Monday, June 12, 2006
Monday, June 05, 2006
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Al Gore trying to save the Earth ... again.
Again, the former Vice-President and defeated Democratic candidate for the presidency is trying to save the Earth. Doesn't he know that we are doomed? If not, then he should watch his own stupid movie he helped to promote.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Practice: Who needs it?
"Practice? Is that what we're talkin about here? Practice? Not the game. Not the game that I go out and die for every night. Practice. Practice? Is that what we're talkin about?"
Monday, May 15, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Why does the Constitution and due process matter?
Ok, I have been hearing a lot of discussion about the NSA program and why it should exist. The basic theory runs something like this:
Accordingly, we try to place structures in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Indeed, that is what much of our Constitution is about, and much of our laws as well. And in that sense we are trying to stop abuses of power before they happen, not simply address abuses of power after they happen.
So, when people in government start ignoring those structural limits, and try to concentrate power without oversight and regulation into their own hands, we reasonably get worried. And those worries need not depend on actually knowing that they have already abused those powers, because the point of those structures was to prevent abuse before it happens, not simply address it after the fact.
I think that regardless of whether or not it is legal it should be done. After 911, we learned that oceans cannot protect us. There are people out there who want to kill us all. This is a small price to pay. Frankly, I think it would be best if the government listened to all of our phone calls, foreign and domestc. We are at war. Those who oppose having their phone calls monitored -- what are they hiding? The government is welcome to listen to all of my phone calls anytime it wants to -- all they will learn is that I love my country and hate terrorists.Leaving the emotional argument aside, I must say lots of discussions about government are structural (due process right etc.) in precisely the sense that I argue below--we worry about concentrating certain powers into the hands of certain governmental entities without sufficient oversight and regulation, because we are worried about the potential for abuse of that power. And those worries are grounded in our long history with governments, which does in fact suggest that sweeping governmental powers without oversight and regulation are frequently abused by the people who hold such powers.
Accordingly, we try to place structures in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Indeed, that is what much of our Constitution is about, and much of our laws as well. And in that sense we are trying to stop abuses of power before they happen, not simply address abuses of power after they happen.
So, when people in government start ignoring those structural limits, and try to concentrate power without oversight and regulation into their own hands, we reasonably get worried. And those worries need not depend on actually knowing that they have already abused those powers, because the point of those structures was to prevent abuse before it happens, not simply address it after the fact.
A Look at the NSA's Monitoring Program
We now have a slightly better idea of the factual and legal issues surrounding the newly-disclosed NSA Call Records program, and I thought I would offer an analysis of the program's legality. My tentative bottom line: The companies were probably violating the Stored Communications Act by disclosing the records to the NSA before the Patriot Act renewal in March 2006, although the new language in the Patriot Act renewal at least arguably made it more likely that the disclosure was legal under the emergency exception.
First, let's update the facts. It now looks relatively clear that the NSA was not directing the telephone companies to conduct any particular monitoring on the NSA's behalf. Rather, NSA officials were persuading the telephone companies to voluntarily disclose their call records to the government. In other words, the government wasn't actually doing the monitoring, but instead was encouraging the telephone companies to disclose call records to them that the telephone companies already had collected.
In light of those apparent facts, the key issue to me becomes whether the disclosures were permitted under the Stored Communications Act, and specificially 18 U.S.C. 2702. Telephone companies are providers of "electronic communications service to the public" under the Act, and the Act regulates when providers can disclose non-content records of account information to the government. The ban is in Section 2702(a)(3):
(1) The first exception permits disclosure if the subscriber consents. There are no cases interpreting eactly what consent means in 2702(c)(2), but like many of the exceptions in the SCA it is clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. We do have lots of cases on what consent means in the context of the Wiretap Act, so those cases presumably create the applicable standard here. The basic rule: Consent means that the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice. Here's what the First Circuit said on this in United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995):
(2) The next possible exception is disclosure "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." This is known as the provider exception, and is also a copy of an analogous exception from the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i). You can read all about this exception here: basically, it gives providers rights to disclose information to the government to help the providers combat illegal service and unauthorized use of the network. It seems pretty clear that this doesn't apply: The cases make clear that the provider exception exists to further provider interests, not government interests.
