsmagazine, is finally saying in the "mainstream" media what people on the lefter-leaning Air America radio station have been saying all along: there's something wrong with the Bush administration.

His column centers around The Permanent Campaign, a phrase coined by Jimmy Carter pollster Patrick H. Caddell to describe how the president should act as though he is constantly trying to be re-elected by constantly appealing to voters and what voters want. "Dick Morris even asked voters where Bill Clinton should go on vacation," writes Klein.

Writing a paper for President Carter in 1976, Caddell observed that "too many good people have been defeated because they tried to substitute substance for style." Klein's thesis is that the Bush administration has perhaps gone too far, substituting style for substance. It was supposed to be Bush's straight-talking, shoot-from-the-hip Texas attitude that endeared him to "average" voters. At the same time, though, Bush infuriated intellectuals who saw him for what he was: a very dim bulb being manipulated by others, a man who went to Yale and Harvard Business School not because he earned it, but because his father was a former Massachusetts senator, CIA director, and -- oh, yeah -- President of the United States. The secret to Bill Clinton's popularity was that he really was the son of middle-class parents. His step-father -- Clinton's biological father was killed in a car accident before Clinton was born -- was a car salesman. The family lived in Hope, Ark., not Kennebunkport, Maine. (Let it be known that whenever the right criticizes Ted Kennedy for being a "liberal elite," they must watch as their noses grow six sizes, for Bush is a scion of the "conservative elite.") Clinton became a Rhodes scholar and attended Yale Law School because he was extremely intelligent, not because his father got him in.

But beyond Bush's obvious stupidity, there is another side to the Bush administration: it is more P.R. than anything else. "Indeed, his Administration represents the final, squalid perfection of the Permanent Campaign: a White House where almost every move is tactical, a matter of momentary politics, even decisions that involve life and death and war," writes Klein. The Bush administration uses style -- in the form of vague generalities about "evil killers" and empty pleas that involve the word "freedom" -- to conceal the fact that it has no substance. Or, it uses style to conceal the fact that a particular program might be detrimental to the country. Take the Orwellian names given to Bush legislation: the "Healthy Forests" initiative would make forests "healthy" by allowing lumber companies to cut down more trees; the "Clear Skies" initiative would make skies clearer ... by increasing the acceptable levels of pollution that industries could produce. The "No Child Left Behind" act has left lots of children, mostly poor children from cash-strapped school districts, behind (including the schools of Hamilton, Oh., where Bush made a big show of signing the bill into law).

And whenever someone criticizes the administration, the Bush team is there to destroy that person. Klein refers to this as the White House Iraq Group, which "was created to market the war and smear the President's opponents." The phrase "market the war" is chilling: it suggests that the public had to be persuaded that the war with Iraq was a good idea. The Bush administration tried to suggest to the American people that war was a good idea by using a variety of techniques: first, Saddam was a killer (but so were dozens of other world dictators, including the rulers of Saudi Arabia); then, he violated U.N. resolution 1441 (but ninety U.N. resolutions are currently being violated); then, he wouldn't let weapons inspectors in (but Bush pulled them out before they had completed their job and then blamed Saddam for not letting them finish inspecting); then, Saddam was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons (but Saddam abandoned his nuclear program after the Persian Gulf War); then, Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction (but we have found none).

Yesterday, Veteran's Day, Bush showed that he was a "uniter, not a divider" by attacking the people who disagreed with him, suggesting that people who believed that the administration manipulated intelligence were trying to "rewrite history." But evidence shows that the Bush administration -- to use a John Kerry phrase -- "cherry-picked" intelligence that supported its case for war, regardless of the veracity of such intelligence. After the war began, the Bush administration, through a concerted campaign of media manipulation and smearing, tried to convince the United States that the war was somehow justifiable. "But worse, far worse, was the tendency of the White House -- particularly Karl Rove's message apparatus -- to see the war as part of the Permanent Campaign, as a political opportunity at first, and then, as the news turned bad, merely another issue to be massaged," says Klein.

Bush's massage strategy: personally attack critics, even Republicans, if they disagree with the administration. And if you can't come up with a good way to personally attack them, then make stuff up. Send talking points to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush. ("Cindy Sheehan is a puppet of George Soros," for example.) Divide the country with social issues, and proclaim the whole time that you're a divider, not a uniter. Destroy anyone who gets in your way. But don't make it look like you're destroying. Promise that, as long as middle America votes for you, you'll keep the gays away.

Under the presidency of George W. Bush, this country has reached a new low. Lower than the scandals of Rutherford B. Hayes, Warren G. Harding, and Richard Nixon, combined. The American people are an audience trying to be sold a product, as though the Iraq War were Diet Cherry Coca-Cola. We're demographics to be won by an administration whose thought process is "shoot first, ask questions later." This war was not thought out. Bush's asinine landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which he declared that "major combat operations are over," marked the beginning of "major combat operations." Invading the country took three months; for the last two years, we have attempted to retain control of a country that was not ours to take. The media spin machine has been in overdrive, attempting to conceal the fact that the invasion of Iraq was the first step in a neo-conservative effort to control whatever part of the world it liked. (Why not? After all, the suits declaring war would never actually have to fight, nor would their children. It's like a game of Battleship.)

We have a president who is running the country by style, not substance, as though appearing to know what you're doing is the same thing as actually knowing what you're doing. But this emphasis on style is not, as was the case of Jimmy Carter, designed to make voters like the president more. Bush's emphasis on style is designed to conceal the fact that the country is being operated by a neo-conservative intelligensia led by Dick Cheney, and anyone who thinks so is unpatriotic, treasonous, and deserves to be killed by terrorists. The emphasis on style is designed to sell to the American people policies which are, in fact, detrimental to most of the American people. This administration has done an unfathomable amount of damage to the country, at home and abroad. It has destabilized the world, putting otherwise peaceful nations (Jordan, anyone?) at risk.

Has all of this been undertaken for money? Raw power? The worst part of all this is that there is no clear motivation on the part of the administration. They appear to be reactionary, resulting in an absurd, uncoordinated policy of spin and lies with no logical end. Maybe they thrive on disorder and chaos. Maybe they like knowing that they have the power to kill recent high school graduates from middle America. Whatever their motivation, they are destroying this country, and no one seems to be noticing. They're too blinded by the sequins and neon lights of the Permanent Campaign.

Posted by Mark at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Drug companies often justify the high prices of prescription drugs by referring to the high costs of research and development -- after all, they're just trying to get back the money they've invested in research. And for every successful prescription drug, there are a dozen unsuccessful prescription drugs, and the research cost of those must be recouped, somehow.

But exactly how much does research cost? And how much is recouped? Tonight, in a SEDHE "Just the Facts, Ma'am" special, we're going to find out.

According to Forbes magazine, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck are the world's three largest drug/biotech companies by revenue. (Pfizer is 24th on its list of largest companies worldwide, Johnson & Johnson is 46th, and Merck is 63rd.)

According to Pfizer's 2004 Financial Report [PDF], Pfizer made $52.5 billion in revenue worldwide in 2004, $10.8 billion of which came from the drug Lipitor alone. In fact, total revenue from its five best-selling drugs -- Lipitor, Norvasc, Zoloft, Celebrex, and Neurontin -- amounted to $24.7 billion. Its profits (revenue minus expenses, including income taxes) in 2004 were $11.4 billion. Pfizer spent $7.68 billion on all research and development in 2004, and when all the bills were paid, Pfizer had 148% of that amount left over.

