Jan. 30, 2003. 01:00
[...] on Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Junior himself was meeting with two (unnamed) newspaper columnists and then lunching with "11 anchors of network evening news and Sunday shows."
Is it just me, or does there seem to be something askew with the idea of a President who's about to deliver a speech that will not only be one of the most watched speeches he gives this year, but will also be dissected, cut, folded, spindled and mutilated, analyzed from every possible angle and deconstructed throughout the media for the next several days (or until something else happens to capture our limited-attention spans), asking the people who will be responsible to, at the very least, present the aforementioned dissecting et. al. to come to a friendly lunch with him the day of the speech?
There may be nothing technically wrong with it - but it just seems a bit inappropriate. While reporters and anchors may be more used to being wined and dined than someone like me, I'm sure it must still have some effect, or else there'd be no reason for the President to do it.
As you may have noticed, I've not posted any comments on the State of the Union address. That's because I didn't watch it. I have a very difficult time watching Bush, so I try to avoid doing so whenever possible. Once I take the time to read through the transcript, I may have a few comments, but there are a lot of excellent commentaries on it posted already [including Raven's deconstruction of it], so I may just leave it be.
In the meantime, for your amusement, here is a site displaying still shots from a "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" DVD featuring really bad English subtitles. I don't know if these are genuine or if someone just had way too much time and decided to have a spot of fun, but either way, it is amusing.
Angered over discussion with boss, store employee quits
By Pauline Lupercio
Staff Writer
Heather Pebbles believed she was doing the right thing when she called police on Jan. 8 after discovering a two-month old baby left alone in a vehicle in the Northville township Babies “R” Us parking lot.
But even though she was right in her action, Pebbles was told her response caused an unpleasant experience for the customer involved.
There are some things I don't think I'll ever really understand. One is parents who seem to think that caring for their children should somehow always be a matter of convenience, another is businessmen (and women) who put profits above basic human decency.
According to a report published in the Detroit Free Press, the mother says she left the child in the car because the 10-week-old infant was "too heavy" to carry while shopping. If that's the case, then wouldn't it be wiser to have a family member or baby sitter watch the child while the mother is out shopping than bring the kid along and leave it in the car (regardless of the weather) while the mother goes about her business?
If there isn't another family member who can watch the child, or she doesn't want to pay a babysitter, then she pretty much has to take the kid with her. But a bit part of being a parent is to make sure your child is watched and cared for, and if the child is heavier than you want to be toting around, but isn't yet old enough to walk, that's really just your tough luck. Stollers are one viable way around that, and there are plenty of harnesses, slings, front and/or back packs and other devices designed to help make toting a small child around easier, but easy or not, there's no excuse for just leaving a child in the car.
In this particular case, the most immediate danger to the child in the car was the cold weather - it was 9 degrees out at the time. But there are always other dangers as well. Children have been snatched out of cars, and in a parking lot there's always the risk of one car running into another. Then there's also the fact that the child is, in all likelihood well aware of the fact that it is all alone, and that is something that can be extremely frightening for a young baby who has yet to understand much of anything.
As for the reaction of the store, the assistant manager's concern is obviously misplaced. Sure, the mother may have had a "negative shopping experience", but I can't imagine too many people, upon hearing why she felt the experience was negative, would consider the store to have been out-of-line in calling the police to help make sure that the child was taken care of.
Unfortunately, there are many managers who feel that profits are all that matters, and that the best way to increase profits is to retain current customers while attracting new ones. With the economy in as bad of shape as it currently is, sometimes the drive to retain customers and to avoid turning off potential new customers is given a higher priority than it should ever warrant. Placing profitabiltiy above human safety is never appropriate, and managers that are that myopic should probably look for a new line of work.
One bit of good news in this mess is that, at the corporate level, at least, the employee's actions were considered to be appropriate:
Susan McGlaughlin, director of public relations for Toys “R” Us, Inc., the parent company of Babies “R” Us, said that Pebbles’ decision to contact police was supported.
“We firmly believe that calling the police was the right thing to do.” said McGlaughlin, who would not elaborate on the exchange between Pebbles and the assistant manager.
It is unknown at this time what, if anything, will be said or done in regards to the assistant manager who repremanded Ms. Pebbles, or if Ms. Pebbles will get her job back, but it's good to see that the company, as a whole, actually has their priorities straight.
Even though a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to allow Jose Padilla access to his lawyer over a month ago, they have yet to comply.
Mr. Padilla, an American citizen arrested on American soil, was labeled an "enemy combatant" and has been held in a Navy brig in South Carolina since June. Judge Michael Mukasey, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled last month that Mr. Padilla should be allowed to meet with his lawyers. But the administration insists that Mr. Padilla is a "critical intelligence resource," and argues that its interrogation would be compromised if lawyers were allowed to speak with him. ["The Right to Council" NYT Editorial]
The right to counsel is guaranteed to all Americans by the sixth amendment to the Constitution - a part of the Bill of Rights - but the Bush administration seems to have decided that the Constitution isn't a binding law, but rather a list of suggestions that they aren't obligated to follow. Their refusal to comply with either the Constitution or a judicial order is perhaps one of the clearest signs yet that the administration considers itself to be entirely above the law.
SURVEILLANCE
Senate Rejects Privacy Project
By ADAM CLYMER
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — The Senate voted today to bar deployment of a Pentagon project to search for terrorists by scanning information in Internet mail and in the commercial databases of health, financial and travel companies here and abroad.
The measure placing restrictions on the development and use of the Total Information Awareness program (TIA) were included as an amendment to an omnibus spending bill, and passed the Senate without debate and by unanimous consent. The amendment doesn't entirely bar the TIA, but it does, at least, recognize that there are legitimate privacy concerns and the need for limitations on what something of this nature could be used for.
Under the legislation passed today, research and development of the system would have to halt within 60 days of enactment of the bill unless the Defense Department submitted a detailed report about the program, including its costs, goals, impact on privacy and civil liberties and prospects for success in stopping terrorists. The research could also continue if President Bush certified to Congress that the report could not be provided or that a halt "would endanger the national security of the United States."
The limits on deploying, or using, the system are stricter. While it could be used to support lawful military and foreign intelligence operations, it could not be used in this country until Congress had passed new legislation specifically authorizing its use.
While People For the American Way call this measure a victory, I tend to consider this more of a good "first step". The allowance for research to continue if President Bush declares that it would endanger our national security to either halt the research or to provide a comprenesive report on the project is a bit too big of a loophole. Given the Bush administration's well-demonstrated penchant for secrecy, I will be very surprised if he doesn't take advantage of this "out" that the amendment gives him. The stricter limits on using the system, however, are good to see.
It is also quite heartening to note that this amendment was sponsored by both Republican and Democrat Senators, and that the Senate as a whole chose to include this provision in the spending bill. I think the unanimity of the decision sends the White House a clear message that TIA isn't going to go unchallenged.
Yesterday, President Bush gave a speech on the economy at JS Logistics, a trucking, courier and warehouse business. Behind him was a painted backdrop showing industrial shelving filled with boxes carrying a "Strengthening America's Economy" and a "Made in the USA" stamp. To compliment the backdrop, real boxes were stacked around the audience.
These real boxes, however, had to be "modified" in order to be appropriate as part of a set for the President's speech - or at least what has been described as an "overzealous" staffer thought so. Every one of the real boxes had a label on it saying "Made in China", and each one had the "Made in China" label covered with a piece of paper.
Maybe it's a silly thing to pick on, yet it just seems to be so representative of the Bush administration and it's constant attempts to make us see only what it wants us to.
9/11 fund awards lesbian partner $500,000. WASHINGTON —A federal fund created to compensate victims of the Sept. 11 attacks has awarded $500,000 to the lesbian partner of a woman who died at the Pentagon, a decision gay rights advocates hailed as a milestone. [USA Today: Nation]
Good to see this. I'm sure there will be some who will protest it, and I'll almost be surprised of no one files suit to prevent them from awarding benefits to homosexual partners (on the theory that it leaves less money for "real" families or something of that nature), but I'm really glad that they're going ahead and doing it anyway.
Bigotry of a Teachers Union. Bigotry of a Teachers Union The New Jersey Education Association, a Teachers Union, has a website that contains brochures called "Getting Involved in Your Child's School." It comes in three versions: English, Spanish, and African-American. [more inside] [MetaFilter]
When I first looked at the brochures - trying to figure out why one would be "English" and another "African-American" - I thought perhaps the difference was that the "English" version had pictures of white children and the "African-American" version had pictures of black children. Nope, that wasn't the only difference.
Steve_at_Linnwood posted sample paragraphs at MetaFilter from both the English and the African-American versions of the brochure so that they could be compared side-by-side:
Regular English Version:
The primary focus of the parent involvement program is on the child. By helping your child's teacher, you can offer students new and varied experiences - suited to their interests and capabilities.
By working in your school, you will become more familiar with its programs, and you will see why they are vital to your child. With this new understanding of education needs and goals, you can give the school the backing it needs and encourage others to do the same.
You will learn more about everyday happening in the classroom from the increased communication and interaction between you and the teacher. You will have the satisfaction of helping children during a very important stage of their development.
African-American Version:
The goal of the parent involvement program is to help children. By helping your child's teacher, you can offer students your experiences and support.
By working in your school, you will see how it works. With this new understanding, you can give the school the backing it needs.
You will learn more about the classroom. You will enjoy helping children.
Both versions ask "Why do teachers need my help?"
