LGF links to a photoshop from the Tenth Circle of Hell known as indymedia, depicting Bush Bushitler and Cheney Mr. Halliburton piloting an airliner into the World Trade Center.
The concept and depiction is so utterly twisted that I had to laugh at the fact that the left's tinfoil-hat brigade really believes—or desperately wants to—that Bush-Cheney were all but in the cockpit of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center.
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. San Bernardino County vector control officials are expanding mosquito spraying to help control the West Nile virus. Recent tests show that parts of Needles and Loma Linda had a high population of virus-carrying mosquitoes. Truck-mounted foggers will spray in those cities tomorrow and Thursday, between 5:30 and 7:30 in the morning.More than a third of the state's 343 cases of West Nile virus have been reported in San Bernardino County.
In Loma Linda, residents are taking precautions more seriously since an 88-year-old died of the virus last week. Residents have become more vigilant about reporting West Nile hazards, including standing water.
(AP Credit: Los Angeles Times)
Apparently my new direct dial phone number used to belong to something called the Creative Coalition. I get the occasional wrong number.
Today, I got a voice mail message. No return phone #. The guy said that he and his friends had donated in the past but wanted to know if Ron Silver was still involved. If he was, they would never donate again. He then ranted about why but the main thrust of his argument is that Silver was a "Nazi jerk".
And to think, I liked Silver's speech.
Two Terror Toys recently hit the shelves in Florida.
One celebrated an airliner crashing into WTC-esque Twin Towers; the other idolized the terror kingpin himself, standing like some modern-day, jihadi Sampson between the Twin Towers.
Various commentators have noted that the toy's base is noticeably shaped like a coffin, and that the airliner swivels on an axis so that youngsters can reenact the thrilling approach, swooping in at rakish angles ... just like the holy-warriors hijackers mass-murderers did.
I also notice that the plane meets the towers at the approximate height the hijacked planes did on 9/11. Nice touch.
What's a little too obvious is the "No. 9011" stamped conspicuously on the front of each toy. C'mon, the only way to make it more 'in-your-face' would be to inscribe "Allahu Akbar!" on the back.
I lifted Charles Johnsons' perfect title ("Toys for Terrorists") for this post. He adds instructive insight on the use of Terror Toys in the Middle East:
Toys like this are quite common in the Middle East; we’ve had stories about several of them here at LGF. But this is the first one I’ve seen for sale in the US.
The company distributing these jihadi wares initially defended itself—D'oh!—but after a firestorm of outrage promised to pull its remaining stock.
(Hat tip: first seen at mcgeehee)
UPDATE
The latest terror toy is Osama's cell phone. We can only wish the "King" would use his own cell phone—he'd soon end up like some other unfortunate jihadis.
(hat tip LGF)
I recently reported on the group of international clowns set to sniff our ballot boxes this coming Election Day.
It gets even worse. “President” of the monitors is Alcee Hastings, a crooked U.S. federal judge who was impeached in 1988 for bribery and perjury.
In 1988, The U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously (413-3) to approve 17 articles of impeachment amounting to "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Hastings, who at the time was a federal judge. While sitting on the federal bench, an FBI bribery sting caught Hastings conspiring to obtain a $150,000 bribe in exchange for granting leniency to a pair of convicted racketeers. The Senate convicted Hastings of perjury and conspiracy to take a bribe. He is one of only a handful of judges ever to be impeached in the history of the U.S.
Hasting is not only corrupt, he's a vociferous anti-Bush partisan, who as recently as April 14 regaled the Associated Press with his paranoid delusions of a coming Bush coup d'etat:
"Any way we cut it, these people [the Bush Administration] are going to try and steal this election."
But the kicker is the fact that Hastings is currently a Democratic U.S. House Representative for Broward County. Yes, you heard that right: A Democratic Congressman is going to preside over a horde of international monitors meddlers on Election Day. Talk about conflict of interest!; but—hey—that’s old hat to an impeached judge long-practiced in the arts of bribery and perjury.
Hanoi John Kerry couldn't have a better mole in the delegation of monitors if he had Jessie Jackson or that fat, disgusting butterball Michael Moore among them.
Hang on tight, friends—November's going to be wild.
(hat/tip: Newsmax)
Prior to the month of August, I was becoming pessimistic about Pres. Bush's reelection chances in November. However, this was one wild August. November is still a long way away, but it seems as though the race dynamics have significantly shifted. For one, Kerry now has called for weekly debates. When was the last time the candidate with the upper hand wanted more debates? Now, a lot can change in 2 months, but I don't see this as a good sign for the Kerry Campaign.
Hat Tip: Instapundit
First he supposedly "hijacked" the elections, and now Bush has apparently "hijacked" the Olympic trademark.
How so? Because his campaign actually uttered the word "Olympics" in a campaign ad.
"We own the rights to the Olympic name and nobody asked us," Gerhard Heiberg, head of the International Olympic Committee's Marketing Commission had said on Wednesday.
Got that folks?
If this doesn't encapsulate my arguments as to how the abuse of intellectual property laws hinder free speech, then I don't know what does.
So people who engage in the most basic form of free speech and human communication are now "thieves" and "hijackers" if we are to accept the rhetoric of the current defenders of intellectual property schemes. You intellectual property Stalinists have a lot of explaining to do...
I suppose then
that my blog post that writes the word "Olympics" is also a "hijacking" of the Olympic trademark.