According to Johnson & Johnson's 2004 Annual Report [PDF], the company made $47.35 billion worldwide in revenue. It spent $5.2 billion on research and still managed to take home $8.51 billion in profit, or 164% of its research costs. Johnson & Johnson's biggest seller is Procrit ($3.59 billion), a drug that helps relieve anemia associated with treatment of HIV, cancer, and kidney disease. It also owns the Band-Aid, Tylenol, Splenda, and Neutrogena brands.

According to the Financial Section of Merck's 2004 Annual Report [PDF], Merck made $22.9 billion in revenue worldwide in 2004. It spent $4.01 billion on research in development and ultimately made a profit of $5.81 billion, or 145% of its R&D expenses. You might remember Merck for Vioxx, Singulair, and Zocor. Vioxx is used for arthritis and was voluntarily recalled last year after the company found that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack. Singulair is used to treat seasonal allergies. Zocor reduces the risk of heart disease by reducing cholesterol.

The three largest drug companies in the world spent an average of $5.63 billion on research and development in 2004. Their average profits were $8.57 billion. The three largest drug companies in the world, then, made an average of 152% of their research costs in profit in 2004.

Posted by Mark at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Slate has an amusing review of the oral arguments from a case heard yesterday, Georgia v. Randolph. After being called about a domestic disturbance at the Randolph home, police were led by Mrs. Randolph to a sock drawer upstairs where her husband kept some cocaine. Mr. Randolph returned home in the middle of this and demanded that the search stop. The police didn't stop. They found some more cocaine and arrested Mr. Randolph on drug charges.

The question facing the Supremes: what if one inhabitant of a house objects to a search, while the other inhabitant allows it? Should the law err on the side of protecting privacy -- and thus require a warrant in this case -- or should it err on the side of allowing the search? The court seemed divided, with Chief Justice Roberts on the side of "when you live with someone, you compromise your expectation of privacy" and Justice O'Connor leading the side of "just because one inhabitant says it's okay to let the police in, doesn't make it okay."

Read these briefs from the petitioner and respondent in the case and then go read the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion, which held that "the consent to conduct a warrantless search of a residence given by one occupant is not valid in the face of the refusal of another occupant who is physically present at the scene to permit a warrantless search."

Posted by Mark at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In California, all four Arnold-backed ballot measures -- Props. 74 (teacher tenure), 75 (union speech), 76 (altering state spending procedures), and 77 (redistricting) -- failed. So did Prop. 73 (abortion notification), Prop. 78 (drug coverage without a discount from companies), Prop. 79 (drug coverage with mandatory discount from companies), and Prop. 80 (electricity re-regulation).

In Ohio, all four state constitutional amendments failed.

Texas, however, joins 18 other states in ratifying a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage; now, almost 40 percent of the country hates gays. That's promising.

And, in Pennsylvania, the school board that promoted intelligent design as an equally weighted scientific theory alongside natural selection, was tossed out by the voters. The school board is the subject of the current lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which plaintiffs Kitzmiller, et al. challenge the teaching of intelligent design on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment. The new school board consists of members who are critical of intelligent design as a scientific theory.

And in Virginia and New Jersey, voters replaced Republican governors with Democratic ones. So, it seems like we won yesterday. California, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania did well. Ohio and Texas did not.

Posted by Mark at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ah, entry number 400! And what a great entry it is! Oh, how I pine for the days of Mystery Science Press Conference 3000, when Matt and I would watch Ari Fleischer -- and then his successor, Scott McClellan -- distort the truth until it looked like a Picasso painting of the truth.

Today, Scott McClellan became hostile and sarcastic toward reporters who wanted to know one thing: if it is the Bush administration's policy that we don't torture people, then why is Dick Cheney asking for an exemption allowing CIA officials to engage in torture? At first, McClellan argued with 10,000-year-old White House correspondent Helen Thomas, the grandmotherly-looking lady who sits in the front row at press briefings. But be warned: Helen Thomas doesn't take crap from anyone, especially anyone as weasely as Scott McClellan:

Q I'd like you to clear up, once and for all, the ambiguity about torture. Can we get a straight answer? The President says we don't do torture, but Cheney --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's about as straight as it can be.

Q Yes, but Cheney has gone to the Senate and asked for an exemption on --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has not. Are you claiming he's asked for an exemption on torture? No, that's --

Q He did not ask for that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that is inaccurate.

Q Are you denying everything that came from the Hill, in terms of torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're mischaracterizing things. And I'm not going to get into discussions we have --

Q Can you give me a straight answer for once?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me give it to you, just like the President has. We do not torture. He does not condone torture and he would never --

Q I'm asking about exemptions.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me respond. And he would never authorize the use of torture. We have an obligation to do all that we can to protect the American people. We are engaged --

Q That's not the answer I'm asking for --

MR. McCLELLAN: It is an answer -- because the American people want to know that we are doing all within our power to prevent terrorist attacks from happening. There are people in this world who want to spread a hateful ideology that is based on killing innocent men, women and children. We saw what they can do on September 11th --

Q He didn't ask for an exemption --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we are going to --

Q -- answer that one question. I'm asking, is the administration asking for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: I am answering your question. The President has made it very clear that we are going to do --

Q You're not answering -- yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you don't want the American people to hear what the facts are, Helen, and I'm going to tell them the facts.

Q -- the American people every day. I'm asking you, yes or no, did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: And let me respond. You've had your opportunity to ask the question. Now I'm going to respond to it.

Q If you could answer in a straight way.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I'm going to answer it, just like the President -- I just did, and the President has answered it numerous times.

Q -- yes or no --

MR. McCLELLAN: Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people. We are engaged in a global war against Islamic radicals who are intent on spreading a hateful ideology, and intent on killing innocent men, women and children.

Q Did we ask for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to do what is necessary to protect the American people.

Q Is that the answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are also going to do so in a way that adheres to our laws and to our values. We have made that very clear. The President directed everybody within this government that we do not engage in torture. We will not torture. He made that very clear.

Q Are you denying we asked for an exemption?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, we will continue to work with the Congress on the issue that you brought up. The way you characterize it, that we're asking for exemption from torture, is just flat-out false, because there are laws that are on the books that prohibit the use of torture. And we adhere to those laws.

Q We did ask for an exemption; is that right? I mean, be simple -- this is a very simple question.

MR. McCLELLAN: I just answered your question. The President answered it last week.

Q What are we asking for?

Q Would you characterize what we're asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're asking to do what is necessary to protect the American people in a way that is consistent with our laws and our treaty obligations. And that's what we --

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from the military?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, let's talk about people that you're talking about who have been brought to justice and captured. You're talking about people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad; people like Abu Zubaydah.

Q I'm asking you --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is facts about what you're talking about.

Q Why does the CIA need an exemption from rules that would govern the conduct of our military in interrogation practices?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are already laws and rules that are on the books, and we follow those laws and rules. What we need to make sure is that we are able to carry out the war on terrorism as effectively as possible, not only --

Q What does that mean --

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm telling you right now -- not only to protect Americans from an attack, but to prevent an attack from happening in the first place. And, you bet, when we capture terrorist leaders, we are going to seek to find out information that will protect -- that prevent attacks from happening in the first place. But we have an obligation to do so. Our military knows this; all people within the United States government know this. We have an obligation to do so in a way that is consistent with our laws and values.