(3) The third and final exception is the emergency exception, which permits providers to disclose "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." At the outset, it's worth noticing something very interesting about this language: It is almost brand spanking new. The language that passed as part of the Patriot Act in 2001 allowed disclosure only when "the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information." This was the language in place from October 2001 until March 2006. Did the phone companies have such a belief under the 2001-06 language? I gather they had a reasonable belief of danger, but I don't know of a reason to think that they had a reasonable belief of "immediate" danger. If this was a program ongoing for several years, then it's hard to say that there was a continuing reasonable belief of immediate danger over that entire time.
As noted above, though, the Patriot Act renewal passed in March 2006 changed this language. And it did so in a way with potentially important implications for the legality of the NSA call records program. The new exception states that disclosure is permitted "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." Few people were paying attention to this change at the time, but I would guess that it was very important to the telephone companies: The change expanded the exception to allow disclosure when there is a good faith belief instead of a reasonable belief, and when there was a danger instead of an "immediate" danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the telephone companies were pushing the change in part out of concern for civil liability for their participation in the NSA call records program. (Or perhaps not, come to think of it: Does the new language suggest that the information disclosed needs to relate to the emergency to be covered? What if the provider doesn't know what information relates to the emergency?)
First, let's update the facts. It now looks relatively clear that the NSA was not directing the telephone companies to conduct any particular monitoring on the NSA's behalf. Rather, NSA officials were persuading the telephone companies to voluntarily disclose their call records to the government. In other words, the government wasn't actually doing the monitoring, but instead was encouraging the telephone companies to disclose call records to them that the telephone companies already had collected.
In light of those apparent facts, the key issue to me becomes whether the disclosures were permitted under the Stored Communications Act, and specificially 18 U.S.C. 2702. Telephone companies are providers of "electronic communications service to the public" under the Act, and the Act regulates when providers can disclose non-content records of account information to the government. The ban is in Section 2702(a)(3):
[A] provider of . . . electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.Of the possible exceptions to the statute, three are most likely to be relevant. They permit disclosure under the circumstances listed in 18 U.S.C. 2702(c), as amended by the Patriot Act renewal of 2006:
(2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;Let's take each of these exceptions in turn.
(3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;
(4) to a governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency[.]
(1) The first exception permits disclosure if the subscriber consents. There are no cases interpreting eactly what consent means in 2702(c)(2), but like many of the exceptions in the SCA it is clearly a copy of an analogous exception in the close cousin of the SCA, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. We do have lots of cases on what consent means in the context of the Wiretap Act, so those cases presumably create the applicable standard here. The basic rule: Consent means that the user actually agreed to the action, either explicitly or implicitly based on the user's decision to proceed in light of actual notice. Here's what the First Circuit said on this in United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995):
Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice.Did users consent to the disclosure under this standard? The Washington Post reports that government lawyers seemed to think so, based on small print in the Terms of Service of the telephone service customer agreements:
One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records — and even the stored content of calls and e-mails — because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts. The fine print of many telephone and Internet service contracts includes catchall provisions, the lawyer said, authorizing the company to disclose such records to protect public safety or national security, or in compliance with a lawful government request. . . . Verizon's customer agreement, for example, acknowledges the company's 'duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of information about the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, and amount of your use of our service,' but it provides for exceptions to 'protect the safety of customers, employees or property.' Verizon will disclose confidential records, it says, "as required by law, legal process, or exigent circumstances."This seems like a very unpersuasive argument in light of the cases construing consent under the Wiretap Act, of which the consent provision in the SCA is a mirror. It reminds me of the argument that a DOJ lawyer once tried to make that monitoring prison phones was allowed because language in the Code of Federal Regulations clearly notified prisoners that their phones would be monitored. According to the lawyer, the notice in the fine print of the CFR was sufficient to make the monitoring consensual. Judge Posner rejected the argument, calling it "the kind of argument that makes lawyers figures of fun to the lay community." United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir. 1990). In light of these cases, I think the consent argument is weak.
(2) The next possible exception is disclosure "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service." This is known as the provider exception, and is also a copy of an analogous exception from the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i). You can read all about this exception here: basically, it gives providers rights to disclose information to the government to help the providers combat illegal service and unauthorized use of the network. It seems pretty clear that this doesn't apply: The cases make clear that the provider exception exists to further provider interests, not government interests.