This is no different than those in the entertainment industry who merely write the word "Oscar" feel the need to put an "R" with a circle around it after the word and then spend the time to explain that the very word is a registered trademark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
I hope that this will help explain why intellectual property laws are simply being used as a tool to coercively shape political discourse in this country - often to the detriment of libertarian and free market values.
The Kerry campaign has declared "war" on the personal lives of Vietnam vets who dare to question Hanoi John Kerry.
An unnamed source in Kerry's campaign has vowed:
[W]e have thestuff[dirt] and we're [damn well] going to use it.
These guys say they know war and they know battle, well this is war. ... it will be ugly
These promises of scorched earth tactics in the ongoing politics of personal destruction sound more than vaguely familiar. Democratic operatives, after all, are not unpracticed in the use of terminology suggesting actual physical violence. I'm harkened back to Bob 'Real Bullets' Mulholland's asinine threat against Schwarzenegger in the recent California Gubernatorial Recall Election:
[T]he bullets coming at [Schwarzenegger] in this campaign are going to be real bullets ...
Hanoi John's "war" against his detractors is wretched, but inevitable.
Think about it. If Hanoi John is such a sick b'tard that in 1971 he monstrously slandered innocent vets as war criminals while many of them were rotting in the Hanoi Hilton, what depths will he not sink to in order to destroy Vietnam vets today, especially when their testimony stands between him and the White House?!
The stakes are infinitely higher for Hanoi John now than they were then. I have no doubt he'd lynch these Swift Boat Vets by their own entrails if he figured he could get away with it.
The Kerry camp has promised an “ugly” “war.” I hope these Swift Vets—the true war heroes in this controversy—continue standing proud for their honorable service to this country, and for their personal reputations.
Given what we’ve seen so far of Hanoi John’s startling lack of conscience or scruples, I hope these brave Swift Vets literally watch their backs through November 2nd.
(hat/tip: fine post at blogoSFERICS)
Despite the heading of this post, it has nothing to do with the late radical Abbie Hoffman, but rather the book that the Kerry Campaign tried to suppress (and dare I say, censor) through the abuse of this countries intellectual property laws.
I previously discussed the issue extensively here.
Other important readings can be found here.
Fortunately, you can now download Kerry's book for free on the Internet here. (Hat Tip: lucianne.com)
Either this is a great example of
fair use, or it is "theft" as some of the copyright Stalinists who visit this site would have you believe (you know who you are). If there is a middle ground in this debate, I have yet to hear it articulated.
I myself will be reading the book in order to be more informed of the candidates in this campaign and to help me further engage in free and informed speech in this country. The rest of you can go on lamenting about John Kerry's "property rights" being trampled.
Now if only someone would post Lynne Chenney's "Sisters" to the Internet as well....
Will Baude notes the hot water discussion that was floating around the Internet that Alex Tabarrok kicked off. I agree with both Prof. Tabarrok and Will about how these kind of laws are generally a bad idea. I remember when I was a college student, and one of things that one might do to save $ was to run the Hot Water, as opposed to turning on the heater. I've also known newlyweds to do the same thing. After all, you're already paying for it, might as well get the most out of it. Far more inefficient, but if you're not paying for Hot Water but are paying for electricity wacky energy consumption is encouraged. Don't let the liberals know this happens though.
On Thursday, School started back up, and yesterday, I was back in my Corporations class as we discussed Corporate Constituency Statutes. Amusingly, Prof. Bainbridge had posted on just this issue recently. Of course, he also recently discussed student participation negatively, yet I decided not to let that deter me from engaging in this class. Yet as the class began to discuss corporate constituency, the class meandered down the path that 'of course directors should have a duty to consider everyone not just their shareholders.' Of course, when the professor asked if anyone disagreed, a single hand went up...
I should have been concerned when my professor mentioned the film Roger and Me (I don't know if the professor endorses the view expressed in that movie or even cares for Michael Moore, he may have just been using it to capitalize on the Moore craze here in S.F.), about how mean GM was to Flint, going unmentioned of course is that GM still exists unlike say AM (for the most part) or Chrysler (as an independent company).
According to my classmates directors should care about all these other constituencies because...
a) Shareholders can diversify so if one corporation mismanages their investment, well the shareholders can live with it
b) Shareholders are uniquely positioned to deal with financial loss (I guess it is just assumed that shareholders are rich)
c) Employees have taken a unique risk by investing their lives into a firm (A risk, evidently that the employees should not bear because the employees should be protected by the corporation, Of course the actual risk is that if an employee specializes is that their specific position may become less valuable as time progesses and they may eventually lose their job, the reward of course, is that their job becomes more valuable and they are able to exercise significant leverage over their employer and other employers in the industry)
d) Corporations have no soul. (I'm sure they felt the same way about me!)
e) Corporations offer the Shareholder Limited Liability. (This of course explains why a corporation has a duty to creditors as the corporation approaches or is in insolvency, but not why the corporations should cause shareholders to suffer for suppliers, customers, or employees)
Of course, I made the case, that no one benefits by failing to maximize efficiency, as well as some other points. (The hypo was selling a factory that was losing $4 Million a year to a Corporation with an income of $15 or $50 Million a year, agreed that that was the long-term and short-term losses and that no other benefits accrued from the factory) Keeping the factory only serves to minimize the employees' value (they become more entrenched in a dead end job) and the capital parcel which (according to the hypo) could be sold and put to a better use by another company. Instead apparently, the company had a duty to throw money down the drain to make the community happy. Little is mentioned of the fact that ultimately the community is worse off by maintaining the facade of utility over the unprofitable factory. Or by the fact that the company will eventually go bankrupt because "He who is faithless in little will be faithless in much" and as a result the community will end up picking up the tab for all those underfunded pension promises.