Now, the people that you are bringing up -- you're talking about in the context, and I think it's important for the American people to know, are people like Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh -- these are -- these are dangerous killers.

Q So they're all killers --

Q Did you ask for an exemption on torture? That's a simple question, yes or no.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. And we have not. That's what I told you at the beginning.

Q You want to reserve the ability to use tougher tactics with those individuals who you mentioned.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously, you have a different view from the American people. I think the American people understand the importance of doing everything within our power and within our laws to protect the American people.

Q Scott, are you saying that Cheney did not ask --

Q What is it that you want the -- what is it that you want the CIA to be able to do that the U.S. Armed Forces are not allowed to do?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into talking about national security matters, Bill. I don't do that, because this involves --

Q This would be the exemption, in other words.

MR. McCLELLAN: This involves information that relates to doing all we can to protect the American people. And if you have a different view -- obviously, some of you on this room -- in this room have a different view, some of you on the front row have a different view.

Q We simply are asking a question.

Q What is the Vice President -- what is the Vice President asking for?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's spelled out in our statement of administration policy in terms of what our views are. That's very public information. In terms of our discussions with members of Congress --

Q -- no, it's not --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of our members -- like I said, there are already laws on the books that we have to adhere to and abide by, and we do. And we believe that those laws and those obligations address these issues.

Q So then why is the Vice President continuing to lobby on this issue? If you're very happy with the laws on the books, what needs change?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you asked me -- you want to ask questions of the Vice President's office, feel free to do that. We've made our position very clear, and it's spelled out on our website for everybody to see.

Q We don't need a website, we need you from the podium.

MR. McCLELLAN: And what I just told you is what our view is.

Q But Scott, do you see the contradiction --

In this 1,300-word exchange, McClellan mentions September 11, "dangerous killers," and twice mentions a "hateful ideology." At no time does he address the inherent contradiction between the vice president's actions and the president's statement. Also, the version of the press conference that I have posted, which comes from the White House website, has been edited to make McClellan appear less hostile. His last sentence was, actually, "And what I just told you is what our view is. Weren't you listening?"

So, what is McCain lobbying for, anyway? Here is the text of McCain's amendment, in PDF format. It prohibits any person in the custody of the Defense Department from being subjected to "any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." It also says that "[n]o individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

Okay, fair enough. But is Cheney lobbying for an exemption to this, or is Helen Thomas just a treasonous bastard? The Washington Post reported Oct. 25 that Cheney had drafted a proposal similar to McCain's, with the exception that "the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by 'an element of the United States government' other than the Defense Department." So, yes: as predicted, Scott McClellan is lying. Cheney is asking for a CIA exemption to torture. And now they've been caught, and now Scott McClellan is becoming exasperated in attempting to do damage control; but the old Bush tactic of repeating talking points until they become true isn't going to work this time.

Why does the Bush administration, speaking through Cheney, opposed to this amendment? Because the administration was able to use legal weaseling to use torture in violation of the Geneva Convention. The language of this amendment is so clear that no legal maneuvering could get past it; therefore, the amendment has to be stopped, because the Bush administration wants to continue to engage in torture around the world.

And, finally, Andrew Sullivan made this most excellent of comments:

A man who avoided service in Vietnam is lecturing John McCain on the legitimacy of torturing military detainees. But notice he won't even make his argument before Senate aides, let alone the public. Why not? If he really believes that the U.S. has not condoned torture but wants to reserve it for exceptional cases, why not make his argument in the full light of day? You know: where democratically elected politicians operate.

Posted by Mark at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I forgot about Ohio! If you're voting there, you had five statewide issues to vote on.

State Issue 1 would sell bonds "to finance, or assist in financing, public infrastructure capital improvements for local governments." Fair enough.

State Issue 2 would amend the Ohio Constitution to allow anyone to vote by mail thirty-five days before an election, for whatever reason. If you get a ballot mailed to you, but the county board of elections hasn't received it by election day, you can cast a provisional ballot, just in case.

State Issue 3 would amend the Ohio Constitution to impose limits on political contributions, to both candidates and Political Action Committees (PACs). It would, among other things:

• Limit spending by individuals to $25,000 for all candidates and PACs per year;
• Prohibit candidates from soliciting funds from PACs, soliciting contributions from committees supporting or opposing ballot issues, or appearing in advertising regarding a state ballot issue;
• Permit labor unions to donate funds to candidates, these funds coming from membership dues;
• Prohibit candidates from receiving funds from PACs.

State Issue 4 would amend the Ohio Constitution to alter the redistricting procedure in Ohio. Under the proposed procedure, a commission of five people -- composed of two sitting judges and three people appointed by the first two people or chosen by lot -- would redistribute state representatives. But this provision is scary: "the commission may consider whether to alter a plan to preserve communities of interest based on geography, economics, or race, so long as the reconfiguration does not result in a competitiveness number that is more than two points lower for a congressional plan and four points lower for a general assembly plan." The "competitiveness number" for a district attempts to keep the district roughly balanced between Republicans and Democrats. If you ask me, I think districts should be drawn based on geography alone.

State Issue 5 is a response to lots of controversy from the 2004 presidential election, in which Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell -- a staunch Republican -- may have deliberately caused voting irregularities (such as the delivery of too few election machines to certain districts or failure to count some ballots) in order to get Bush to win in Ohio. Issue 5 would amend the Ohio Constitution to eliminate the Secretary of State's control over elections and create a nine-member board (four appointed by the governor, four by members of the General Assembly who are not of the same party as the person being appointed, and one by unanimous vote of the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court). Issue 5 would also require the state to hire an administrative director to oversee state elections.

Currently, with two-thirds of the votes in, all four of the constitutional amendments were failing two to one, according to The New York Times.

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

Cory Doctrow of Boing Boing validates what I've been saying all along: using the phrase "Wi-Fi" to mean "wireless network access" is stupid:

30,000 or so people have written in to quibble over whether WiFi stands for wireless fidelity, pointing to the fact that the WiFi Consortium has decided to claim it does. It doesn't. WiFi is a pun, based on the contraction, "Hi-Fi," which stands for "High fidelity." WiFi "means" wireless fidelity the same way that "foo" and "bar" mean "f*cked up" and "beyond all recognition" -- e.g., not at all. WiFi is derived from high fidelity, but if WiFi *means* "wireless fidelity" then it means precisely nothing, because "wireless fidelity" is a nonsense phrase whose only meaning comes from the fact that you get a pun on "HiFi" when you shorten it.

"High Fidelity" is an old audio term describing the quality of the data; therefore, "Wireless Fidelity" should also describe the quality of the data, but it doesn't. "Wi-Fi" refers to the transmission medium; i.e., "wireless." His "foo" and "bar" example refers (1) to the military acronym FUBAR, meaning "f*ucked up beyond all recognition" and (2) to the way in which programmers show how variables are assigned in tutorials or lessons. In PHP, for example, a tutorial showing how a variable is assigned a value would show this

$foo="bar"

to mean that the variable $foo has the value "bar." (This is a standard programming tutorial just as the "Hello World!" tutorial is standard for Web markup [HTML, CSS] tutorials.)

It's a similar pun in that the words sound similar, but they don't mean the same thing.