Regular English Version:
Today, there is an increasing emphasis on individualized instruction--fitting the curriculum to the child. Teachers want to employ new methods and materials to give each child personal guidance.
When you assist teachers with growing paperwork, make instructional materials, or conduct a science experiment, you give them more time for planning activities, for trying new teaching strategies, and for working directly with children. As a parent volunteer, you allow them to be more effective teachers--and the school obtains your skills and services that might be unavailable due to financial limitations.
African-American Version:
Today, teachers want to use new methods and materials to give each child personal guidance.
When you assist teachers, you give them more time to work with children. You allow them to be more effective teachers.
In some ways, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall at the meeting where the Teacher's Union officials decided that the different versions would be a good idea. Are they somehow under the impression that "English"-speaking people need more words to understand a concept, or that "African-American"-speaking people can't handle as many and need to have information simplified for them? Either option is rather insulting to both groups, though the second is by far more offensive - and sadly, more likely.
The files were originally posted in PDF format at the New Jersey Education Association's website: English, Spanish, and African-American. Because of concerns that they files may be pulled once the flack starts flying as more people find out these brochures, Steve_at_Linnwood has posted copies of them to his own website: English, Spanish, and African-American.
I suppose we can be grateful that they just decided to simplify the language for the African-American version. They could have used Ebonics.
From Jurist:
McDonald's obesity dismissal
US District Judge Robert Sweet's Wednesday dismissal of a precedent-setting obesity lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation is now online [PDF] from the Southern District of New York. The suit was brought on behalf of overweight children in the Bronx and claimed that McDonald's products posed a danger to consumers of which they were unaware.
I'm glad to see that the Judge in this case had the common sense to dismiss this suit before it could waste more of the courts time or bring more attention to the attorney who filed it. Somehow I doubt this will do much to convince the parents of the kids that the suit was brought "on behalf of" that maybe they need to accept responsiblity for their children's welfare, but maybe it'll at least shake a clue into the heads of a few of them.
More, from AP:
Federal judge throws out lawsuit against McDonald's
The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) -- Saying the law is not intended to protect people from their own excesses, a federal judge threw out a class-action lawsuit Wednesday that blamed McDonald's food for obesity, diabetes and other health problems in children.
U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said the plaintiffs failed to show that the fast-food chain's products "involve a danger that is not within the common knowledge of consumers."
"If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain ... it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," the judge said. "Nobody is forced to eat at McDonald's."
Annals of National Security
The Cold Test
by Seymour M. Hersh
What the Administration knew about Pakistan and the North Korean nuclear program.
Issue of 2003-01-27
Posted 2003-01-20
Last June, four months before the current crisis over North Korea became public, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a comprehensive analysis of North Korea's nuclear ambitions to President Bush and his top advisers. The document, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, was classified as Top Secret S.C.I. (for "sensitive compartmented information"), and its distribution within the government was tightly restricted. The C.I.A. report made the case that North Korea had been violating international law—and agreements with South Korea and the United States—by secretly obtaining the means to produce weapons-grade uranium.
The document's most politically sensitive information, however, was about Pakistan. Since 1997, the C.I.A. said, Pakistan had been sharing sophisticated technology, warhead-design information, and weapons-testing data with the Pyongyang regime. Pakistan, one of the Bush Administration's important allies in the war against terrorism, was helping North Korea build the bomb.
It was bad enough when I believed that the government had known about North Korea's nuclear ambitions 12 days before letting Congress or the public know about it. Now, we find, they not only knew about it 4 months before making the information public, but that they also have known that Pakistan, our supposed great ally, has been helping them along.
Think about what that means for a moment. We are planning to go to war against Iraq because they may be trying to develop nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons, and because they may have connections to al-Qaeda, but so far there is no substansive proof of either contention. We do, however, have evidence that Pakistan has been helping North Korea - one of the "axis of evil" nations - with developing their own nuclear weapons. Rather than threatening war against an acknowledged enemy country, and rather than pressuring Pakistan to stop helping North Korea, however, we are trying for a diplomatic solution to the North Korean crisis and we're supporting the Pakistani government and continuing to work with them on the so-called "War Against Terror".
In what world does this make any sense?
Surveillance Plan Worries GOP Senator
By Dan Eggen and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 22, 2003; Page A13
In a letter to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) alleged that the Justice Department and FBI are more extensively exploring the use of the Total Information Awareness program than they have previously acknowledged.
[...] Bush administration officials have said that the criticism is overblown and that the project is designed only to thwart terrorist activity overseas. But in response to questions from Grassley, Defense Department Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz acknowledged that several domestic agencies, including the Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security, have talked with the Pentagon about the project.
Schmitz also confirmed that the FBI is negotiating a formal agreement "for possible experimentation with TIA technology in the future," according to a copy of his response.
From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU
To: ACLU Action Network Members
Date: January 22, 2003
1) Urge Congress to Stop the Total Information Awareness Program
Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) has introduced legislation that would enact a moratium on the misguided Defense Department program called “Total Information Awareness.” This program would allow the government to collect personal information on every person in the USA. The system, which includes an advance form of “data-mining,” would effectively provide government officials with immediate access to our personal information including: our communications (phone calls, emails and web searches), financial records, purchases, prescriptions, school records, medical records and travel history. Under the program, all aspects of our personal and professional lives could be catalogued and available to government officials. It is critical that Congress cut funding for this invasive program.
Take Action! Urge your Senators to Support and Co-sponsor the Data-Mining Moratorium Act! Click here to get more information and to send a free fax:
************************************************************************
For more information on other issues and the latest news, please visit our website at http://www.aclu.org
Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below to become a card-carrying Member or donate today!
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm?ORGID=AA02
If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to subscribe to the ACLU Action Network Updates, click http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm
Q-Ray stands for quack, says suit over bracelet
January 22, 2003
By Jim Ritter Health Reporter
Hoping to relieve arthritic pain in his knees, elbows and back, Donald Casey bought a Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet that supposedly relieves pain by restoring the body "to its normal electrical balance."
Then Casey saw a Mayo Clinic study that found Q-Rays worked no better than inactive placebo bracelets
I live in pain. Every day. I have severe osteoarthritis in both knees from a condition I was born with, and am developing osteoarthritis in my hips. I had tendonitis in one of my wrists, and had to have bone graft surgery done to repair the damage a cyst, caused by the tendonitis, had done to the bones. I'm also prone to both tension and migraine headaches.
You'd think that'd be enough, but because of the severity of my arthritis, I've been homebound for the last 4 years, and cannot walk even a few feet without the aid of a walker. As a result of my confinement, I've begun to develop pressure sores, which really don't feel very good.
To control my pain, I have to take narcotic pain-killers on a fairly regular basis, but even that is insufficient to eliminate it, though it does help some. From the time I get up in the morning until I finally go to sleep, the subject of pain and pain management is never terribly far from my mind.
So,why am I telling you all this? Because I want you to know that I truly understand how desperate for relief people who suffer from severe, chronic pain can be to find anything that might help make it even just a little bit better. While I usually stay away from things like magnet therapy or "ionized" bracelets, which, to me anyway, don't even make much sense as a form of treatment, I have been known to try some of the different "remedies" that tend to get tossed around within the chronic-pain community. I've tried MSM, Glucosamine, Chondritin, all three mixed together, Vioxx, heat therapy, cold therapy, and have even thought about trying accupuncture. And while I've not found anything that can truly relieve my pain, it is vital for me to hang on to any hope I can find - even if it's not entirely rational - in order for me to survive.
One of the complications of living life with chronic pain is that it can make a normal person depressed, and it can make a depressed person significantly worse. Since I've always been depressive by nature, there are times when the struggle to keep going, no matter how much it hurts, has been far harder than I like to admit - even to myself - and sometimes, the only thing that really keeps me going is the idea that maybe someday - maybe soon - they'll find something that can really help.
It is the importance of that hope - not just to me, but to many, if not most, pain sufferers - that makes me so outraged when I see stories like the one above that talk about companies selling expensive -- and bogus -- "remedies" for arthritis or other conditions. I'm sure that most of the people who are now putting together a class action suit against Q-Ray knew, at least in the back of their minds, that an "ionized" bracelet would be unlikely to work. The company, however, plays on the hope of something -- anything -- that will make it easier to get through the day - and they know that huge numbers of people will set aside their rational thought and take a chance that maybe, just maybe, this time, this gizmo will work.
Sadly, with the boomer generation starting to age, senior citizens are going to become a large, and very important, demographic - and since most people develop arthritis as they grow older, such modern snake-oil is only going to become more popular. While I think that in this kind of a situation, where there is now a scientific study showing that the bracelet provides no real benefit, it would be better for the company to be prosecuted on fraud and false advertising charges than through a class action suit, I also hope that the suit being filed will result in a strong enough judgement against Q-Ray that other companies may think twice before trying to prey upon desperate people who are already suffering at the hands of a cruel disease.
Also, be sure to visit Salon Blog's own "The Devil's Excrement", an excellent look at the current situation in Venezuela.
DNA Database Leads To Arrest In Gates Murder
[...] Police allege that Hawkins knew that, with his record, he would go to prison for a long time if caught again, so when he confronted Gallina--the stakes of the burglary attempt changed.
Found via "The Mouth. Dangerous when open."
I remember when the first "Three Strikes" laws were being proposed, some were concerned that criminals who already had 2 strikes against them might end up being even more violent in committing a third crime if they thought doing so would help them escape being caught. A frequently used example was the idea of someone burglarizing a house and being confronted by the homeowner. The concern was that the criminal, knowing that he was going to go away for life, no matter what, might be more likely to kill the homeowner so that s/he couldn't identify the burglar, thus increasing the chances f getting away with the crime.