Unfortunately, by the end of class only a few people agreed that a corporations sole duty should be to its shareholders. Away from class I was thanked for my diversity of opinion to which I responded, but of course the goal is that you will agree with me by the end of the class.
Update: And I bet you thought I was kidding about the pension problems, but apparently the part about the underfunded pensions applies more than ever.
As many Calblog readers are aware, Don Perata of the North/East bay recently was chosen by the Democrat Senate Caucus to become the next President pro tem. While the consensus seems to be that this is good for Northern California, I think what they should say, is that this is good for the Bay Area, which shows how little influence the Bay Area really has 1 seat at the big 4 and by a mere single vote. Northern and Central California haven't held a big 4 seat (I believe) since Ken Maddy. My own personal preference, would be to see the "powerhouses" move east. I don't doubt that sooner or later they will however. The Central Valley is growing faster than any other part of the state, and Republicans will find the greatest support there in years to come.
The Cheney Conspiracy Files has been a long-running series here at Calblog. Now from Newmax comes an "Urgent Poll," assuring us it's not too late to vote Cheney off (or back on) the island.
Don't miss this opportunity to let your voice be heard! Many media outlets and national leaders are interested in your opinion. Hundreds of media outlets have reported on NewsMax's online polls. Your vote does count!
Yes, Dick Cheney hangs in the balance as we rush to Newsmax to vote. Hundreds of media outlets await our mouse clicks with baited breath. I suddenly feel quite powerful … the likes of Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Couric, et al, on beck and call to report my e-whims.
NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media, Congress, the president [sic], and key members of the administration.
The President himself awaits our decree, suddenly as fickle as his French-looking opponent, who waits to see which way the wind blows.
There has been strong criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Wow. When has an influential Republican ever been subjected to "strong criticism?" Now there's a salient reason to dump the man!
[T]here have been rumors that President Bush may make a last minute change of his vice-president at the Republican convention.
Uh huh. Bush is going to stand up at the convention and say, "Newsmax voters have spoken. I'm going to replace Vice President Cheney with ... with ... Oh wait, they never suggested a replacement. Damn! Well shoot, I guess I'll just have to go this one alone."
The fact that Newsmax doesn't even posit a question regarding Cheney's possible replacement speaks for itself. It's Cheney or nobody for Veep '04.
I can see it all now ...
"Hi, I'm Bronze Star, Silver Star, and triple Purple Heart winning John Effin' Kerry.
A while back I assured Americans that I personally met with foreign leaders that told me they wanted me to beat George W. Bush in the worst way.
I've held back on divulging these endorsements, but I'm pleased now to publicly roll out the first of many such announcements of leaders whom I've secretly met with in New York restaurants.
Kim Jong Il, good and gentle statesman, and adored by his people as "Glorious Leader" and "Lodestar of the 21st Century," was one of this as yet unnamed throng who wholeheartedly endorsed me, John Effin' Kerry, for President of the United States.
Listen now to what his foreign ministry spokesman says about my opponent, who has razed Iraq in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn:
'Bush is a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade and his group of such tyrants is a typical gang of political gangsters.'
'Bush is [...] an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant and a man-killer.'
'[H]e is a political imbecile bereft of even elementary morality.'
Please note that these aren't my words. These are the pronouncements proceeding from a respected partner in the great community of nations; newest member of the esteemed nuclear club; and a sure to be most-trusted ally under my coming administration.
I'm John Effin' Kerry, war hero, and I approve this message."
One of the best men in the California Senate appears to be running for AG in 2006. I recieved the following e-mail about Prop.66 from the Poochigian for AG campaign.
I know who I'll be supporting for AG in 2006, Poochigian for AG!
Should voters change 'three strikes' law this fall?:
No The law's a big deterrent for repeat cases
By Sen. Chuck Poochigian -- Special To The Bee - (Published July 25, 2004)
California's crime rates are at historic lows, having improved dramatically over the last 10 years since the state's voters overwhelmingly approved the "three strikes and you're out" law.
This groundbreaking measure established a sensible but tough new approach to dealing with habitual lawbreakers that has locked thousands of felons behind bars for 25 years to life.
Unfortunately, it took the tragic slaying of a young girl in 1992 by a dangerous repeat offender to draw public attention to the problem and galvanize support behind a measure to keep chronic criminals off our streets and in jail. In November 1994, the initiative establishing the "three strikes" law passed by a landslide with over 76 percent of the vote.
The concept behind "three strikes" is simple: Habitual criminals should receive more severe penalties. Criminals receive a first or second strike when they commit serious or violent felonies such as murder, rape, lewd acts on a child, assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, sale to a minor of drugs like cocaine and PCP, and carjacking.
Conviction of a second strike offense results in a sentence enhancement, effectively doubling the penalty. A third strike is earned for any felony if the criminal has been convicted of at least two previous serious or violent felonies and can result in a sentence of 25 years to life.
Since the implementation of "three strikes," the overall crime rate per 100,000 residents in California has been reduced to its lowest levels in 35 years. Most major crimes have decreased by 50 percent or more.
Despite the demonstrated success of this tough-on-crime measure, an effort is underway to significantly weaken California's "three strikes" law. Proposition 66, which will appear on the November 2004 ballot, would undermine key components of the law.