Today, Cory posts something from Phil Belanger, a founding member of the Wi-Fi Alliance who presided over the selection of the name "Wi-Fi." Belanger suggests that the phrase Wi-Fi "is not an acronym. There is no meaning." Much like "SAT" no longer stands for anything (it used to stand for "Scholastic Aptitude Test," then it stood for "Scholastic Assessment Test"; now, there is technically no acronym; it's just "SAT"), "Wi-Fi" is not short for "wireless fidelity."

I don't agree with this assessment. If you're going to have a word like "Wi-Fi," which is clearly designed to look like "Hi-Fi," then the phrases should be related somehow. Otherwise, you're diluting the meaning of the word "fidelity."

Then again, I've always been the Grammar Nazi.

Posted by Mark at 3:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court today released its first slip opinion of the 2005 Term. The case, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 03-1238 (2005) [PDF], was the first case John Roberts heard as Chief Justice. At issue was whether or not employers had to compensate employees for the time they spent putting on protective clothing. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires that employees be compensated for walking to and from the location of "principal activity." This also included activities that were "preliminary" or "postliminary" to the "principal activity." In this particular case, employees of IBP, Inc. (a meat-packing company) sought compensation for the time they spent putting on protecting clothing and walking to the production floor.

Now, if you were some anti-labor robber baron, you'd have voted against this. Curiously, however, this was a unanimous decision of the court. All nine justices agreed that the FLSA requires employers to compensate employees for the time employees spend putting on protective clothing.

The second case the court released today, United States v. Olson, 04-759 (2005) [PDF], is a tort case. "Tort," in addition to being a delicious dessert, is an Old French legal term meaning "wrong." (I imagine that Sam Waterston enjoys a tort that is filled with raspberry-flavored justice!) Two questions need to be asked in tort cases: (1) was someone wronged? and (2) who's responsible? These two questions are tricky. In the first case, there may be a question as to whether or not there was a wrong at all. In the second case, even if it has been determined that someone has been wronged, it's hard to tell who's responsible. If Little Timmy from next door toddles into your swimming pool and drowns, is there damage? And who's responsible? Clearly, there's damage: Little Timmy is dead. Who's responsible? That's why Little Timmy's mother took you to court. (Turns out that the court would probably say that it's your fault; a swimming pool is an "attractive nuisance," which means that you should take all the measures you can to ensure that no one drowns.)

In U.S. v. Olson, the court pondered whether or not the U.S. government could be liable in a case where workers in an Arizona mine were killed. The plaintiffs in the case asserted that federal mine regulators' negligence caused the mine accident, and such, they sued the United States. So, we have (1) a wrong -- two miners were killed -- but do we have (2) responsibility? The United States, of course, claimed that it was not responsible. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows tort suits against the government are permissible "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." A U.S. district court in Arizona dismissed the case, reasoning that Arizona law would not impose liability on a private person in similar circumstances. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that Arizona law would make a state or municipality liable for such actions, and therefore, the United States could also be held liable. The Supreme Court didn't much care for this opinion at all, and in another unanimous opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit Court. Justice Breyer, taking time off from his duties as an ice cream magnate, wrote that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the Federal Tort Claims Act, as the act does not allow the U.S. to be liable in instances where a "state or municipality" would be liable -- only in cases where a "private person" would be liable. (The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, since there is no private job analagous to that of mine inspectors, the "private person" standard had to be altered. What a bunch of hippies.) The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and sent it back to the lower courts for further consideration.

Well, I guess torts went as boring as I thought they were! That case was awesome! And what's more, we had two unanimous opinions in the same day. I think the Court is turning over a new leaf.

Posted by Mark at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Tomorrow marks the day when California voters will decide on eight ballot initiatives, Propositions 73-80. I've talked about them here, here, and here. And here.

To recap:

Vote no on Proposition 73. It's designed to make abortions harder to get, effectively making them illegal without making them illegal.

Vote no on Proposition 74. Proposition 74 makes it easier to fire teachers. So if an administrator doesn't like a teacher or wants to get rid of him or her, all it takes is two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, and the teacher is gone.

Vote no on Proposition 75. This is designed to silence public employees unions.

Vote no on Proposition 76. This gives the governor new and broader budgetary authority.

Vote no on Proposition 77. It takes redistricting control out of the hands of legislators, but a new dedistricting plan would go into effect before the voters could vote on it. Also, it uses census numbers from 2000, effectively ignoring the millions of people who have moved to California since then.

Vote no on Proposition 78. Why? Proposition 79 is better.

Vote yes on Proposition 79. This initiative not only provides more drug discounts to more people (because it allows discounts to be given through employers), but it also requires that drug companies provide the drugs at a discount to the state, saving the taxpayers money over Prop. 78.

Vote yes on Proposition 80. Clearly, the lesson we must take from the Enron scandal/California power outages of 2001-2002 is that electric utilities -- a public good -- must be regulated. Prop. 80 re-regulates electric utilities, repealing the 1998 initiative that de-regulated them in the first place.

Posted by Mark at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In Panama today, President Bush fielded questions from reporters about whether or not the U.S. approves of torture:

"We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

"We're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible, more possible, to do our job," Bush said. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet we will aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law."

But we do torture! First of all, Vice President Cheney tried as hard as his heart would allow to get a Senate amendment defeated. This amendment would make it illegal for U.S. officials to torture captives. When Cheney couldn't get the entire amendment defeated, he at least lobbied to have an exemption made for the CIA. If the United States doesn't torture people, then why must an exemption be made?

Second, the amendment enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. In a recent test vote in the Senate, the amendment garnered 90 votes for and 9 votes against. Nevertheless, Bush has promised to veto legislation with such an amendment. This is why John McCain has vowed to insert this amendment into every piece of Senate legislation until the amendment becomes law. Why would President Bush veto legislation containing an amendment which enjoys such bipartisan support? He proclaimed himself to be "a uniter, not a divider." And yet, even though he maintains that the United States does not torture, he would veto a bill condemning torture.

Third, we have many memoranda showing that the Bush administration does not consider enemies captured in the War on Terr' to be prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Convention, and therefore, they do not have the rights afforded prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

Posted by Mark at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're like me, you drink a lot of coffee. And if you drink a lot of coffee, then you probably wonder, "How much coffee would it take to kill me?" In medieval times, man had to make due with tea leaves, the arrangement of the planets, and pieces of the True Cross to come up with answers to this question. The answers were inaccurate and usually ended up in the killing of Jews and Muslims for no good reason. But, hey, that's medieval times for you.

Thanks to Joseph Lister and the Internet, we no longer have to worry about mysticism when it comes to answering this age-old question of caffeine poison. A blog called "Energy Fiend" has written a script for determining how much of any caffeine drink it would take to kill you. Just select your drink of choice from the drop-down menu and input your weight. The computer does the rest. For example, a 110 lb. person like myself would have to drink 259 cans of A&W Creme Soda before it killed him. That's a lot of soda! And I don't have to worry about drinking too much coffee; I would need to drink 70 cups of brewed coffee before it killed me.