It looks like that concern has now become a reality. A provision in California law that requires all departing convicts who are being released on parole provide a DNA sampe that is then kept on file, which is what allowed this particular murderer to be captured. Hopefully, other criminals - especially ones who have had to provide such a sample - will realize that they are still very likely to get caught and not go to such extremes to try and cover their tracks, but knowing that some will go ahead and kill to avoid arrest, it may become necessary to re-evaluate the usefulness of the "three strikes" rule as a way of deterring crime.
Bush Proposal May Cut Tax on S.U.V.'s for Business
By Danny Hakim
DETROIT, Jan. 20 — The Bush administration's economic plan would increase by 50 percent or more the deductions that small-business owners can take right away on the biggest sport utility vehicles and pickups.
The plan would mean small businesses could immediately deduct the entire price of S.U.V.'s like the Hummer H2, the Lincoln Navigator and the Toyota Land Cruiser, even if the vehicles were loaded with every available option. Or a business owner, taking full advantage, could buy a BMW X5 sport utility vehicle for a few hundred dollars more than a Pontiac Bonneville sedan, after the immediate tax deductions were factored in.
Tax experts and environmentalists say the plan would provide incentives for businesses to choose the biggest gas-guzzling trucks because it takes several years to depreciate the cost of passenger cars and smaller sport utility vehicles. The ramifications of the Bush plan on S.U.V. buyers were reported today in The Detroit News.
Sometimes I have to wonder if Bush and his administration actually comprehend the fact that oil is a finite resource and that somehow, someday (and preferrably sooner, rather than later), we need to get away from being so dependent on it and start providing incentives for people to become more energy conscious, including buying more energy efficient cars.
Even if we do go to war against Iraq and gain more power over their oil reserves, there will still come a day when there simply won't be enough. Wasting it now does no one any good. Encouraging business owners to buy wasteful vehicles is simply stupid. This is a plan that caters directly to automobile manufacturers, who make a tidy profit on the big SUVs, and the oil companies who love selling the large quantities of gasoline they require to get around. It also benefits businesses that are in the market for a new car of any kind, since the plan would allow them to deduct the entire cost of a large vehicle immediately.
Chilean porn politician promises to flash breasts
A Chilean porn star has promised to flash her fellow MPs if her election campaign is successful.
[...] Reichel said she believed voters would elect her to stop infighting in parliament.
"When the politicians fight in Congress, I'll show them my breasts," she said.
"This will be my way of protesting and it will make them reach agreement. I'm going to get some nice implants so I'll be happy to show them."
Maybe Chilean men are different from American men, but wouldn't a sexy woman promising to flash her breasts every time people started fighting in parliament guarantee an increase in fights, not a decrease?
I can just hear the MP's now "C'mon guys! We gotta be able to think of something to argue about today! I know! I'll propose an increase on the tax of tomato soup, and one of you can come up with a bunch of objections to it. That should get her shirt off, right?"
Lara Flynn Boyle for her, well, uh, not sure what this is supposed to be, at the Golden Globes last night.
(Yes,we're taking a brief break from the normal sturm und drang of political news today. Don't worry. I'll get back to being my usual cranky self soon...)
Virtual Occoquan is up!
Be sure to stop by and check out a sampler of the best of the Salon Blogs, lovingly compiled by Fried Green al-Qaeda's Mark Hoback. Go read it! NOW!
Polls results may not be the "end all, be all" of a politicians popularity, but I have to admit, it does my heart good to see Bush's numbers dropping as more people apparently become aware that, while he may be great at making everyone feel good, proud and strong after a disaster, he's a pretty pathetic example of a President. Also heartwarming is the notation in the article that, when asked if they would vote to re-elect Bush, only 1/3 of the respondents said that they would, while 1/3 said they definately would not.
Title IX Has Made a Mockery of Gender Equality in College Sports
BY ROBYN BLUMNER
TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Thanks to the way it's been enforced, Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in education -- including college athletics programs -- has turned college athletic directors into bean counters. Rather than worry about the quality of their programs, they are busy making sure they have enough players with the right chromosomes.
[...] It wasn't supposed to be this way. According to Department of Education guidelines, there are three ways to demonstrate compliance with Title IX: Show that the number of female athletes is substantially proportional to the number of female undergraduates; that athletic opportunities for women are being steadily increased over time; or that the school is meeting the athletic interests of female students.
But schools have learned through hard experience that meeting the proportionality test is the only "safe harbor" and, according to Jessica Gavora, a senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Justice and author of the book Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX, the courts have supported this view.
The overall goal of Title IX is admirable - making sure that male and female athletes have an equal opportunity to participate in collegite sports. While it's true that, in many ways, women have a much greater ability to engage in athletics, it's also true that, in many ways, men now have less of an opportunity than they did before Title IX's implementation.
I worked for about six months at the NCAA national headquarters a few years back, and while my job did not deal directly with Title IX issues, I did have the opportunity to see some of the repercussions of the way the law was being implemented. For many schools, athletics budgets can be fairly tight once you get away from the marquee sports like football and basketball. There's not always enough money for them to add several new teams specifically for womens' sports while still maintaining all of their male teams, and depending on the ratio or male to female students, it is frequently more cost-effective -- and practical -- to eliminate sports for men rather than adding sports for women.
The problem is that, when cases of potential Title IX violations are taken to court, the courts often look only at the whether or not the ratio of male to female students is the same as that of male to female athletes. In other words, if a school as a general population made of 60% women and 40% men, then the breakdown of male and female athletes must also be 60% women and 40% men. And, as noted in the article cited above, it's not that 60% (in this particular example) of the available athletic opportunities must be reserved for women, but that 60% of the actual participants must be female.
The problem with this is that many times, a school may have room for X number of athletes on a given team, but only Y athletes turn out for it. When calculating the ratios to determine if the school is in compliance or not, they will only count the Y athletes that are actually participating. The result is that if a school can't attract as many female students as they have created opportunities for, the only way for the school to meet the requirements of Title IX is to cut male athletes from their programs or drop entire sports to get the ratios right.
A more fair way of judging the compliance of a school, while taking into consideration the reality that not every student is interested in playing sports, would be for schools to be able to demonstrate that they have created proportional opportunities for male and female athletes, and that they have made a real and genuine effort to fill all of the available slots, but not penalize them if they can't find enough women interested in sports to take advantage of all of them. The tricky part, of course, would be for them to demonstrate that they have made a real and genuine effort to fill those slots, but I'm sure some kind of method or protocol could be found.
It is important that female athletes have the opportunity to participate in sports during college if they want to, and while it's sad that it takes a law to ensure that they do, if we're going to have such a law, we need to make sure it's one that will work fairly. Under the current system, male athletes - especially those in smaller, non-revenue producing sports - are frequently penalized because a school either cannot afford to add more teams for women, or because they can't attract enough women to the teams they do offer.
Equality obtained by cutting one group down to make the other "feel" more equal does no one any good. Or, as the wonderfully quotable Neal Peart (lyricist for Rush) put it:
"There is unrest in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
For the maples scream "OPPRESSION"
And the oaks just shake their head
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatched, axe and saw"
Bible college shuns beastly 666 phone number. A Kentucky Bible college wants to change its telephone number because the 666 prefix is disturbing to Christians who recognise it as the biblical mark of the beast. [Ananova: Quirkies]
Disneyfication Without Representation. Adbusters has a billboard in Times Square that is apparently in the way of a movie shoot on a Miramax (Disney owned) production. Miramax demanded the billboard be altered, obscured or removed. Adbusters is choosing to go with altered. [MetaFilter]
Unless Disney owns the property that the billboard is located on, or owns the billboard itself, I'm not sure why they think they have any right to demand that anything be done. Regardless of what message the board might send, it seems to me that if Miramax/Disney doesn't want it to be in their establishing shot, it should be up to them to figure out how to either work around it or otherwise deal with the problem.
Part of what galls me about Disney's attitude is that with today's technology, even if Adbusters does nothing to modify or obscure their billboard, the filmmakers should have little difficulty digitally altering or removing it from the film itself. Watch any baseball or football game (or most any other sporting event, for that matter) and odds are pretty good that you'll see advertising billboards that are either different in the broadcast version of the game than they are at the stadium, or that don't actually exist in real life. If TV stations broadcasting a game LIVE are able to digitally modify or insert a billboard (or a first down line, or trace the path of a hockey puck or any of the other bells and whistles we're quickly becoming accustomed to), there's no reason that a major film studio should need to bother anyone about modifying a real billboard just to shoot a scene.
Professor admits lying about plague vials
January 16, 2003
By Betsy Blaney
Associated Press
LUBBOCK, Texas -- A university professor at the center of a scare over missing plague bacteria told the FBI he lied when he said 30 vials of the deadly bacteria had disappeared because he had accidentally destroyed them, according to court documents.
Yesterday, the public was notified that several vials of the plague bacteria were "missing". As would be expected, this was viewed with great concern, especially in this new world where anthrax can be sent through the mail and the government is taking about innoculating people against smallpox - a disease that was eradicated from normal transmission routes decades ago.
Today, however, we learn that the vials were never "missing" at all. They had been accidentially destroyed - and the professor who had claimed that they were missing knew that they had been destroyed, because he was the one who had destroyed them. For some reason, he decided that it would be better to lie and say that they were missing than to admit he had destroyed them.