The initiative's proponents who seek to change the law have focused on the requirement that the felony for which third strike penalties are triggered must not always be serious or violent. However, judges and prosecutors already have substantial discretion to avert application of "three strikes" in the furtherance of justice if the facts surrounding a third felony conviction clearly do not warrant such a sentence.
Opponents of "three strikes" also argue that this system has led to excessive incarceration rates. This assertion is simply not supported by the facts. A March 2004 report by the Department of Corrections identifies only 7,372 inmates incarcerated in state prison for a third strike conviction, representing 4.5 percent of the total inmate prison population. At the same time, 32,158 persons convicted of second strikes were incarcerated, more than four times the number of third strikers.
Given today's awful 70 percent-plus recidivism rate in California (the highest in the United States), the fact that less than 25 percent of second strikers return to prison with a third strike is evidence that this policy is working.
One of the most disturbing effects of the proposed weakening of California's "three strikes" law is that it would retroactively reduce six crimes from "serious and violent" felonies to straight felonies that would not invoke application of "three strikes."
This means that approximately 25,000 convicted second and third strike felons will be eligible for re-sentencing and potential release into our cities and streets. These criminals have been convicted of such crimes as felony arson, residential burglary, criminal threats, gang-related crimes and some felonies in which great bodily injury occurs.
California's "three strikes" law has proven to be a strong deterrent to repeat offenders, raising intense awareness among previously convicted felons about the consequences they may suffer if convicted of a third felony.
We should continue to explore ways to improve our criminal justice system and to ensure that criminals who are going to be returning to our streets have been given the skills needed to avoid a life of crime. But there should be no mistake about the fact that repeat offenders with a history of serious and violent crime convictions represent a different story. It is likely that criminals who are lifetime offenders will continue to prey on society and wreak havoc with the lives of innocent victims and their families, unless subjected to long-term confinement.
A primary responsibility of state government is to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. Opponents of "three strikes" typically use the added cost of housing felons as a key factor in their arsenal of excuses to do away with the law. This argument is debunked by cost-of-crime figures from the U.S. Department of Justice, which suggest that three strikes has saved California taxpayers billions of dollars.
In any case, the assessment of the cost of incarceration must be weighed against the pain, anguish and expense borne by victims of the perpetrators of crime.
Any attempt to alter this life-saving, tough-on-crime measure should not be taken lightly. Tinkering with this monumental crime control measure in the way that Proposition 66 suggests would have serious, adverse consequences, and could potentially release many thousands of dangerous felons into our state.
The "three strikes and you're out" law has successfully ended the revolving door of California's criminal justice system and has been instrumental in keeping the most violent repeat felons off of our streets. The law works, and for the safety of our citizens it should be preserved.
About the Writer ...
Senator Chuck Poochigian (R-Fresno) represents the 14th Senate District.
It turns out that the first day of the Republican National Convention in New York City just so happens to coincide with the first day of the Burning Man festival!
Why on earth didn't the Republican Party organizers see this coming???
Talk about your scheduling conflicts....Very embarrassing....
Aha! Janet assures us that President Bush fiendishly exploited her breast to distract agape Super Bowl viewers from the quagmire in Iraq.
Ah, I tell you, Bushitler will stop at nothing! What did he know (about Janet's malfunctionable wardrobe), and when did he know it? How long until MoveOn.org uncovers the awful truth: Janet's wardrobe didn't malfunction at all, it was sabotaged!
Mark my word, somewhere—lurking behind it all—(cue the Psycho soundtrack) … Halliburton!
While normally I leave copyright issues to Justin, I should mention one issue of copyright that (seems to me at least) is woefully neglected.
Growing up in the era that I did, I grew up in the midst of computer games. Not today's computer games mind you...While my younger brother knows and plays Warcraft III. I can remember going to the mall and browsing through computer games and looking at Warcraft looking at the description, and thinking that I should take the risk and buy the game. I went to the ATM got some cash out of my savings and paid the $50. For me, a princely sum. And I felt highly rewarded. Coming across an incredibly new type of game.
In those years, I had the opportunity to purchase and play a wide variety of games. From Space Quest 4 and Lords of the Realm 2 to X-Com and Master of Orion. (And many more.) I remember dealing with the text interface and trying to come up with just the right phrasing to achieve the desired result.
One thing about these games that is somewhat disappointing, is that many of them are very difficult to find. I would love to be able to recommend these games and see them available for $5 somewhere (other than Ebay), but instead they have disappeared (at least legally). To that end, I would love to see...a website where the games are sold for $5-$10 and available for download. With enough support to patch some of the old bugs and some of the new ones. Especially the timer issues. Or at least, if the games are not going to be patched to release them into the public domain. So that more can enjoy the variety of games that existed back then.
I tend to find, that these old games are often so much better than newer ones, but fewer and fewer people have ever even heard of many of the games I grew up on...and because of ended up getting B's instead of A's. And while having purchased the games in the past, $5-$10 would probably worth the time saved not scrumaging around my old bedroom to find the games (as likely the disks wouldn't work or one would be missing.) All that being said, I would say that Rise of Nations is good, but the expansion Thrones and Patriots is amazing.
On numerous social issues, the point is made that the Republican party and Younger voters are in substantial disagreement. As a result of this disagreement, Republicans are told time and time again, that they should adapt get with the program and chuck their socially conservative evangelical base. However, one point that often goes unremarked, is that often times, these differences will correct themselves. Many libertarian and socially progressive individuals become more socially conservative as they grow older. Now perhaps at this time in history people will not become socially conservative as they age, but it is always a big risk to say "But this time, it's different."