The LD50 (the lethal dose that would kill 50% of the population) of caffeine is about 10 grams (10,000 mg) when administered orally. This varies by the weight of the individual, of course (source). The LD50 for all weight levels seems to be 150 mg of caffeine per kg of person (so, if you weigh 50 kg, the lethal dose of caffeine for you is 7500 mg). Brewed coffee contains between 4 and 20 mg of caffeine per ounce of coffee, meaning 32-160 mg in a typical 8 oz. cup of coffee. This translates into 62.5 8-oz. cups of coffee as being a lethal dose at the highest threshold of caffeine concentration. A caffeinated soft drink, by contrast, contains only 3-8 mg of caffeine per ounce, or 36-96 mg per 12-oz. can (source). The Energy Fiend blog also has a database of caffeine content, which is presumably where the script's "lethal" measurements come from.

Interestingly, Red Bull -- that favorite solvent of amateur, underage partygoers everywhere -- has only 9.64 mg of caffeine per ounce. If you want to party well into the night, better stick with Irish coffee, which contains 53.8 mg of caffeine per ounce of whiskey, as opposed to the Red Bull and vodka, which contains 25.7 mg of caffeine per ounce of vodka.

Also keep in mind that, not only does the same amount of coffee contain 1.4 times as much caffeine as Red Bull, but Red Bull's MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) is $1.99 for an 8.3-oz. can, or $0.24 per ounce of Red Bull, while a 32.5-oz. can of Maxwell House ground coffee will produce 270 6-oz. cups of coffee (1,620 fl. oz. of liquid coffee) at normal strength for $7, or $0.0043 per fluid ounce of coffee. A can of Red Bull with the same caffeine content as the 1,620 oz. of coffee which that $7 can would produce (21,772.8 mg) would cost $643. So, maybe Red Bull is a little overpriced.

[Link to "Death by Caffeine" via Boing Boing.]

Posted by Mark at 6:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last year, a very indie horror film grossed out and entranced moviegoers to the tune of $18 million its opening weekend, which was last Halloween. The film, Saw, cost a mere $1.2 million to make. Two months after its opening weekend, it had grossed $55 million in the United States alone. The first film had such a good showing that the sequel was approved for production during the first film's opening weekend. Saw was about a serial killer named Jigsaw who, a cancer patient himself, felt that too many people didn't appreciate the lives they had. So he kidnapped them and put them into elaborate booby-traps in order to "test" how much they really wanted to live. If the victim solved Jigsaw's little puzzle, he went free. If not, he was horribly killed.

One key to the success of Saw, besides its gross-out factor, was its emphasis on psychology. Jigsaw, represented by a creepy puppet in the "instructional" videos he plays for his victims, was always one step ahead of his victim and the audience. Just as soon as we thought that the victim had circumvented Jigsaw's trap instead of legitimately solving the puzzle, we were horrified to learn that not only has Jigsaw anticipated this circumvention, but had taken countermeasures to punish the victim for cheating at what he calls his "game."

Saw II is a sequel that is just as much worth its salt as the first film. James Wan and Leigh Whannell co-created the concept and story for the first Saw, with Wan directing the feature film and the demo that was shown to Hollywood producers. The director has changed, but Whannell remains one of Saw II's co-writers, along with director Darren Lynn Bousman. This keeps the sequel in synch with the first -- in multiple ways, as it turns out.

As before, Jigsaw has kidnapped someone and placed him in a situation in which he must solve a puzzle or die horribly. This time, however, Jigsaw has kidnapped several people. Whereas the first film was a study in individual action under duress, Saw II is a study in group dynamics under duress. As you might predict, some members of the group want to work together so that they can all get out together. Others are staunchly opportunistic and individualistic and will work only to save themselves.

As before, there's quite a bit of psychology in the film. Just when you thought you had the film figured out, Bousman and Whannell throw you a curve ball. This is what M. Night Shyamalan used to be like, before he resorted to stealing other people's ideas and coming up with lame-ass "twists." Jigsaw, who plays a much larger role in the sequel, is a frail, middle-aged man dying of cancer. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't understand human beings, and particular human beings, especially.

But here's something new. The film engages in a debate about intellectualism vs. brute strength. Several characters in the film represent the intellect and try to work their way through Jigsaw's puzzles with their minds. Other characters represent brute force, trying to use physical power to find their way out of the puzzle. The movie comes out on the side of intellectualism, as all the characters who think that they can beat or bludgeon their way out of their predicament end up meeting horrific fates. Compared to Armageddon (or any film directed by the creatively-challenged Michael Bay), which typifies the anti-intellectualism of the time in which we live, Saw II is a very extreme warning to those who believe that complex situations can be solved by beating, hitting, forcing, or threatening.

Yes, it's more gruesome than the original, but that's not a bad thing. It has all of the thematic elements of the first, and then some. This is a very good sequel, especially given that the director has changed. Normally, a change in director means that the film's tone -- something that audience comes to expect to remain unchanged -- changes, also. Saw II has the same tone as the original, helped in part by the fact that the cinematographer is the same, which means that the sequel looks the same as the original.

It looks like Saw is a film franchise that will be around beyond these two films. And that's good, as long as the quality remains consistent. Although it makes you wonder what's wrong with Leigh Whannell that he can come up with such ingenious and disturbing methods of death for multiple films.

Posted by Mark at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

According to David A. Justiss's Dictionary of Monsters, which provides an index of mythical creatures and monsters, a "sedhe" is a fairy. The word sedhe is Gaelic and is pronounced "shee":

They are often very dangerous even if they seem friendly. They are very selective about who they let into their world (and who they let back out), and often have strict rules about not telling anyone where they live or where the entrance to the land of faerie is. The result of breaking their rules is often death or a devastating curse. Some, like the banshee, seem undead and others more like demons than fairies. Even when types of Irish or Europeon fairies seem harmless and helpful, they are afraid of clergy or religious people which usually implies something demonic.

A banshee, though Irish, is not a fairy and is not undead. Nevertheless, David A. Justiss claims that the word "banshee" comes from the Gaelic "Bean-sedhe," which means "woman of the sedhe." A banshee is the ghost of a woman who has drowned her children; this is why she is most frequently seen next to rivers. Seeing a banshee is a "forerunner," meaning an indication of your impending death. It's a common misconceptions that banshees wail; they don't wail, they cry. And if you're seeing the banshee, and she's crying, then she's crying for you, because she knows you're about to die.

So, not only is SEDHE the Spanish Society for the History of Education, but it's also a fairy.

Posted by Mark at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Only real geeks would have any idea who Michael Piller is. Along with Rick Berman, he became an executive producer for Star Trek: The Next Generation, and later, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager. He was not involved with Enterprise.

Michael Piller died Tuesday of cancer at the age of 57. Many Star Trek fans liked Piller better than Rick Berman, whom they felt didn't exactly understand the Star Trek universe (at least I know that Larry Garfield of E Pluribus Forum has nothing but hate in his heart for Rick Berman). When Rick Berman became more involved in the creation of Star Trek: Voyager, Piller took over operations at Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, keeping the series in its Dominion War plot arc, but making the stories more humanistic. Piller, I feel, is responsible for making the writing on Deep Space Nine the best of any Star Trek series.

Posted by Mark at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday, The Washington Post revealed that the CIA has been holding and interrograting terror suspects in an Eastern European prison since September 11. No one has discovered this until now because the CIA has been keeping these suspects in secret. In fact, the CIA still officially won't acknowledge the existence of this and other secret prisons. What's more, the CIA has a worldwide system of secret prisons that was set up four years ago.