Since I tend to favour integrity in my professors, I find the idea that one would lie in this kind of a situation to be somewhat disturbing. What I find even more disturbing, however, is the following statement he made about the reaction to his lie:
In the note, Butler said he knew the bacteria had been destroyed and was not a threat to public health, and he didn't realize his story would trigger "such an extensive investigation."
Now, I know that often times, academic-types seem to be a bit "out of touch" with the rest of the world. Its where the stereotype of the "absent-minded professor" comes from. But to think that annoucing 30 vials of the plague were missing at a time when concern about potential bio-terrorism attacks has reached a peak is more than just a bit "out of touch". Its like a whole freaking disconnect with the outside world.
In general, I have supported the goals and projects that MoveOn.org has promoted since the group was formed in response to the Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. Most recently, they have been at the forefront of organizing opposition to upcoming war with Iraq (which seems even more likely now that the inspectors have actually found undeclared - though empty - warheads for chemical weapons) under the theme of "Let the Inspections Work".
So far, the campaign has mainly focused on the "Win Without War" petition, the text of which was run as a full page ad in the New York times, and on meetings with Congressional representatives or their staff in local offices throughout the country to present these petitions.
The campaign is now moving into a new phase, however, featuring a television ad, which they hope will help convince people to support the use of inspections instead of invasions. Unfortunately, the ad they have developed seems to be somewhat misguided.
Taking its inspiration from the 1964 ad run (one time only) by President Lyndon Johnson in his presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater, the ad opens with a shot of a little girl holding a flower before segueing into a series of images featuring combat and large scale weapons, while reciting a list of the possible consequences of going to war against Iraq ("Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons."). The ad ends by going back to the image of the little girl, with the accompanying narration pointing out that "[m]aybe the unthinkable" could happen - followed by a shot of a billowing mushroom cloud. The ad ends by noting that this might be the reason that many people are telling President Bush to "Let the Inspections Work".
There are several problems with this ad as an anti-war message. In the ad, the child is very clearly intended to be an American child, and the implication of the last scene is that innocent American children could be nuked if we do go to war. For the last several months, however, the war drums have been beating out the message that if we don't go to war, we run the risk of being attacked on our own soil by a mad dictator. As a result, the imagery of the ad actually plays right into the fears that the pro-war forces have been busy creating, and the use of the imagery ends up sending a potentially mixed message.
Additionally, much of the power of the ad is in its connection to the ad that inspired it. Unfortunately, the Johnson campaign ad is now nearly 40 years old, and its strongest resonance will be with older Americans who may remember the impact Johnson's ad had when it was originally run. Now, there's nothing wrong with an ad that resonates with an older audience, as they are often more likely to vote. The problem is that while older Americans do vote, they're usually not the ones who are most likely to join protest marches or otherwise participate in grassroots campaigns.
For younger viewers, the ad isn't going to have the same kind of relevance. When it was first shown in 1964, the ad created quite a stir because the kind of imagery it uses was used very rarely on TV in general, and this is an ad that is generally considered to be the first "negative campaign" ad ever used. To an audience unacustomed to attack ads and over-the-top violence on the living-room TV, the ad was shocking. To today's audience, it's just another ad, and is unlikely to stand out the way its predecessor did.
Then there's also the matter that the threat of nuclear war seems so much more remote today that it did even as little as 20 years ago. In the 50s, 60s and 70s, the prospect of nuclear war was much more immediate. The Russians had nukes pointed at us, and we had ours pointed right back at them. The Communists were out for world domination, and most of us knew where to go to find a shelter and what to do if a nuclear attack were launched. The theme of nuclear attack was common in many of the action movies of the time, serving to reinforce the idea of nuclear war as the greatest threat we faced.
In the years since then, however, the prospect of nuclear war has faded. If you look at the kinds of threats portrayed in today's entertainment, themes of terrorism, biological disaster and alien invasions are more common than nuclear war. In fact, the last major movie I recall that featured nuclear attack as its major threat was "True Lies", and in that one, a nuclear explosion was played more for laughs (as our heros kissed, blissfully ignorant to what was happening in the background) than as a serious event with significant repercussions.
So, what MoveOn.org has put together is an ad using imagery that:
I think the goal that MoveOn.org is working towards is good. I think that today's discovery of warheads shows that the inspections can work. I also think that there are diplomatic ways of removing Saddam Hussein from power. This ad, however, is a misstep, and given the cost of advertising on TV, is likely to be a fairly expensive one. Hopefully, it won't set the campaign back too much, and they will be able to continue with their more successful efforts in the near future.
From Talk Left:
Feingold To Introduce Bill to Stop TIA
Three cheers for Senator Russ Feingold.
Business Week reports that there is growing opposition on the Hill to the Pentagon's proposed Total Information Awareness Program. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) plans to introduce legislation today to prevent TIA from being implemented, until Congress has had sufficient time to study the datamining issues.
I'm glad that a Senator has stepped forward to introduce legislation to stop the TIA program, even if it is initially only so that Congress can study it. Hopefully, upon studying it, Congress will realize what an incredible violation of our rights it is and put a permanent halt to the program - but I'll gladly take this as a first step.
Cockfighting Rooster Kills Handler. A rooster about to be set loose for a bout in a crowded cockfighting arena attacked its handler with the razor-sharp steel spikes strapped to its legs, killing the stunned man, police said Tuesday. [Yahoo! News: Strange News - AP]
Nick Johnson's IRC-ized version of the Iraq and North Korea situation:
<Korea> WE HAVE NUKES. WE WILL BLOW STUFF UP.
<Bush> Now now.
<Iraq> Sure, send in your inspectors. Have a blast.
<Bush> They need to agree to allow inspectors full access.
<Iraq> Ok, fine.
<Bush> Iraq needs to disarm or we will destroy stuff!
<Korea> AHEM. WE HAVE TWO NUKES THAT WE WANT TO USE TO BLOW STUFF UP!!
<Bush> Gee, settle down, Korea.
<Iraq> So like... we dismantled that stuff.
<Inspector> We couldn't find any evidence.
<Bush> No! You're lying! And the proof is that there's no evidence!
<Iraq> Uhhh...
<Korea> WE HAVE BOMBS, DAMMIT!
<Bush> Say, we'll give you some food and energy and stuff if you'll
dismantle your nuclear program again.
<Bush> Iraq: WE ARE GOING TO BLOW YOUR SHIT UP!
I can't be the only one who finds this whole situation perplexing...
Nick can regularly be found at Morons.org - a great site for satire and pointed commentary on news and current events. Joe Bob says "Check it out"...
Movie Producers Stand Alone in Battle for Anti-Piracy Hardware
The motion picture industry lost its principal ally, the recording industry, Monday when representatives of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) withdrew from the battle to persuade Congress to enact legislation that would force consumer electronics companies to include technology in their hardware to prevent users from copying digital media. Today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal described the RIAA's decision "an indication of a growing split between the movie and music industries over tactics for dealing with the spiraling problem of Internet piracy."
I have to admit, I don't really trust the RIAA all that much when it comes to anti-copying issues, but I'm glad to see that they've decided to stop lobbying for electonics companies to be required to include hardware methods of copy-protection. I don't blame either the movie or the recording industry for wanting to protect their products and sales - that's natual for a business to do - but some of what has been suggested goes too far and ignores the fact that consumer who purchase media products do have some rights as far as making personal use or back up copies of the material.
Amtrak Trains to Offer Riders Massages. Amtrak riders headed toward Sacramento will be offered a new relaxing amenity on board the train - dollar-a-minute neck and shoulder massages. [Yahoo! News: Strange News - AP]
Having once ridden a train from Seattle to KC (via LA) and from KC back to Seattle (via Chicago - gotta love those direct routes), I know I would gladly have gone broke buying massages to relieve the stiffness from sitting in the less-than-comfortable seats provided to those who don't purchase a ticket for a sleeping compartment....
City Bans Smelly People From Buses. You better hit the shower before you board the bus in Bend. [Yahoo! News: Strange News - AP]
[...] The regulations ban anyone who "emanates a grossly repulsive odor that is unavoidable by other Bend Extended Area Transit customers" from being in the bus station or on a bus.
"It's an effort to keep the riding experience as pleasant and safe as possible," said city attorney Jim Forbes. He noted that the city already has an ordinance prohibiting people from releasing "highly objectionable odors" from their property.
Sounds like a reasonable proposition, but somehow I suspect that we'll soon be hearing about a lawsuit on behalf of people who, due to quirks of body chemistry, have uncontrollably bad body odor. And, while it would be nice to have a stink-free ride, if someone truly cannot prevent bad B.O., it's hard to say it would be fair to discriminate against them when it comes to public transportation...
Of course, what I'd like to know is if "grossly repulsive odors" would include heavy dosages of perfume or cologne, both of which can trigger horrific migraines in sensitive people.
Random: What Every Phelps Baby Needs. Shocked parents discover that one of their baby's toys says repeatedly, "I hate you!" [Morons Dot Org]
A family got a small play aquarium as a present for their 6-month old son this Christmas, which is intended to play soothing ocean wave sounds to help the child go to sleep. Recently, they noticed that in between the ocean waves, ever now and then, the toy will start saying "I hate you" instead.
The toy is one of Wal*Mart's store brands, so the parents took it back to the store, and observed that identical toys on the shelf were also saying "I hate you". One of the store clerks even verified that he'd heard the toy saying that (though why he hadn't brought it to management's attention isn't addressed).