Today's news contains an interesting article on the indictment of Mohammed Abu Marzook and two other members of Hamas, the humanitarian, oops, I mean, terrorist organization. Interestingly enough, Marzook's defense lawyers claim that US support of Israel is the political motivation behind the indictment:
"But defense lawyers and relatives of the defendants decried the indictments as politically motivated, arguing that they stem from U.S. support of Israel and are based on dated allegations that have dogged the men for years.
Indeed, many of the activities complained of in the indictment occurred before President Bill Clinton designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist group. The government's use of the racketeering law essentially allows it to reach back in time to capture those acts as part of an alleged criminal conspiracy.
Stanley Cohen, Marzook's attorney, called the charges "categorical rubbish" and said the indictment amounted to "a Republican National Committee press release"
Four details in particular should be noted from this story:
1. Hamas was designated a terrorist organization by the Clinton Administration.
(Go Bill!)
2. The article complains that many of the charges in the indictment occurred
before said designation.
3. Marzook's attorney, incredibly, is one Stanley Cohen.
4. Cohen claims that the indictment is a "Republican National Committee press
release".
As far as I can tell, item number one seems to negate item number four, item number two is a no-brainer (there would have to be activity involved that pre-dated the terrorist designation in order for there to be grounds to make such a designation!), and item number three is just amazing to me on so many levels I can't begin to comment on it. Suffice it to say that Mr. Cohen is either one of the American Jews I referred to in this post, or he is just in it for the money. Either way, kudos to the Clinton administration for seeing through Hamas' "humanitarian" cover, and shame on the San Francisco Chronicle and Mr. Cohen for attempting to make the rest of us believe that this indictment has no merit.
Update: According to the Washington Post, Stanley Cohen has been representing Hamas since 1995. Mr. Cohen explains his position rather succinctly:
"I don't support attacks on civilians by anyone, but you know what?" Cohen says, working himself into a rant. "I think what Israel does is far more morally repugnant than what Hamas does."
Apparently, in Stanley Cohen's mind, Israel's SELF-defense isn't as important as the defense-for-profit of a murderous terrorist group.
There is no doubt that this article refers to what can only be described as a tragedy of monumental proportions. My sympathies are with the bereaved families of UN members killed in that horrific attack. The article states in part: "More than 500 U.N. staff marched (sic) silently in a memorial outside U.N. headquarters, several carrying signs reading "Never Let It Happen Again -- No Security, No Deployment," "How Many More Must Die?" and "Senior Officials Must Answer." " In addition, our local CBS affiliate, KPIX in San Francisco, just aired videotape of the marchers, two of whom were carrying signs that clearly read "Never Again". In light of the UN stance on terrorism (or lack thereof) and the overbearing attitude exhibited by Kofi Anan and the majority of third world UN member states towards Israel I would like to respectfully suggest that next year these marchers get their own damn slogan.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that certain peer-to-peer file sharing systems should not be held liable for "contributory" or "vicarious" copyright infringement.
This is an important victory in a major battle. But the larger war continues...
Quote of the day from the 9th Circuit's ruling:
"[W]e live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude."
What the court terms as market "abuses", I would actually call market "progress" - but the overall sentiment is still quite sound.
I never read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Before I knew what it was about, I read an article in a magazine (while waiting in the doctor's office) that discussed his facts. I later saw critical pieces in Biblical Archaeology and Discover. I assumed that I would be irritated if I read it. I took my chances on Angels & Demons though, the first novel featuring the star of The Da Vinci Code, Robert Langdon. There was less meta-talk about this one, so I could come to it with an open mind.
Alas, I was irritated. Writers have to follow the rules they set out for themselves. Harry Turtledove gets to bring aliens into the Civil War because that's the sc-fi/alternate history tale he's writing. Someone writing a gritty true-life crime drama doesn't get to resolve it by bringing in those same aliens.
Dan Brown's rules of engagement are that he's taking true but little known facts about religion and history and weaving a fictional tale around them. It doesn't work for me if his true facts are not true. There were three plot points --two major ones -- that turned on misrepresentations of Catholic teaching. The first is in the setup -- that science and religion are at odds because the Catholic Church believes literally in Genesis. It doesn't. The Catholic Church does not follow Creationism, it accepts evolution, and merely (an odd word for a large concept) teaches that God's hand is behind all of it. Those schools teaching Adam & Eve and the world is 5000 years old are not being influenced by Catholics.
The second major plot point is at the center of one of the many twists at the end. I won't spoil it. If you have read the book and want to know, email me at justenea@yahoo.com.
I know why these lapses bother me. The rest of the plot centering on the Brotherhood of the Illuminati, Galileo and a sculptor I won't name here, was interesting but given the errors in the facts I did know, the rest just seemed like fantasy and not worth the trouble.
On the other hand, if you just want a well-written mystery with complicated clues, this is your book.
[cross-posted to Blogcritics]
The Blogs for Bush blogroll has passed 800 and LegalXXX had to break up a fight at a Bush rally. Your task: figure out the connection.
This marvelous Hurricane Charley post from MY Daily Prescott inspired me to go looking for others. Here you are:
Weatherbug Storm Central has serious frontline coverage, although the damage reports are just rolling in. Check the comments. Orlando is just getting hit. Rainfall rate at Walt Disney World is 7 inches an hour.
Comedyblog has, well, what do you expect?