Despite official disavowing of the existence of such secret prisons, CIA director Porter Goss and Vice President Dick Cheney have asked that the CIA be exempted from Senate legislation that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. If there's no secret prisons, and we're conforming to the Geneva convention, then why would we ask for such exemptions? Furthermore, if it's not the policy of the United States to engage in torture, then why are we asking for what amount to exemptions from prosecution for torture?!

If you are an American, then an unknown number of prisoners, who have been imprisoned without trial and without regard to whether they may have actually committed a crime or not, is being tortured in your name. The Bush Administration doesn't consider the constraints of the Geneva Convention to apply on non-American soil. (This is the only reason why they set up Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay; the administration thought that Guantanamo Bay was outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus outside the jurisdiction of our "official" laws condemning torture. And they say Bill Clinton used legalese.)

And now for something completely different

If Dick Cheney is asked to testify in Scooter Libby's perjury case, will he be required to be under oath? After all, when Cheney appeared in front of the September 11 Commission, he was not under oath. Will he be able to use executive privilege to refuse to answer questions?

Answer: no. In a criminal investigation, executive privilege cannot be used as a justification for refusing to answer questions. In Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 03-475 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that the proceedings of the Vice-Presidential Energy Task Force could be protected by executive privilege because there was no criminal investigation. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that Richard Nixon had to turn over the "Watergate tapes" despite his assertion of executive privilege. Among other things, the court ruled:

Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.

Also:

[W]hen a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.

United States v. Nixon was an 8-0 decision. Newly-appointed Justice Rehnquist took no part in the decision, since he was fresh out of his position as Assistant Attorney General. So, I think Cheney will have some tough, oath-ified questions to answer.

Posted by Mark at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oh, and the other ballot initiative I forgot to mention was a Denver initiative de-criminalizing marijuana. That measure passed by a 7 percentage-point victory. Now, adults in Denver over 21 years old are allowed to have up to an ounce of marijuana in their possession . . . sort of. Marijuana possession is still a state and federal offense, and Denver prosecutors can still prosecute people under state law, so the victory for pot is more a moral victory than anything else.

Which brings me to my topic of discussion: how would the government go about dealing with legalized marijuana? Marijuana advocates often compare marijuana to alcohol because alcohol is the only mind-altering substance that's legal to consume.

Alcohol, even though it can cause death in large enough doses, is legal to sell. Alcohol can become physically addictive and can cause a myriad of health problems, including cirrhosis of the liver, a condition in which the liver processes so much alcohol over such a long period of time that it becomes damaged and scarred. Tobacco cigarettes and cigars are also legal to sell, despite moutains of evidence that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Cigarettes contain over five hundred carcinogens, including formaldehyde (the stuff used to preserve dead tissue) and nicotine, which has been used for thousands of years as a pesticide. With these examples in mind, the argument that "marijuana is dangerous" is invalid; here are two examples of dangerous drugs that are legal to use. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has not been proven to cause any chronic diseases. There has never, ever in recorded history been a case of death from a marijuana overdose. To see examples of alcohol overdose, all you need to do is live in a college town and read the newspaper.

Reasonable restrictions are placed on alcohol and tobacco. First, the government regulates the purity of the substances so that when you have a drink, you know what you're getting. You know that beer is going to be about 5% alcohol and that shot of whiskey is going to be about 40% alcohol. The legalization of alcohol and tobacco may mean that the government believes that using these substances are okey-dokey. Or it could mean that the government takes no moral stance on the issue of alcohol and tobacco and instead leaves the decision up to you, the citizen. Either way, the government understands that you're making a decision to use alcohol or tobacco of your own free will, with full knowledge of the risks those actions entail. Ensuring that the products are uniform in their purity means that there are no risks involved that are not within your knowledge; that is, you know that the alcohol doesn't contain bleach or that the cigarettes don't contain cocaine or some other non-cigarette impurity. While alcohol and tobacco are both dangerous, it is not the government's duty to stop you from using them; rather, it is the government's duty to ensure that you are aware of all the risks involved and that there are no "surprise" risks. If you choose to engage in these actions, government ought to make them as safe as possible up to the point of the natural level of danger incurred by engaging in an action that is harmful to you. This is why the government mandates that food contain nutrition information on the box: so that you can determine, with the most data available to you, whether you want to consume that food. The government mandates purity of food so that the only risk you take when consuming the food is the content of the food itself, not some lethal extra-food additive.

Reasonable restrictions are also placed upon what you can and cannot do with these drugs in public. While you may have made the decision to harm yourself in spite of your knowledge of risk, there are other people who have chosen not to harm themselves, and in a public setting, your personal decision starts to erode other people's personal decisions. This is why we have laws banning smoking in public places: smoking is an activity that has the potential to harm others if done in the presence of others. The government is defending their decision not to smoke, and since smoking is a harmful activity, the government errs on the side of protecting the individual decisions of the people who have chosen not to engage in that harmful activity. While you may have a right to engage in a harmful activity as long as that decision affects only you, you do not have the right to force your decision upon others. This is why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal: your decision to drive while drunk is a decision that affects others besides yourself, and it affects them in a profound way. After all, drunk driving is lethal, and it is unfair to subject others to the consequences of a personal decision of yours; it was not their decision to make for them to be killed by a drunk driver.

And so we come to marijuana. And, indeed, we come to all illegal drugs. Why is it the government's business what consenting adults do to themselves? The same case can be made for pornography or homosexuality or any other decision to which certain people object. "Drugs are bad." Very well, then, drugs are bad. But it is my decision to take those drugs. The government is not here to be my parents. Government is here to make sure that, whatever I choose to do, I'm free from what might be called dangers that are external to the dangers inherent in the activity. if I decide to drink, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by drinking alcohol. If I decide to smoke, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by my smoking. If I decide to eat chili cheese fries, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by eating chili cheese fries. The same goes for sex and drugs. (But curiously not for rock 'n' roll, as the government has yet to declare the Rolling Stones illegal because they pose dangers to your sense of taste outside the normal dangers incurred when listening to rock music.) Hence, condoms. Hence, needle exchange. Hence legalized (but regulated) marijuana.

Sure, the government can try to talk me out of an activity that is potentially harmful. I'll accept that as the government informing me of the dangers of the activity I'm about to undertake. "Surgeon General's Warning: Qutting Smoking Now Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health." Very well, Surgeon General. I'll take that into consideration . . . or not. But I appreciate the effort.

The reasons for keeping certain drugs illegal, for making pornography illegal, and for making homosexual sex illegal (until Lawrence v. Texas, anyway) are all the same. They're bad for you and we, the government, don't want you to do bad things for you. We know what's best for you. It's a very paternalistic attitude that should be offensive to adults. Perhaps the very definition of "liberty" is having the freedom to do something that is contradictory to your own self-interest. The definition of "authority" is "having the ability to make someone do something he doesn't want to do." In other words, authority means forcing someone to do something he doesn't want to do. Liberty means allowing someone to do something he shouldn't do. Again, liberty extends only as far as the individual, so while I may have the right to do something that's harmful to me, I most definitely do not have the right to do that thing to someone else, especially if that person has decided that he or she doesn't want to do that thing. There's an old saying about civil liberty which says that the rights of my fist end where your nose begins. That's very true; I'm the only person who should have to deal with the consequences of my decision. Other people shouldn't have to, and the government must protect their decisions, as well. This means that, in private, I can do whatever I want. In public, or any other situation in which others might be affected, the government is obliged to protect their decisions not to do something.