To me, though, the best part of this story is the parent's reaction. They're not threatening to find a lawsuit alleging irrepairable harm to their infant, nor are they angry at Wal*Mart. They just wanted to let the store know about it, and have even declined the store's offer of a refund - they want to keep the toy for the novelty value of it. Good to see someone still has a halfway decent sense of humour.
Sunday, 12 January, 2003, 09:15 GMT
Clonaid ordered to reveal 'clone'
The company which claims it has produced the world's first cloned human has been ordered by a US court to reveal the whereabouts of the baby girl and her mother.
An executive with the company, Clonaid, was also summoned to appear in court in Florida, after lawyers demanded that the state authorities appoint a guardian for the child.
[...] The witness subpoena and summons were approved at the request of attorney Bernard Siegel, who has filed a lawsuit demanding a guardian for baby Eve.
While it can't be argued that the whole story of the "first clone baby" is just a bit on the weird side, I have to say that I have a serious problem with Bernard Siegel, an attorney who, as a private individual and of his own accord, decided to file suit asking the court to appoint itself the child's legal guardian, because he thinks that the child may be being exploited and could have suffered genetic defects. Of course, so far he's not provided any information to indicate that these concerns have any grounding in reality and are not just pure speculative concern on his part, but that doesn't really seem to matter.
Now, I'm a fairly non-scientific person, but based on what I know about the process of cloning, I would be very surprised if this, in fact, turned out to be a genuine human clone. In watching the overall situation, however, I've not seen any indication that the child is being exploited. So far, the child hasn't even been seen in public. No photographs have been circulated, no reporters trying to get interviews with the parents, no side-show carnivals offering a chance to see the "real live clone baby" for $5 a pop. Nothing that indicates that anyone is putting this child - if it exists - into a dangerous or exploitative situation.
Yes, Clonaid is using this child to put their name on the scientific map, but they're doing it by talking about the child, not by putting her on display or trying to interfere with her home and family. The lawyer, on the other hand, is not only trying to get his own name on the legal map, but he is trying to interfere with the child's home life, by having the child put under the court's guardianship, based on his personal speculation alone.
It certainly is convenient for Clonaid that this attorney decided to stir this partuclar pot just in the nick of time, so that they could use it as an excuse to back out of the DNA testing, but under the circumstances, I can't say that I necessarily blame the parents for not wanting to take the risk of exposure and the possiblity that their daughter will be taken away from them because she is a scientific curiosity.
Clonaid is claiming that a second clone-baby has been born and that three more are "on the way". I hope that they will be able to provide the public with some kind of proof of their claims or admit to it being a hoax and go crawl back under their rock. Somehow, I don't think I'm going to get either one, though. I also hope that, wherever these other "clones" may be, their families are not also threatened by an ambitious lawyer who expects them to give the courts jurisdiction over their child. Regardless of the circumstances of conception, these babies are, first and foremost, people - children - who need their families, who need to develop the attachment bonds that a healthy child has with his or her parents and who doesn't need a life filled with court apperances, custody battles and other such power plays, unless there is solid evidence that she is, somehow, being seriously mistreated.
Bee Gees singer dies. Maurice Gibb, who had hits in five decades as part of legendary harmony group the Bee Gees, dies in a Miami hospital at the age of 53. [BBC News | Front Page | UK Edition]
Ok, so the BeeGees aren't really a topic you'd normally find in a mostly-serious political blog, but for many, many years, the BeeGees were one of the most important forces in my life. I learned to sing by trying to match Barry Gibb's falsetto (and stretched my range upward by about an octave in the process -- the foundation of my vocal range is in the contralto to near-tenor range), and most of the first songs I learned to play on the guitar were theirs. They were my first star crushes (along with Shaun Cassiday and the BeeGees little brother, Andy Gibb), and my introduction to music with more "oomph" to it than could be found in your typical John Denver or Captain and Tenille songs. I went to "Teen Night" at our local disco so I could dance to their songs on a flashy lighted floor, and I had plans to actually see them in concernt, until the roof of Kemper Arena collapsed and the show had to be cancelled.
At one point, I owned virtually every album they'd ever released (to that point), and I was familiar with all of their different sounds. I tracked how their songs did on the Billboard charts by listening to Casey Kasem's "American Top 40" every week (I was so obsessive, in fact, that my parents had to buy me a portable radio/tape recorder so I could tune it into the show while we were in church, recording it so I could find out how everything had changed during the week, and running out between church and sunday school to flip the tape over so I could be sure to get every minute. I even kept a spiral notebook throughout the year, so that at the end of the year, I could try to predict what songs would be in the Year-End Top Ten.) I had posters, music books - I even tried to style my hair like Barry's (not one of my better ideas).
While I've not listened to a lot of their music in recent years, I have still kept a few cherished tracks to play in those moments when I long for a reminder of those years before I became truly aware of just how messed up this world is. Loosing a BeeGee isn't the most traumatic thing that can happen, but it closes out another chapter of my childhood, and leaves me feeling a bit melencholy tonight...
Illinois Governor George Ryan's blanket commutation of all death sentences in his state will be one of the hottest topics on blogs today - and probably for the next few days. Rather than linking to any one of the many articles or essays on it (they won't be hard to find), I thought I would just offer a few comments of my own.
As I've mentioned before, I don't consider the death penalty to be a measure of justice. It's revenge, plain and simple. It's telling someone "what you did was so awful that we have to kill you". Killing the criminal doesn't really accomplish anything positive. There's no solid evidence that it serves as a deterrent by convincing others not to commit crimes, and it doesn't erase their crime or bring back back any of their victims. Due to the cost of appeals, it's arguable whether its more expensive to house a criminal for the rest of their lives or to execute them. And, of course, there's the wonderfully mixed message of "we have to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong".
This doesn't mean, however, that I don't think there are times when the death penalty is warranted. There are some criminals whose crims are so awful that revenge seems like the best idea. I'm not going to deny that there are some executions I've felt really good about - such as Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Timothy McVey (though I had some mixed feelings about that one, since I knew that executing him raised the risk that he'd be seen as a martyr - and since being executed seemed to be what he wanted) and others whose crimes have been heinous and whose guilt is well-estblished. If John Lee Malvo and John Muhammad are convicted of the DC-area "sniper" attacks (and it does appear that there is fairly good evidence of their guilt), I wouldn't mind seeing them put to death. But I don't try to justify this by saying that killing them somehow balances the scales. The scales can never be truly balanced in situations like this - the evil that they have done is greater than even the forfiture of their lives can outweigh.
The problem with the death penalty, though, is that it's pretty final. Once a person has been executed, there's nothing that can be done if you find you've made a mistake, and that is the impetus behind Gov. Ryan's decision to commute the death sentences of all death row prisoners in Illinois. He found that since the death penalty had been reinstated in 1977, 12 men had been put to death in his state, and 13 others, who had been convicted and sentenced to death, had been exonerated. Had their executions gone through, they would have been killed for crimes they did not commit. Since then, at least four more death row inmates have been found to be innocent and have been pardoned of the crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted.
When the price of vengence becomes the death of innocent men and women, that price is too high. Sure, killing bad criminals can make us feel a lot better. It can even make us feel somewhat safer. But under our current system, it is far too easy for someone to be wrongfully convicted, especially when there are careers to be made and clearance rates to be maintained. In Illinois, some of the convictions came about through the use of coerced confessions - some of which were obtained through the use of torture.
I know that this decision will be very hard for the families of the victims of the criminals who actually are guilty, and now have had their lives spared, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. At the same time, however, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend that executions continue in a state where there have been so many wrongful convictions. I hope that the families can take some comfort in the fact that those who truly are guilty will have to live the rest of their lives in prison, constantly reminded of what they did, and eventually fading into obscurity, forgotten by most people, and left to die a pitiful death, most likely alone and most likely without anyone left to even care.
What Gov. Ryan has done takes a lot of courage, and a strong sense of rightness. Even though he is doing this near the end of his term, it is the one act that will most likely be linked with his name for the rest of his life, and may well determine if he has any kind of future in politics or not. While the decision is certain to be controversial, I hope that history will judge him favourably and recognize the reasoning behind his decision as both well thought-out and fair.
Fiona wrote a few comments about an article published in the current New York Times. After reading the article, I had a few comments of my own. First, an excerpt from the article:
Leaders Promise Repeal of Provisions Hidden in Bill
By DAVID FIRESTONE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — Congress will eliminate three special-interest provisions that caused a furor after they were anonymously inserted into the domestic security law last year, Republican leaders of the House and Senate announced today.
[...] The new language, which won the approval of many of the senators who were most angered by last year's maneuver, will remove a section that limited the liability of vaccine manufacturers in lawsuits. The provision, which no one would claim responsibility for, would have prevented lawsuits by families who say a mercury-based vaccine preservative led to their children's autism.
Dr. Frist, who wrote a similar provision in an unrelated vaccine bill, said he still supported the idea as a way to strengthen manufacturers as the first line of defense against biological terror. He said he would bring his bill up again, but it would go through the regular process of committee hearings and amendments.
It's good to hear that Congress at least as some sense of shame these days. I have to wonder, though, that if these provisions are being removed or revised as a result of an agreement made at the time the Homeland Security bill was passed, why did they not just remove them prior to passing the Homeland Security bill? It would have prevented much of the furor that occured as a result of these provisions (the one sheilding Eli Lily in particular), and would have avoided the necessity of Congress taking the time and effort to work out an agreement to remove the provisions.