Via Instapundit, Twisted Spinster had the coverage -- at least until the lights flickered
UPDATES:
Florida Cracker has falling-tree-and-lots-o'-wind-and-rain pictures.
the unstoppable girlie~dervish did not blog today but judging by the state of affairs yesterday, her return should bring quite the interesting tale.
Boifromtroy has it right. It's just adultery. If Clinton didn't have to resign . . . .
"It's Tinfoil Hat Time, and here's our special guest...Joel!"
Thank you thank you, It's been a while, and really, I'm glad to be here. Today, our issue is the McGreevey resignation. Now, I know, some out there are already soliciting conspiracy theories, but we want to hit hard on Tinfoil Hat Time, so let's dig a little deeper.
Of course the big news is that McGreevey resigned today due to his homosexuality, and a related sexual-harassment suit. In response, libertine bloggers of all stripes bemoan, "Must a politician resign because he is gay?"
Well, I for one don't buy, nope not for a cent. It's just too convenient, seriously, the man is mired in a corruption scandal, and conveniently falls upon the sword of his homosexuality as the basis to resign. B/S....The sad thing is how quick individuals are to embrace this line of thinking. I bet he resigned because he knew something far worse is coming down the pipeline, and what better way to obtain people's sympathy then by claiming, I can't go on as governor because I'm gay. And omit the part about uh well, all that corruption stuff.
A side note: And doesn't anyone find it a little too convenient that this all happened on the same day the Cal. Supreme Court handed down its decision on gay marriages?
Do we need embryonic stem cell research or will adult stem cell research provide us with as much advancement as we are likely to get? Seven months after I first asked the question, I still don't know. My doubts about embryonic stem cells continue and it now looks like I'll never get real information on which to base a decision:
When they tell voters that "stem-cell research is being used by scientists trying to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's disease" as well as Parkinson's and diabetes, 69 percent support the research.The trouble is, the Alzheimer's hype isn't true. On June 10, the Post's Rick Weiss reported that "given the lack of any serious suggestion that stem cells themselves have practical potential to treat Alzheimer's, the Reagan-inspired tidal wave of enthusiasm [for stem cell research] stands as an example of how easily a modest line of scientific inquiry can grow in the public mind to mythological proportions.
Jeremy of Pacetown is doing good work on this issue on his blog and at blogcritics.org although we have probably have passed the point where information is going to matter.
Although it's about a week-old, forever in blog time, I was reading Volokh, as I always do, and came upon an entry about Mary Kay Letourneau. Volokh, in relevant part posts:
A thoughtful acquaintance of mine sent around an e-mail expressing skepticism that what Mary Kay Letourneau did was all that bad. Many 12-year-old boys, he pointed out, would be quite happy to have sex with a 35-year-old woman. Perhaps this is even so for most 12-year-old boys, at least most of those who actually end up doing it. Nor would this be likely, he opined, to leave lasting psychological scars....
...I don't care that much whether Letourneau took the boy's innocence, a metaphysical, metaphorical, and possibly (in this situation) overrated attribute. But she did take his freedom -- the freedom to be a relatively carefree yet decent 18-year-old, and the freedom to have a family that he in some meaningful sense chose to have. And that is indeed something to feel outraged, and full of pity, about.
Reading this, I became greatly disturbed. Has our society really moved so far that a 12-year-old should jump at the opportunity to have sex with a 35-year-old woman. 12!...12!!...12!!!. Let's think a moment at how young 12 is...12 is 6th to 8th grade range. And we should care not about the loss of the boy's innocence. I guess I didn't get the memo that says that boys should jump at the opportunity to be sexually abused. Now my impression is that the boy wanted to have the encounter, but is that any different that the girl who goes to an older man or woman to be loved or the boy who goes to the older man or woman to be loved? Seriously, America is criticized about having Materialism as its god, but really is there any doubt that sex is quickly replacing materialism. Call me when the adults in this country grow up...Adults respect children and boundries; they don't exploit them.
Madeleine (THAT'S her name) is keeping track of the blogosphere babies. She missed this one though. Congrats to the Earthlings!
The California Supreme Court has declared the same sex marriages in SF void from the inception. So Cal Lawyer is on it. Many will fuss but I'm glad they did it. Imagine what other laws mayors and city clerks could just ignore.
As Justene noted I've been kind of quiet lately...Heck it took the Erie doctrine to get me to post a comment. Sad isn't it. Of course there's a number of reasons for my relative radio blog silence.
First, I've been working for money the past 2 months. Yay! Now that's come to an end though as it's back to school. Ick! Second and more importantly, I think I've just become depressed at the whole blog thing. Not that I'll stop posting, but it seems like people mostly talk shout past each other, preach to the choir, or talk about how Right-wing, Left-wing, Wack nut-job Glenn Reynolds is. In any event, now that my life has slowed down some, I should get back to posting. And also, seriously, the Clam needs to post some too.
Now that Kobe's accuser has filed a civil suit against him, and that there are indications that the criminal trial seems to be going south, there are a few issues relating to legal & media ethics that I would like to throw out to the masses...
1. Should the media be as vigilant in protecting the accuser's identity if criminal charges are dropped and only the civil lawsuit remains? In other words, should a "plaintiff" in a civil case receive the same degree of privacy protections as in a criminal case brought by the state?
I am still working out the issues in my own mind, but I think an argument could be plausibly made that
there is a greater degree of civic choice in bringing a civil suit (as opposed to testifying in a criminal case which is a civic responsibility.) In criminal matters, it is the state/society that is the party - not the victim.
The whole point (or at least major point) of institutions withholding the names of rape victims/accusers is to encourage those who have been raped to speak up after such incidents so that prosecutions can go forward against those that break societal laws.