And if the government wants to tax the crap out of marijuana, good for it. Government can go right ahead. It can demand that people pay an economic price to offset the social cost of a dangerous activity, but it mustn't impose such a burden that it effectively uses the "power of the purse" to make a dangerous activity unreasonable instead of illegal. (Imposing high costs on abortion, for example, is one tactic that anti-abortion legislators use to make abortion de facto illegal by making it extremely difficult to obtain.)

And, finally, some words from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, from his essay "On Liberty":

The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals.

[...]

There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control.

[...]

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

There you have it. May I also induct John Stuart Mill as the first person to have the honor of being a SEDHE Hero of the Forever.

Posted by Mark at 4:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

A palindrome is a word that is spelled the same forward and backward. This movie ends just where it begins: with confusion. It's like an episode of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, but not as funny.

Aviva is a teenage girl who wants a baby, going so far as to have sex with a boy just so that she can get pregnant. Palindromes presents a unique situation: Aviva wants to have a baby, but her parents want her to have an abortion (usually, it's the other way around). Aviva's mother reveals that she had an abortion years ago, when Aviva was three years old. Her mother was pregnant but couldn't support a second child.

Her parents completely ignore the fact that Aviva, even though a teenager, desperately wants a child, and so they force her to have an abortion. The film implies that the abortion is botched somehow, but we can't be sure, since the discussion between the doctor and the parents about what happened during the abortion appears only from Aviva's point of view, and it is distorted because she is still partially unconscious.

Following the abortion, she runs away from home, first hitchhiking part of the way with a man who later turns out to be an accused child molester. This man doesn't approve of her running away from home and so tries to take her home. She abandons him and hides in the truck of a truck driver named Joe. Aviva is almost pathological in her desire to have a baby, convincing herself that she is in love with Joe after they have sex. When Joe ditches her, she wanders for an unknown amount of time.

She stumbles upon an exceedingly, irritatingly Christian family who takes in children people don't want. As it turns out, the family is so Christian that the father, conspiring with a doctor named "Dr. Dan" and a local named Earl who lives in the nearby woods, murder abortion doctors. "Earl" turns out to be the very same "Joe" who met Aviva earlier in the film, and he is charged with murdering an abortion doctor. The murder goes awry, Earl (whose real name is Bob) is killed by the police, and Aviva returns to her family.

Solondz takes an approach that is unclear and confusing: he has several different girls play the part of Aviva. In some cases, the girls look similar enough that all you notice is that Aviva looks different, but you're not sure why. When Aviva is played by an overweight black girl, the effect isn't as much artistic as it is confusing, especially since we're unprepared for it.

The movie seems to come out in favor of abortion, since it depicts the Christian "Sunshine" family in a satirical light, as well as depicting the father as a hypocrite for being "pro-life" yet murdering abortion doctors. The only underlying theme appears to be that Aviva wants a baby. We have no idea why she wants a baby; the film doesn't delve into her motivations, and this is one of its shortcomings. The film merely chronicles her almost pathological attempts to have a baby and even to fall in love. Aviva doesn't know what love is and she cannot see beyond her blind desire to the fact that she can't raise a child.

I watched this film at Ned's request and I'm unsure of what the film is trying to say. It doesn't approve of the anti-abortion philosophy and it presents Aviva as very uncertain of herself and so blinded by her desire to have a baby that she ignores common sense. She wants to be a wife and mother but doesn't understand, realistically, what that entails. She's infatuated with the idea of having a baby, but we get the impression that she's definitely not mature enough to be a mother.

This is a key problem with Palindromes: it tries for profundity by being ambiguous. The ambiguity, though, never gets to the profound because it's too ambiguous. We, the audience, must fill in too many blanks. The apparently pro-life argument in the movie, represented by Aviva, is a terrible pro-life argument because Aviva is crazy. A lot of this movie doesn't make sense, either because I'm not smart enough to understand it, or because it doesn't make sense.

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

AURORA, Co. -- I've been so focused on California's eight propositions that I completely neglected Colorado's ballot initiatives. They're not nearly as interesting, though.

Yesterday, Colorado voters decided on two state-wide initiatives, Referendum C and Referendum D. Colorado has a weird law called the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) which requires taxpayers to approve any state fiscal measure that would affect their taxes in some way. Referendum C would increase state funds by $3.7 billion over the next five years by taking that money from taxpayers' state sales tax refunds (apparently, in Colorado, taxpayers get refunds of sales tax as well as income tax). Referendum D, which would only take effect if Referendum C were passed, allows the state to borrow $2.1 billion from state tax revenue.

But where would this money go? According to Colorado's 2005 State Ballot Information Booklet, the text of Referendum C says that this $3.7 billion will be used "to fund health care; to fund education, including any capital construction projects related thereto; to fund retirement plans for firefighters and police officers, so long as the General Assembly determines that such funding is ncessary; and to pay for strategic transportation projects included in the Department of Transportations's Strategic Transportation Project Investment Program."

Sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn't love firefighters? Not so fast, there, chief. It turns out that the General Assembly doesn't have to spend money on the stuff they said they would; the legislature can change the spending priorities at any time. For this reasons, Referendum C is not such a good idea, but it looks like the voters thought it was. With 95% of precincts reporting, 53% of voters supported Referendum C. Much like Proposition 77 in California, just one clause in a piece of legislation is enough for me to throw out the whole thing; in the case, the clause is that the legislature can change the spending priorities.

There was also a ballot initiative in Denver, and it was a terrible idea. The initiative in Denver would tie teacher salaries to student performance. As Levitt points out in Freakonomics, they tried this is in California, and instead of teachers and students getting better, they found a lot of teachers cheating. The incentive to cheat is too great when teacher salaries are tied to student performance. If you have a bad teacher with dumb students, it's easier for the bad teacher to cheat and change students' test answers rather than improve the students' performance.

"Colorado: Come for the Skiing, but Stay for the Conservatism."

Posted by Mark at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With its broadcast flag defeated in (1) court, because a court ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate digital devices, and in (2) Congress, because Congress refused to take up the RIAA and MPAA's fight to have the FCC regulate digital devices, everyone thought that the content cartels had learned their lessons.

Not so much.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has copies of draft legislation that would make it illegal to manufacture any analog-to-digital device that does not allow DRM restrictions to be placed on it. EFF refers to this as the "analog hole," since analog devices cannot, by their nature, be restricted in their use in the same way that a TiVo or an HDTV can, since the latter are digital devices. VCRs, cassette players, and non-digital televisions dabble in analog formats; that is, formats that use the properties of electrical or magnetic impulses (frequency and amplitude, e.g.) to store and transmit data. In this way, people can transfer copies of old VHS tapes to their computers by using some device that turns the analog signal into a digital signal (a signal that uses only electrical impulses themselves and not any properties of those impulses to store and transmit data; the impulse is either on or off, 1 or 0, with none of this amplitude or frequency stuff). A digital signal can then be stored on a device that stores digital information, like, oh, say, a computer hard drive, a CD, or a DVD. Up until now, Hollywood had no way of regulating analog-to-digital transmissions. But, with this legislation, they would have complete control over analog-to-digital devices.

No device that did not respect some sort of DRM scheme would be allowed to be sold. And guess who would decide on the DRM scheme? Yes, kids, your friends at RIAA and MPAA would decide on the DRM scheme. And if you think it won't be the most restrictive scheme possible, a scheme that goes way beyond the bounds of copyright law, you'd be kidding yourself and also possibly living in another universe.