Unfortunately, whatever sense of shame Congress may have, it doesn't yet extend to actually admitting who sponsored or inserted these amendments into the Homeland Security bill in the first place. As noted a few days ago, Helen Thomas has stated that the Eli Lily/vaccine protection amendment was inserted by Bill Frist, but as of this most recent article, he is still denying any responsiblity for it.
Members of Congress are supposed to be our representatives. They have a responsiblity to work for the best interest of their constituents, and we have a responsiblity to pay attention to what they're doing and decide if we want them to continue representing us or not. The problem is, if they're going to hide what they're doing from us, how are we supposed to determine if they're truly the best person to represent us in the Federal government? I find it quite bothersome that amendments can be added to a bill without anyone having to acknowledge and accept responsiblity for its inclusion.
There is far too little accountability in the government as it is, and the Bush administration has already made it clear that they think what little there is is unnecessary. The government, however, is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, making us "people" a rather important part of the equation. As such, we deserve to have a lot more information made available to us so that we can better guide our representatives or decide that we need different ones.
A couple days ago, I posted a question as to whether or not we are actually "at war". Rob Salkowitz at Emphasis Added has posted an interesting commentary on the nature of declaring war, and what happens to the Constitution when we stop insisting that it be followed.
At the ACLU website, they've posted a display of political cartoons, entitled "US Patriot Act Art". Several of the cartoons are very pointed, but favourites have to be this one by Clay Bennett, which illustrates - beautifully - exactly what seems to be happening these days, and the top one on this page by Mike Konopacki, with it's very pointed imagry giving the message an even stronger impact. I also liked this one by Arron McGruder, reminding us who it is that has often helped train the terrorists we now face.
Lawyer Blames Baltimore for Arson Deaths
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 8, 2003; 2:01 PM
BALTIMORE –– A lawyer for relatives of a seven-member family killed in an arson fire says the city is responsible for their deaths because an anti-drug campaign encouraged them to speak out against neighborhood drug dealers.
[...] Byrd-Chichester [a member of Johnnie Cochran's Washington law firm] said the city is responsible for the deaths because the anti-drug "Baltimore Believe" campaign encouraged them to speak out against dealers.
"It's reckless to invite people to step up to a dangerous situation, and then be on notice that these particular people have stepped up and are in danger, and then fail to provide protection," Byrd-Chichester said. "The outcome should not have been surprising."
America isn't an easy country to live in sometimes. As a culture, we don't like responsiblity. Well, we don't like having to accept responsiblity for things we do. We like responsibility when it's someone else's burden to deal with. And we really like it when it's not only someone else's burden to deal with, but we can convince someone that they owe us money for it. As a result, we spend a great deal of time and effort trying to find someone - anyone - else to blame for everything bad that happens, and then sue them for everything we can get.
Another reason America isn't an easy country to live in is because, as citizens, we have certain duties and obligations. One of those duties is the duty to assist law enforcement in keeping us safe. If we witness or are aware of a crime being committed, we are supposed to let the police know so that the crime can be investigated and the criminals prosecuted. Of course, doing so puts our own safety at risk. People who commit crimes generally aren't afraid of trying to intimidate witnesses from testifying against them. Its not unheard of for a criminal to kill a witness in the hope that it will destroy the case against them.
Because of these risks, many people are hesitant to go to the cops. In Baltimore, the city began a program to encourage citizens to come forward if they had information about drug dealers. Carnell and Angela Dawson did, and subsequently, their house burned down - killing them and their children. Now their relatives are thinking of suing the city of Baltimore, claiming that their program is to blame for the Dawson's deaths.
It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that a city cannot encourage its citizens to do their civic duties without running the risk of getting sued if things go badly. Yes, I do think the city has an obligation to keep witnesses against dangerous criminals safe, and I would expect that if someone contacted the police in response to this program, that they would be given information on what kind of protection is available before they tell the police what they know. This way, the witness can make a decision knowing the risks and what they can expect.
In the case of the Dawson's, however, they were offered protection through the city's witness protection program - including relocation after an earlier fire had been set in their home - but they refused to move. According to the Baltimore Sun, the following steps were taken to try and help protect the family:
When a witness is promised protection, accepts it, and the police fail to adequately provide it, in all liklihood there would be grounds for a civil suit in that situation. When a witness refuses to accept the protection offered, however, the full burden of resonsiblity for their safety can no longer be assumed to rest solely with the police. Some measure of it now rests in their own hands.
When the Dawson's decided to go to the police, they knowingly put themselves at risk. When they refused to relocate, despite having already had their house set on fire, they had a better understanding of the level of risk they were at, and knowingly chose not to take steps to reduce it. While they may have been encouraged by the "Baltimore Believes" program to initially contact the police, it was not that encouragement that lead to their deaths. It was the heinous actions of the drug dealers - first and foremost - and their own decision to stay put, in spite of the risk.
From MSNBC.com:
A federal appeals court rules the U.S. government may hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants during wartime without the constitutional protections afforded Americans in criminal prosecutions.
[...] the appeals court said Wednesday that “[b]ecause it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict, we hold that the submitted declaration is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the Commander in Chief has constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted by the United States Constitution.”
It is not only unnecessary but in fact improper to require further evidence from the government, the judges ruled.
Full ruling available at: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf
My understanding was that, in order for the war powers to be invoked, and for us to be considered "at war", that a war must first be declared, right? If that's the case, did I somehow miss our actually declaring war against Afghanistan? Somehow I was not under the impression that declaring "war" against "terror" qualified for legal purposes as an actual declaration of war. Also, the Constitution puts the power to declare war into the hands of Congress, not the President, and I don't recall Congress having declared war on anything (though I do know they surrendered their right to declare war against Iraq to President Bush.)
Washington Post Editorial "We hold to the old-fashioned opinion that the government ought to provide certain services, and that to do so it must raise a certain amount of revenue. The federal tax burden today is not inordinately high by historical standards, while the demands on the government are large and growing. Mr. Bush himself has not been shy to spend: on defense, for example, and on farm subsidies. Yet the president and most of his fellow Republican officeholders continue to behave as though balancing the books just isn't part of their job description. The economic plan that the president proposed yesterday is in keeping with this irresponsible philosophy.
[...] When you factor in the other tax changes proposed by Mr. Bush yesterday, you find that the poorest fifth of Americans would see their after-tax income go up this year by one-tenth of 1 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top 1 percent of earners, by comparison, would see their income rise by 3.5 percent."
I don't have a problem with paying taxes in exchange for the services I receive from the government. It's the only fair thing to do. I do, however, mind, paying more taxes so that the wealthy can pay less - and I mind paying taxes to fund programs that primarily benefit the wealthy rather than the needy.
FBI Alert for Five Men Based on Hoax - ABC News
Jan. 6
— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI has concluded the information that led to a hunt for five men thought to have entered the United States illegally on Christmas Eve was fabricated by an informant, ABC News reported on Monday.
Citing unnamed sources, the report said the informant identified as Michael John Hamdani, who was arrested in Canada, made up the story about 19 men who sought false passports in an attempt to get himself off the hook on criminal charges he was facing in the United States.
In the months since the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks, we have heard countless warnings and alerts about "possible" terrorist attacks or other terrorist activity. To date, none of them have amounted to anything. Whether this is because there was nothing to them to begin with, or that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have managed to thwart them, or, perhaps, because once their plans were announced, the terrorists decided to back off, is unknown. What is known is that the more often we are warned or alerted and see that nothing has happened, the less likely we become to pay attention to the next warning or alert.
In this most recent case, the FBI asked for the help from US citizens and residents to find 5 people who may have snuck into the US for unknown or undetermined reasons. While I doubt that too many people went out of their way to try and find these guys, I don't doubt that there were at least some people keeping their eyes open, and even more who were frightened by the possiblity for another terrorist attack raised by the manhunt. Yes, as before, nothing happened. Worse, we now learn that the whole incident was based on a hoax from a prisoner trying to make his own situation easier.
Its been speculated that several of the other warnings came from another prisoner, who may have made them up either to gain more lenient treatment for himself, or to try keeping us off-balance and in a constant state of fear - in effect, trying to help his compatriots even though he's been captured and imprisoned by the US. There's no proof that this is the case, but it has been a concern.
It's hard to know, any more, how "alert" one should be. We certainly can't trust that the FBI is only going to pass on reliable warnings - especially since they, themselves, seem to be unable to confirm a warnings reliability until much later - in many cases, not until after the date the alert warns about. Yet we don't want to fall into complacency, becuase the threat of future attacks is very real.
One possible solution would be for the FBI, when issuing a warning or alert, to assign it a "reliability level" - similar to the "threat assessment level", but - hopefully - without the colour scheme - so that people will have an idea of how serious an issue it is. If the warning is issued with a reliability level of, say, 1 - meaning that it's unverified or unverifiable - and is based on a statement from only one person, then we know that we should probably take some extra care, but it's not time to panic by any stretch of the imagination. A warning with a reliability level of 5 - meaning that they have verified this threat through multiple sources or have other reason to believe that it is a very significant possiblity, would let us know that this is something to take very seriously, to the point of considering changing any plans or routines if necessary.
Without something of that nature, I'm afraid that we may start treating all warnings and alerts as routinely as we treat the weather -- and if you think about how many people you see dashing through the rain with no umbrella or other head covering, you'll have a pretty good idea of just how seriously that is.
By Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel
WASHINGTON - Without much notice, the federal government is moving toward the most sweeping change ever in the rules that govern ownership of the American news media.