But are the same incentives really necessary (or even desired) to encourage civil lawsuits? Should the state even be creating policies that encourage civil lawsuits or provide "incentives" for them - even if the underlying basis for such lawsuits stem from criminal activity?
I haven't done any formal research on the subject, but it seems that the practice of filing separate civil lawsuits against those accused of crimes in order to extract monetary damages from them is a relatively recent phenomenon (Am I wrong on this?).
While I often root for victims to get money from thugs who did them wrong, I don't feel that they are necessarily "entitled" to such awards in the same sense that they are entitled to justice in the form of a criminal sentence. I must admit that I am actually rather uncomfortable with broad policies of always allowing victims to sue criminals civilly in separate court actions apart from criminal proceedings. It perhaps should be an option in some limited instances when it seems warranted to fulfill a sense of "rough justice". And perhaps forms of monetary restitution should be considered more often as an aspect of criminal sentencing.
However, this doesn't change the fact that there is an element of choice in bringing a civil suit that doesn't exist in criminal matters (at least not to the same extent). Ultimately, civil suits are completely voluntary actions - even if they are brought for reasons of "justice" in the minds of some.
Society as a whole has a stake in criminal proceedings, and it could be argued that privacy policies that encourage victims to testify in such matters ultimately benefits society. But can the same be said in a civil suit where only the individual plaintiff's interests are at stake? Even if it has a "veneer" of justice, society does not have an interest in a civil lawsuit the way it does in criminal prosecutions.
So with that said, should the same privacy protections really be afforded to plaintiffs?
2. Should this same line of thinking also be applied to "rape-shield laws"?
"Rape-shield" laws generally prevent an accuser's sexual history from being introduced into evidence in a rape prosecution. (As a side note, I should say that I agreed with the judge's decision in the Kobe case to allow in limited evidence pertaining to the accuser's sexual activity after her encounter with Kobe. But that evidence serves a fundamentally different purpose than inquiring about past sexual activity in order to somehow imply that the accuser was "asking for it". It is to this latter purpose that rape-shield laws are directed at.)
I haven't done the research into this question, but maybe someone in the blogsphere knows - Do any form of rape-shield laws apply in civil suits? Would it depend of the jurisdiction of laws that are applied in a federal diversity case such as the one at hand? (Dear Lord, please don't make me have to blog about issues related to the Erie Doctrine...)
It makes sense to claim that a rape accuser's sexual history should be irrelevant in terms of establishing evidence in a criminal case. But does that same dynamic apply as strongly in a voluntary action brought by a plaintiff? Might it not at least have some form of relevance as to the degree of emotional damage she might have sustained during a rape that could have a bearing on the amount of damages she would be entitled to in a civil case that she filed?
Since there is a much lower threshold of evidence required to hold a defendent liable in a civil case, does it make as much sense to limit his options for his defense?
In a criminal rape case, the threshhold question is: "Did this happen?" For that question, an accuser's sexual history hardly seems relevant. But in a civil case, there are broader emotional considerations in the minds of jurors since they will have say in deciding the amount of punishment. The question in a civil case isn't just "Did this happen?" but also, "Assuming it did happen, is the plaintiff entitled to money? If so, then how much?"
If you are posing the latter questions, then it is at least arguable to suggest that a devout nun who is raped might be entitled to more in emotional damages than a prolific porn star who is raped.
Perhaps this discussion will be controversial in some circles, but your humble blogger feels these questions are important enough to at least raise and ponder.
I am still mulling the specifics over in my own mind. Though as a general rule, I feel that it is not realistic for a civil plaintiff to be afforded the same broad degree of privacy and procedural protections that an accuser/witness in a criminal rape case would be afforded.
I welcome your thoughts on these matters my dear readers...let the debate continue, and let justice be done.
Yes, it's that time again. Two items that deserve more attention.
Kerry (and Michael Moore) complain about Bush not responding for 7 minutes. Of course, purposely projecting calm is not respoding. Yet, Kerry sat around stunned for a lot longer than that. (My hat tip goes to Xrlq).
Blogs for Bush has great stuff. The list of who's blogging the RNC (Boifromtroy is not listed. Someone take care of that, please.) The Kerrys race-baiting. A link to the audio of Kerry explaining his inability to think on 9/11.
There's a blogroll in the extended entry. Donate or Volunteer.
I love home delivery of groceries. It takes almost as long to find what I want online as it does to go to the store but there's less lugging and fewer people. Plus they deliver while I'm gone and the daughters, in their most helpful act, always put away the groceries. I missed homegrocer.com and tried a few other shortlived experiments before settling on Vons.com. Vons had all the problems of a home delivery service. Produce and milk was never fresh and sometimes, they wouldn't bring something. So you'd discover suddenly you didn't have coffee creamer or cat litter or something else not obvious. Still we'd get delivery 3 out of 4 weeks and do a shopping when necessary.
Albertsons.com started delivering and they're handing out coupons like they're proselytizing. So we tried them. Might I say I had forgotten how good fresh milk was? And they called to see what substitution I would like.
A pox be upon the administration for inviting international clowns to monitor the 2004 elections. (And a pox be upon my failing computer for keeping me from completing this post Sunday.)
Let's be clear on this from the outset—This is not about American Elections, it's about American Sovereignty.
It frustrates me to no end that the administration has again appeased the "Still Can't Get Over 2000" Democrats. Will the kowtowing to the American Left never end?