(3) The third and final exception is the emergency exception, which permits providers to disclose "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." At the outset, it's worth noticing something very interesting about this language: It is almost brand spanking new. The language that passed as part of the Patriot Act in 2001 allowed disclosure only when "the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information." This was the language in place from October 2001 until March 2006. Did the phone companies have such a belief under the 2001-06 language? I gather they had a reasonable belief of danger, but I don't know of a reason to think that they had a reasonable belief of "immediate" danger. If this was a program ongoing for several years, then it's hard to say that there was a continuing reasonable belief of immediate danger over that entire time.
As noted above, though, the Patriot Act renewal passed in March 2006 changed this language. And it did so in a way with potentially important implications for the legality of the NSA call records program. The new exception states that disclosure is permitted "if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of information relating to the emergency." Few people were paying attention to this change at the time, but I would guess that it was very important to the telephone companies: The change expanded the exception to allow disclosure when there is a good faith belief instead of a reasonable belief, and when there was a danger instead of an "immediate" danger. I wouldn't be surprised if the telephone companies were pushing the change in part out of concern for civil liability for their participation in the NSA call records program. (Or perhaps not, come to think of it: Does the new language suggest that the information disclosed needs to relate to the emergency to be covered? What if the provider doesn't know what information relates to the emergency?)
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Why people like the Democratic party
The truth is people hate favorites. Have not Rocky, the Mighty Ducks, the current incarnation of the Democratic Party taught us nothing? Everyone loves an underdog, because you are so sure that they are not going to succeed that when they do anything halfway decent it is a bigger accomplishment than when an expert does something phenomenal. It’s like letting a special needs kid play in a varsity football game. Even if he runs the ball to the wrong endzone we are happy that he was out there and didn't kill himself.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Overall First Round Breakdown
Houston- Mario Williams
Probably one of the worse selections of this year's draft. He reminds me of Eric Curry, DE, Alabama (6th pick by Bucs). The guy was just average during his first 6 games with the Wolfpack but then decided to play and became a monster. He will not be able to do that in the NFL.
New Orleans-Reggie
What can I say. Picked the best availble player despite having a pro-bowl type running back. They had to pick him. Bush is a once in a generation player who should have gone number 1.
Tennessee - Vince Young
Not a fan of stupid QBs. Guy has a lot of talent but might be one of the true idiots of this draft. Can't put together two sentences to save his life. The guy would have been lucky to earn a college degree unless Texas just gives them out down there.
N.Y. Jets - D. Ferguson
I like Ferg, but I have a huge Tony Mandarich fear. Picking OL players in the top five scares me but I think the Jets have a bookend tackle for years to come. I probably need to remember that Orlando Pace turned out very well for the St. Louis Rams.
Green Bay - A. J. Hawk
Great player. Isn't that tall (6'1"), but will do well because he is a football player first. Good at tackling, instinctive at running down the play, and finds space to make a play. Probably best part of his game is that he doesn't get locked up on blockers (which is a big problem for some of the more athletic linebackers ... Ray Lewis).
San Francisco - Vernon Davis -- See previous post
Oakland - Michael Huff
I love this guy. Very smart and great leader of a good Texas defense. Fast (4.37) and strong (21 reps of 225). I wished the 49ers would have gotten him but his combine workouts and his team interviews locked him up as a top 7 pick.
Buffalo - Donte Whitner
If it wasn't for Houston I would say Buffalo had the worse first round. Whitner was a huge reached at 7. Plus, passing up Leinart and Cutler when they need QB help is just crazy. I guess they are thinking they are picking first next year so they can get the ND QB. Idiots.
Detroit - Ernie Sims
Sims was rated higher than Hawk on alot of teams boards. I didn't get it because he wasn't as good of a player. Better number in terms of speed, strength, and height but Hawk was clearly the better player. Good pick for Detroit even if I think they might have been better off taking one of the two QBs. At least Sims wasn't a WR.
Arizona - Matt Leinart
Great pick for both player and team. This might be the best situation for a player to come into. I have never seen anything like this. He has great WRs, RB, and good o-line. Wonderful head coach as well. Top it all off, there is a vet QB who can start the season while Matt learns the system. Probably will be starting by the end of the year (or start of next).
St. Louis - Jay Cutler
Again, good pick. More moble than Leinart and better arm as well. McNair showed you dont' have to go to a big time program to be a good QB in the NFL. Cutler should do well in 2 or 3 years.