[...] What will happen to communities if the ownership rules are eliminated? Among the possibilities is that one or two companies in each town would have an effective monopoly on reaching consumers by being allowed to control the newspaper, radio, TV, billboards and more — with costly consequences for businesses that need those outlets for advertising. Such a monopoly on information would also reduce the diversity of cultural and political discourse in a community.
The precedent in radio is telling. Since the rules on ownership of radio were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130 stations to more than 1,400.
The F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, has scheduled only one public hearing, in Richmond, Va., on the proposal, and the public comment period will close at the end of this month. It is a small and brief opportunity, but one that the public should seize if it cherishes an independent press.
Bill Kovach is chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Tom Rosenstiel is director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Additional information on this issue can be found at: http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/
To contact the FCC Commissioners by e-mail:
Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov
For other ways of contacting the FCC, please visit: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
Bush to propose eliminating dividend taxes
January 6, 2003
By Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Bush will propose wiping out the taxes shareholders pay on dividends as the centerpiece of his economic revival plan, a step that would cost the Treasury more than $300 billion over a decade.
"It'll encourage investment, and that's what we want," Bush said at the end of a Cabinet meeting Monday. "Investment means jobs."
Bush also argued that eliminating the dividends tax would correct an injustice in the tax code. Dividends are taxed once at the corporate level, when companies report profits, and again as dividend income to shareholders.
First, a caveat - I got a "D" in Economics. I got "A"s and "B"s in every other one of my business classes (except Accounting, but we'll leave that one alone), so a "D" is a pretty good indication that I just had no real clue as to what was being discussed in that class. So, when reading my opinion on economic matters, just keep that in mind, and if I'm off base, feel free to correct me (gently, please) as I really would like to understand it better.
The problem I have with Bush's plan is two-fold. First, didn't we try the "if we let rich people keep their money, they'll invest it and make jobs for the rest of you" tactic under Reagan? If I recall correctly, Bush's father called that "voodoo economics", and also known as "trickle-down economics", which didn't work so well. I don't see how it would work any better this time around...
The second is in his theory that because the money gets taxed twice - first as corporate profits, and then as dividend income - that it's unfair. If that's the case, shouldn't all retail taxes be eliminated as well? I mean, the money paid to workers is taxed first as personal income, and then taxed again when exchanged for goods and services. What's worse, in the first example, the corporation shoulders the first tax burden (when its taxed as profits) and the shareholder shoulders the second (when its taxed as divident income). In the second example, the individual shoulders the entire tax burden - having the income tax taken from their paycheck and sales tax added on to the cost of the goods they're buying.
Court: Rape Can Occur Even After Consent
Mike McKee
The Recorder
01-07-2003
On Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that it's rape if a man continues to have sex with a woman who originally consented but then changed her mind.
[...] In what she called a "sordid, distressing, sad little case," Justice Janice Rogers Brown dissented, saying the majority provided no guidance about what constitutes withdrawal of consent and what amount of force turns consensual sex into rape.
This is one of those stories that kind of leaves me scratching my head. On one hand, rape is a very serious problem that can inflict a great deal of trauma and cause a significant disturbance in its victims lives. Women have to be able to say "no" and have it taken seriously. On the other hand, however, there also has to be a point at which a man can trust that a woman has given her consent and that it's ok to go ahead and have sex with her without worrying about being labeled a rapist.
In either case, the idea of a woman being able to withdraw her consent post-penetration and then charge her partner/attacker with rape has some serious issues on a practical level and in terms of enforcement. As the dissenting opinion asked "...how soon is soon enough?" for the man to respond to the woman's instruction to stop, after they begun to have consentual sex. Another question would be how long after the intercourse has started does the woman have to change her mind? Can she withdraw consent at any point - even, say, when the man is at the point of orgasm? Or does there come a point where her initial consent is considered "final" and the is actually committed to the act? And, of course, there's the biggest question - how does she prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that she withdrew consent and that her partner/attacker understood and deliberately ignored her wishes?
Having been a victim of date rape, I do understand the emotional devastation that it can cause, and I certainly don't take it lightly. It's been nearly 15 years since it happened, and there are still repercussions of it in my daily life. But in spite of my own experience, I do think there has to come a point where a woman has to be responsible for the choice she made in consenting to have sex with a man - even if she realizes it was a bad decision - and where he can be confident that "yes" means yes.
Occoquan - The Lutefisk edition
A new edition of The Occoquan Inquirer is on the virtual stands, and the main theme (but by no means the only theme) this time is food. And for what must be the first and only time in history, the Secular Blasphemer has contributed a piece on food, more precisely on Lutefisk.
Of course, I'm one of those who might disagree as to whether Lutefish would actually be considered a food or not, but it's an interesting piece nonetheless.
Be sure to stop by the Occuquan Inquirer for a sampling of the best of the Salon Blogs, lovingly compiled and published by Mark Hoback. It's good stuff, Maynard!
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Totalitarianism nears
Without protest, Americans are giving up freedom
By Glen T. Martin
[...] Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold spoke the following words from the Senate floor on Oct. 11, 2001, when he was the only senator to vote against Attorney General John Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists! But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live."
[...] Government intimidation for political reasons is real and it has begun. Our government already is using its secret data bases to harass Americans. Political activists checking in at airports at the airline desk have had their names come up from a secret government list as "flight risks." They and their luggage have been supersearched to the point where they are made to miss their flights, and then released to fly. Obviously if they were really "flight risks," they would not be allowed to fly.
Attorneys have found that their attorney-client privilege has all but disappeared. The government has even placed hidden cameras in prisons to record attorney discussions with their clients. The government has begun harassing people maintaining Web sites they consider politically objectionable.
The Justice Department announced a plan to use its newfound power to designate U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" to place such people in concentration camps. Declaring them "enemy combatants" would strip them of their constitutional rights, their access to the courts and allow the government to indefinitely hold them without trial.
This is identical in purpose to some of the Nazi concentration camps.
Campaign to Dump John Ashcroft. The Better Rhetor has begun a campaign to dump Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's not coming from a vindicative point... [TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime]
I would like to urge visitors to different strings to check out The Better Rhetor's post on why it's time to dump John Ashcroft. He has laid out some very compelling arguments, and provides two excellent sample letters to send to your Senatorial representatives. Currently, there is no direct permalink to the entry, but the main entry is from January 4, with the sample letters in a separate entry immediate following it.
If you agree with the campaign, but don't necessarily want to take the time to write and send a "regular" mailed letter, another option is available through Congress.org. If you scroll down this page a bit, you'll see a box under the heading "Contact your Congresscritters". If you enter your zip code into the Federal Officials box and press "go", it will take you to a page where you can select from your state's represenatives and help you set up and write a letter to them. The letter can be sent via e-mail, at no charge. Congress.org uses the C-Mail system that helps ensure your e-mail message will get to your representative (as some are now only accepting e-mails if they are sent from a specific site or using a specific format.) You also have the option of using their "Extra Impact" hand-delivery service, where your message will be printed out and hand-delivered to your Senator's office. That option is $4.95. In any event, they can help you figure out who you want to contact and then get your message to them.
Granted, there are plenty of other reasons why Ashcroft should not be Attorney General, but right now there may still be some legs left to the race issue following Lott's resignation as Majority Leader, making racial concerns one of the more viable justifications at the moment.
Report: Sting nabs convicted Calif. molester
Posted 1/4/2003 8:59 AM
[...] Lt. Dennis Ahearn, a spokesman for the Berkeley police department, said Kenneth Parnell was arrested after a tip.
"We became aware of the fact that Mr. Parnell was attempting to purchase a child through another party. We intervened in that purchase," Ahearn said. He said Parnell never received the child and that the other party had not been arrested.
[...] He was convicted in the 1972 kidnapping of [Steven] Stayner, who was then 7, and the 1980 kidnapping of a 5-year-old boy. He served five years in prison in the kidnappings.
Parnell had earlier been convicted of sexually abusing an 8-year-old boy he had abducted.
If there was ever a poster boy for why child molesters should be subject to some of the harshest penalties possible, it would be Kenneth Parnell.
Just in the crimes of his that we know about, we can see that he has been molseting children for over 30 years. His abduction of Steven Stayner in 1972 is his most infamous crime, but it certainly is not his only crime - and he served less time in prison than Stayner had served as his sexual plaything. Even before he kidnapped Stayner, however, he had already been caught and convicted for molesting another boy, and Stayner finally escaped from Parnell when Parnell brought home a new "toy" for himself, in the form of 5-year-old Timothy White. Stayner hadn't wanted the child to go through what he had, so he took the boy and made his way to a police station.
Now Parnell is accused of trying to buy a child, ostenably to use for his own gratification again. Given his past history, it is highly unlikely that after his release from prison that he simply avoided molesting children for over 20 years, and now, all of a sudden, is starting up again. I wouldn't be at all surprised if any investigations resulting from this most recent arrest turns up many other boys who have been used by this nithing.
I understand why some people feel that sex-offender registries are inappropriate, and why it would be wrong to confine a sexual predator to a mental institution after he's served his prison term. At the same time, though, I look at the case of Kenneth Parnell, and see exactly why those solutions have been suggested, and, in some places, implemented. While there will always be exceptions, by and large, sex offenders can't be reliably rehabilitated - especially paedophiles. And the repercussion of their actions generally spread further than just their immedate victims.