The RIAA and MPAA's whole business model now is to be as restrictive as humanly (or technologically) possible. This means locking down content so that you can only view it or listen to it in exactly the way the MPAA or RIAA want you to view it or listen to it. If they don't want you to fast-forward, you won't be able to fast-forward. If they don't want you to be able to save the content for viewing later, you won't be able to save it for later. If they don't want you to be able to copy the content to a CD or DVD for your own personal use, you won't be able to do that. You will do only what record or movie industry executives want you to do. Not only will you like it, but you'll keep coming back for more, because the companies that constitute the RIAA and MPAA essentially have monopolies on content.

[Via Boing Boing, of course.]

Posted by Mark at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, so making fun of Italian accents is probably inappropriate when discussing President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. But you know what? I like hurtful stereotypes. And you know what else? As an Italian Catholic, Alito will no doubt let the Pope control the court, just like John F. Kennedy let the Pope control the nation while Kennedy was president.

Unlike his predecessor, Harriet Miers, Judge Alito passes the "minimum requirements" test required for a Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were Windows XP, then Harriet Miers would have been a Pentium III, 500 MHz machine with 128 MB of RAM and a 5 GB hard drive. Clearly, she would have had problems running Windows XP. Now, Alito is more like a Pentium 4, 1 GHz machine with 256 MB of RAM and a 40 GB hard drive. Okay, he can run Windows XP. We don't have to worry about meeting the minimum requirements. Alito's record is, thankfully, long and boring:

• 1972: Earned B.A. from Princeton University
• 1975: Earned J.D. from Yale Law School
• 1976-1977: Law Clerk for Third Circuit Court Judge Leonard Garth
• 1977-1981: Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey
• 1981-1985: Assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee
• 1985-1987: Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese
• 1987-1990: U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey
• 1990-2005: Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• 2002-2005: Adjunct Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law

Even though he meets the minimum requirements, in our little analogy, Alito would be an HP computer.

Yes, like all computers manufactured by HP or Compaq, Alito has a fatal flaw. In the case of HP's computers, they were assembled by blind monkeys. In the case of Alito, he doesn't like abortion so much, which is just what the evangelical Protestants that make up Bush's religious base wanted. (The monkeys, on the other hand, were hoping for a justice who would uphold monkey labor rights and give them some medical marijuana for their glaucoma.)

The big stink being made about Alito revolves around an opinion he wrote in 1991 as a judge with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which serves Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The case in question is called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682. In that case, the Third Circuit Court was asked to decide whether amendments to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982 were unconstitutional. A U.S. District Court found sections requiring informed consent, parental consent, spousal notice, reporting requirements, and public disclosure of abortion clinics' reports to be unconstitutional. The Third Circuit Court reversed all of these decisions, except one, holding that only the spousal notice section -- section 3209 -- was unconstitutional. When the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 [1992]), it affirmed the Third Circuit Court's decision that "husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid."

Judge Alito concurred in part and dissented in part. He did not agree with the court's conclusion that husband notification was unconstitutional because it imposed an "undue burden" upon the woman, that burden not serving a "compelling state interest." Did he go the extra step of suggesting that a woman should not only notify her husband about an abortion, but get approval from her husband before obtaining an abortion? I can't find that anywhere in the text of the decision. All that Alito has to say about husband notification is that he can't see any reason why it's a bad idea:

The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems - such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion. In addition, the legislature could have reasonably concluded that Section 3209 would lead to such discussion and thereby properly further a husband's interests in the fetus in a sufficient percentage of the affected cases to justify enactment of this measure. Although the plaintiffs and supporting amici argue that Section 3209 will do little if any good and will produce appreciable adverse effects, the Pennsylvania legislature presumably decided that the law on balance would be beneficial.

Again, I stress that nowhere in the text of Alito's dissenting opinion could I find anything that might construe that he believes husbands should have the authority to veto a woman's choice to have an abortion. Of course, I've been wrong in the past.

Alito does not believe that suggestions that women would not tell their husbands about an abortion for fear of abuse are compelling, since the plaintiffs in the case did not provide statistics detailing how many women might be abused:

Second, the plaintiffs offered testimony that the exceptions in Section 3209 would not cover a case in which a woman did not want to notify her husband for fear that he would retaliate in some way other than the infliction of bodily injury upon her, such as by subjecting her to psychological abuse or abusing their children (see 744 F. Supp. at 1360-62). The plaintiffs, however, do not appear to have offered any evidence showing how many (or indeed that any actual women) would be affected by this asserted imperfection in the statute.

Third, the plaintiffs introduced general evidence about the problem of spouse abuse (see 744 F. Supp. at 1361). They offered widely varying statistics concerning the dimensions of the problem, as well as evidence that battering occurs in all socioeconomic groups and is sometimes fatal. This proof, while documenting the existence of a broad national problem, provides no basis for any estimate of what is relevant here -- the impact of Section 3209.

Fourth, the plaintiffs offered evidence that "mere notification of pregnancy is frequently a flashpoint for battering" (see 744 F. Supp. at 1361). This proof indicates when violence is likely to occur in an abusive marriage but provides no basis for determining how many women would be adversely affected by Section 3209. Finally, the plaintiffs offered the opinion of one of their witnesses that most battered women would be psychologically incapable of taking advantage of Section 3209's fourth exception, i.e., the exception for cases in which the woman has reason to fear that notification will lead to the infliction of bodily harm upon her (see 744 F. Supp. at 1363). However, the plaintiffs failed to show how many of the women potentially affected by Section 3209 (married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands) are victims of battering. Thus, the opinion offered by their expert, even if taken at face value, merely describes the likely behavior of most of the women in a group of unknown size. Clearly, then, this evidence does not show how many women would be inhibited or otherwise harmed by Section 3209. I cannot believe that a state statute may be held facially unconstitutional simply because one expert testifies that in her opinion the provision would harm a completely unknown number of women.

Since the plaintiffs provided no hard facts that a woman might be battered, Alito concludes that the testimony of one witness is not good enough to invalidate section 3209.

He believes that a husband has a "fundamental" and "legitimate" interest in the fetus and that the husband should be involved in the decision-making process, but he stops short of saying that husbands should have veto power over a woman's abortion; indeed, he acknowledges prior case law that held "that a potential father may not be given the legal authority to veto an abortion" (cf. Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 [1976]).

Alito's opinions in other areas aren't so radical: he held that a school that failed to prevent a student from being bullied because of his "lack of athleticism and perceived sexual orientation" was liable for that bullying. He struck down a school district anti-harrassment policy that regulated vulgar speech or school-sponsored speech that was not threatening or disruptive. But I believe that abortion is the reason that Bush nominated him. John Roberts was a failure for the Christian conservatives, since he wasn't as conservative as they thought. After Roberts, the religious base wanted 100% certainty that the next nominee would re-illegalize abortion. Harriet Miers was a failure because she had no judicial track record to go on. The assertions of advisors behind closed doors that she would overturn Roe v. Wade were not assuring enough to the religious right. Alito is their man: he has a definitive track record of ruling against abortion. He's a one-trick pony. He's quite conservative, in the mold of Scalia, and he will definitely push the court to the right, something that's not desirable at all.

For more on Alito's history, read SCOTUSblog's biography of him and his cases.

Posted by Mark at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)