It has been noted that monitors were here in 2002. To which I respond, It's bad enough to have them skulking around sniffing our ballot boxes; do we need to give them the blessings of an official administration invite on top of it?
May the ever-helpful international community pardon such arrogant 'ugly-American' xenophobe ingratitude as mine, but What in the BLAZES are foreign entities doing inserting themselves into the process of American elections?!
Once was a time when such foreign election monitors would have been tarred and feathered, and beaten out of town by a hooting populace. I’m not for tar and feathering today, but still I wonder what has happened to this once-prouder nation then such intrusions are more likely to elicit yawns than indignation.
But wait, it gets better. Word is that the French will be among the delegation. The French?! Sacre Bleu! France can't remember to get grannie a fan, but their election snoopers will save America (hence the world, don'tcha know) by keeping those wascally Wepublicans from stealing another election. Sweet.
Meanwhile, loony Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (who had earlier appealed to Kofi himself) exhults:
"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world ..."
Um, actually No! What I am assured of is that a new precedent has just been set for official authorization of international meddling in American elections.
I note and respect the observation made by Justene and others, that the job description of the international monitors is simply that of "observer." That having been said, anyone who thinks that such observers won't have a coercive function has too quickly forgotten the contested 2000 election. The Dems have already sworn 'war in '04’; does anyone think these international monitors won't be made a part of the circus?
I want Europe out of our electoral affairs. I don't want international bodies someday declaring an American election "invalid," nor do I want an international court doing the same.
Whether or not Europe ever achieves legal force to physically void an American election is beside the point; their ability to psychologically declare one so would be immensely damaging to America's ability to act in the world. Even the threat of an official (albeit non-binding) European 'vote of no confidence' in an American election would have extremely coercive and potentially corruptive influences upon America. What we are seeing today is but a step in that direction.
To those who think America can't be cowed by such international pressures, consider the fact that the current administration has just been cowed by a pathetic group of bitter, tinfoil-hat-wearing Democrats into inviting these 'monitors' in the first place.
I have to agree with Charles Johnson's merited cynicism:
This isn’t going to stop at “observing.” Does anyone really believe that it won’t be twisted into another reason to bash the United States, despite the results of the election ... but especially if George W. Bush wins?
No kidding.
These monitors will be meddlers by their very presence, whether or not their official function ever at some future point morphs from observers into arbiters.
__________________________________________________
PS—
Kevin Murphy offers a list of choice election-day venues that could use some extra monitoring. Well okaaay, I have to admit he's got a point. ;-)
Le Shawn Barber is fed up by the Bush-Powell appeasement, and vows to "protest" by "not voting in November." Nooooo, girl! We need your vote ... now more than ever.
There's been a big splash of news coverage over the international observers to the election. Those 13 members of Congress who demanded them include Barbara Lee of CA and Bernice Jackson of Texas, both very liberal Democrats, suggesting that the "purpose" is to prevent the Republicans from cheating,
My sense was that the observers would make no difference and this is just a headline-grabbing move. CNN reports that the international observers were already here for the midterm elections in 2002 and the CA recall. Now I don't always pay attention but I paid very close attention to the recall and the observers were very unobstrusive. Must have been behind some sort of voter blind.
I have now gotten two invitations to join yahoogroups mailing lists for lists that I would have no earthly reason to join. One was LDS homeschoolers and another was a group that trades their castoff items (instead of selling them on ebay, I guess) in NW Georgia. The first time it happened, I figured it was an error. Now, with two, I assume it's the tip of the iceberg.
If you want to carry a concealed weapon in LA County, it may be tough to get a permit. Sherriff Baca has only issued 377. However, if you move to Alturas County, you can get a permit just by saying you're traveling into LA. Then it's legal to carry a concealed weapon in LA County.
There's a backlog. I blame Karl Rove, who wanted them released now to take the media focus away from that terror alert.
Roscoe's Blog who has a good guide to the Swiftvets saga.
OC Blog. Check out his take on the Lincoln-Juarez Center. Longtime readers might remember my discussion of the Center before it opened.
Doggy Diaries would like to "return to a society where laws are not so pliable and malleable as to be misinterpreted". Perhaps being a member of the BFL will ease the disappointment she is sure to feel.
Go make them welcome while I finish the administrative tasks.
It's politics as usual in the "progressive" San Francisco Bay Area. I find it incredible that, in this day and age, and in the area that is supposed to be a bastion of free thought, that such a heinous act could be perpetrated. I guess the good works of groups like this, this, and this couldn't possibly be contributing to the rise in anti-Semitism here in the Bay Area. (Yes, I meant to include that last one). There are too many such groups comprised of well-intentioned American Jews that seem to be bereft of all common sense, and unable or unwilling to understand that when they denounce Israel as an "apartheid state" they are only adding fuel to the fire of an already out of control problem. I do not suggest that it is wrong to criticize Israel's policies, only that a little sensible restraint might be in order from time to time. And the mainstream nature of the members of groups like this is particularly disturbing. Be sure to visit the "Kid's Page" while you are there.
Racism, in all of its avaters, is insidious in nature. The more we downplay individual acts as "mild in nature", or "isolated incidents", the more we will allow prejudice to flourish.
Belated topic, I know, but I just happened upon the most perfect (and succinct) sketch of the Democratic National Convention I’ve seen to date.
A mere eleven words from Hugh Hewitt tells you all you need to know:
Moore's their crown prince even if Kerry's king for a day
Those words should be emblazoned beneath a still shot of Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential box next to Jimmah Carter.
<