Children who are molested often grow up to be molesters, creating victims of their own. The families of molested children are also strongly impacted. Steven Stayner's older brother, Carey, has been convicted of killing four women in and around Yosemite National Park. While I fully agree with the death penalty sentence recently given to Carey Stayner for his crimes, and while there no definitive proof that wouldn't have done the same thing even if his brother had never been kidnapped and molested, in books written about Steven's kidnapping, years before Carey was identified as a killer, you can see ways in which Carey's life and personality were impacted by the events. It's possible, and maybe even likely, that Carole and Juli Sund, Joie Armstrong and Sylvina Peloso were victims, in a way, of Parnell's as well.
I've never been a fan of ultra-violent video games. I don't really think they're good for people to play, and - with kids in particular - I think they really can help desensitize them to not only the violence depicted in the game, but to the concept of violence being bloody, victims truly being in pain and other things that, for most of us, help remind us that being violent is a bad thing. I also believe that games which cast the player as the villian can help create a mindset that being "evil" is fun. Granted, not ever person (or even kid) who plays an ultra-violent game is going to become violent themselves - and I don't think the games alone can cause violence in an otherwise non-violent person. But I do think that they can - and do - have an undesirable effect on some of the people who play them.
So, games like "Postal", "Grand Theft Auto III: Vice City" and others aren't ones I really want to see be successful, nor do I want to see a lot of kids playing them. What do I do about it? Well, for starters, I don't buy them and I don't rent them. I don't let anyone get money from me or on my behalf for making, selling or renting such games. I post messages like this one to make my views known. I participate in public discussions on the issue. I encourage parents I know to carefully monitor what their kids are playing and to talk to their kids' friends' parents to find out what they might be playing or getting into over at the friends' house. If I think a game is bad enough, I may even write letters to game companies and retailers, letting them know of my dissatisfaction and asking them to give greater consideration to what they choose to create, manufacture, release and stock in their stores.
What don't I do? I don't ask or expect the government to step in and decide what kinds of game can be made or sold. I don't ask or expect them to determine who can or can't buy or rent a game. This isn't an issue that the government should be involved in at all. Capitalism in and of itself has all the power needed for society to govern itself on a matter such as this.
If enough people buy a product, even if there are some protests, a product will still get made and sold in plenty of stores. If, on the other hand, enough companies think that the backlash against a product is strong enough and might hurt their overall corporate health or corporate image, they can choose not to make, publish or sell a product. If there's still a market for it, more specialized companies may decide to go ahead and create, publish or sell stuff like it for a niche market. Regardless, the marketplace decides what it will or won't tolerate based on whether they think they can make a profit off of it or not, and whether it will hurt their overall reputation.
There is also another mechanism that is very effective in specifically keeping these games out of the hands of children. It's called a parent. And a parent is what prompted this whole diatribe, because she doesn't seem to understand what being a parent means.
"Basically, I guess I never even realized it was a problem until my (then 15-year-old) son came back from the video store with a game," she said. "I really wasn't paying that much attention at first but then I walked into his room and saw he was playing some game with blood everywhere. It was not something I thought was appropriate."
[Terri] Tinsey said she asked her son where he got the game. He had rented it.
"I couldn't believe it," she said. "First of all, you have to have a sick mind to come up with that stuff -- but to just let anyone get their hands on it is ludicrous."
Now, see, I don't think that it's any more ludicrous than a parent letting their 15-year-old go to a video store to rent whatever he or she wants. Most video stores will allow a parent to restrict what kind of materials can be rented to a minor child. Typically they can specify what ratings should be off limits to their kids, and then the store won't let them check it out. Both the movie and the video game industry have voluntary ratings systems to help alert parents to what the movie or game might contain. The rental industry and parents can then make use of this system to help restrict access to inapporpriate material - no government intervention needed.
State Rep. Patricia Lockwood, a Fenton democrat, spearheaded the legislation, which focuses on games with the "M" or "AO" rating.
"Games like 'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City' are extremely violent and shouldn't be in the hands of our kids," Lockwood said. "This bill will restore parental authority into the equation, and that is a good thing for parents and children alike in Michigan."
What I want to know is, when was parental authority taken OUT of the equation - except through the parent's own negligence and ignorance of what their child was doing?
Terri TInsey has been lobbying for several years for a bill that would make it a crime for a video shop or other store to sell or rent games with certain ratings to children under certain ages. Yet this law would be totally unnecessary if parents would simply do their jobs. Go to the store with your kids. Look at what they want to rent. Watch them playing the game - see what the game involves and how the child reacts to it. If you think the game and the way your child is reacting is fine, then go on and do your other business, otherwise, take it away from the kid. Yes, your kid will probably throw a temper tantrum, but they need to learn that making a scene won't get them whatever they want, so letting them get as pissy as they want and not giving in to their demands helps teach them an additional, valuable lesson.
I suppose, in a sense, this kind of a law does put the parents "back" into the equation, but the only reason they were ever removed from it is becuase they chose to remove themselves. Laws of this nature, while certainly allowing a parent more involvement (by requiring that the parent or an of-age guardian be the one to actually rent the material), shouldn't be needed. Parents should be doing this sort of thing on their own initiative - and if they're not willing to or capable of it, then they need to think carefully before having any kids.
The Raven has a couple interesting notes today on Driving While Politically Correct and Quality of Life Crimes. The following is what I left in his comments section. I thought it might be of enough interest to post here as well:
You know, things like police profiling and cracking down on the quality of life crimes always leave me feeling a bit conflicted. From a pragmatic point of view, there is a certain validity in the idea that if someone looks out of place, there may be reason to be suspicious. Yet, there is also something fundamentally wrong about stopping someone just because they're black in a "white neighborhood" or vice versa.
Similarly, the quality of life crimes issue falls on an odd crux point - enforcing even the small crimes sends a message that crime in general will not be tolerated, and in areas where people know that a litterbug is going to get busted, then a drug dealer is pretty likely to as well. At the same time, the acts being penalized are, well, petty nuisances in general, and it seems kind of silly to have a special force just to persue them.
In the long run, I try to temper my impulse to view profiling as a valid technique with the recognition that civil rights are the bedrock of what this country was built to be. I also have to remember that part of my ability to see it as somewhat pragmatic stems, at least in part, from the fact that I also know I'm not likely ever to be profiled (unless I'm doing something to may my religion apparent, which can sometimes be enough to get you looked at twice), so I don't feel the fear of what it represents.
As for the quality of life crimes, though, I do think - if the laws are applied objectively and not used as excuses to harass people of a certain class, race or other demographically-determined qualifier - that they can be an effective deterrent to other crimes as well. When an area is cleaner, quieter, and residents can feel safer, they are also more likely to take pride in their neighborhood or their city, and do more to take care of it themselves. That kind of pride can help neighbors become something of a deterrent force themselves - they will frequently be more likely to watch for signs of more serious crimes and take other steps to promote their own safety. So, while its a nuisance to have cops busting people for minor crimes, over the long haul, it can be of a benefit to the community as a whole...
Whose Side Are You On, Mr. President?. In an article about the President's push for tort reform, the former Dean of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas, asks the question. I didn't know there was any question about this matter. [MetaFilter]
The article itself is very intersting and contains some solid examples of how multi-million dollar awards have helped prompt the pharmeceutical industry to finally get rid of some hazardous drugs. Of even greater interest, however, is a comment she makes regarding the authorship of the addition to the Homeland Security bill that protects Eli Lily from liability for the possiblity that Thimerosal causes autism in children:
Frist also is the author of a provision in the Homeland Security bill providing liability relief to the makers of Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that recently has been added to various childhood vaccines. The provision is applicable even to pending cases and is expected to result in the dismissal of numerous ongoing cases alleging that Thimerosal has caused autism in children.
While I know there has been a great deal of speculation that Frist authored that provision, this is the first time I've seen it stated as fact. I've not, however, been able to find anything htat would back up this assertion as more than speculation. If any of you have come across anything about it, I'd love to know. I happen to agree that it is likely that Frist wrote the provision and pushed for its inclusion, especially give that he apparently tried to get a nearly identical provision passed earlier, but I'd like to see something more (such as a quote from him admitting authorship or from someone within Congress or his office confirming it) before stating it as fact.
Are you a True Patriot? Register here, "Because Non-Terrorists have Nothing to Hide"
After hearing on the school bus that messages could be sent to the FBI via their website, but "nobody would care" about it, a Warren, MI, teenager decided to test out the theory. Unfortunately for him, the rumour was wrong.
Johnnie Edward Harris, 17, is currently on trial for "using the Internet to communicate with another person to commit a crime". Allegedly, on two different occasions, he sent messages to the FBI via their website, threatening to kill the President. Of course, the Secret Service tends to take threats of this nature seriously, since it's very hard to tell if someone is serious or not.
Amusingly, even though the kid sent threats that specifically mentioned the President directly to the FBI, his attorney tried to argue that the charges were groundless because the threat was not directed to a specific person, but rather were just "put out there" on the Internet.
While I do think that the FBI and Secret Service may overreact at times to statements that are obvious hyperbole and have no intent behind them, at the same time, when multiple messages are sent anonymously - via a library computer - to the FBI specifically threatening to kill the President, its understandable that they'd have to investigate. In some situations, the only way to deter someone from playing pranks (and thus wasting the FBI/Secret Service's time and resources) is to make it clear that doing so will result in some kind of punishment - in this case, Harris faces up to 2 years in prison -- had he been over 18, he could have been eligable for up to 5 years.
Just a note to let y'all know I'm still around, just kind of quiet at the moment. Regular blogging will resume shortly, so stay tuned :)
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