Baltimore - Haloti Ngata
Ray Lewis better be thanking the Ravens' front office for this pic. Ngata will take at least two blockers on every play which will free up Lewis to make plays. As most of the NFL knows, Lewis sucks at taking on blockers and gets lost in the play when two linemen and a fullback come up. He hasn't been the same since Tony retired after their last SB win.
Probably one of the worse selections of this year's draft. He reminds me of Eric Curry, DE, Alabama (6th pick by Bucs). The guy was just average during his first 6 games with the Wolfpack but then decided to play and became a monster. He will not be able to do that in the NFL.
New Orleans-Reggie
What can I say. Picked the best availble player despite having a pro-bowl type running back. They had to pick him. Bush is a once in a generation player who should have gone number 1.
Tennessee - Vince Young
Not a fan of stupid QBs. Guy has a lot of talent but might be one of the true idiots of this draft. Can't put together two sentences to save his life. The guy would have been lucky to earn a college degree unless Texas just gives them out down there.
N.Y. Jets - D. Ferguson
I like Ferg, but I have a huge Tony Mandarich fear. Picking OL players in the top five scares me but I think the Jets have a bookend tackle for years to come. I probably need to remember that Orlando Pace turned out very well for the St. Louis Rams.
Green Bay - A. J. Hawk
Great player. Isn't that tall (6'1"), but will do well because he is a football player first. Good at tackling, instinctive at running down the play, and finds space to make a play. Probably best part of his game is that he doesn't get locked up on blockers (which is a big problem for some of the more athletic linebackers ... Ray Lewis).
San Francisco - Vernon Davis -- See previous post
Oakland - Michael Huff
I love this guy. Very smart and great leader of a good Texas defense. Fast (4.37) and strong (21 reps of 225). I wished the 49ers would have gotten him but his combine workouts and his team interviews locked him up as a top 7 pick.
Buffalo - Donte Whitner
If it wasn't for Houston I would say Buffalo had the worse first round. Whitner was a huge reached at 7. Plus, passing up Leinart and Cutler when they need QB help is just crazy. I guess they are thinking they are picking first next year so they can get the ND QB. Idiots.
Detroit - Ernie Sims
Sims was rated higher than Hawk on alot of teams boards. I didn't get it because he wasn't as good of a player. Better number in terms of speed, strength, and height but Hawk was clearly the better player. Good pick for Detroit even if I think they might have been better off taking one of the two QBs. At least Sims wasn't a WR.
Arizona - Matt Leinart
Great pick for both player and team. This might be the best situation for a player to come into. I have never seen anything like this. He has great WRs, RB, and good o-line. Wonderful head coach as well. Top it all off, there is a vet QB who can start the season while Matt learns the system. Probably will be starting by the end of the year (or start of next).
St. Louis - Jay Cutler
Again, good pick. More moble than Leinart and better arm as well. McNair showed you dont' have to go to a big time program to be a good QB in the NFL. Cutler should do well in 2 or 3 years.
Baltimore - Haloti Ngata
Ray Lewis better be thanking the Ravens' front office for this pic. Ngata will take at least two blockers on every play which will free up Lewis to make plays. As most of the NFL knows, Lewis sucks at taking on blockers and gets lost in the play when two linemen and a fullback come up. He hasn't been the same since Tony retired after their last SB win.
Draft Edition: 49ers Grade
The San Francisco 49ers had a decent overall draft. Picking up Vernon Davis as both the BAP (best available player) and a need position worked well for them. In part, because they were able to trade back into the 1st rd and select a front seven player in Manny Lawson. 1st rd. grade I would give them an A-. The only problem with the round is Lawson's workout numbers. I think he might be another workout warrior who is a bust in the pros. With that said, Lawson was always around the ball and made as many plays as Mario Williams at NC State.
The rest of the draft, I would give the 49ers a B-. I loved the third round selection of Brandon Williams. The team needed a solid return guy that could also play as a fourth wideout. If he only returns kicks (and holds on to the ball), he will have done alot more than Jimmy Williams did all last year for the team. The next pick I did not like. Michael Robinson was a huge reached in the fourth round. He has talent. Great runnerback/QB for Penn State. There is no denying that he could run over people, but for a player who will have to switch positions (and noone knows what he will play), selecting him that high is a big risk when there were very good corners and LBs still on the board. Still, he might actually save the 49ers a roster spot if he becomes the team's third QB and RB.
Looking deeper into the draft, Parys Haralson was a good pick up at the DL. He will probably battle for a starting spot at OLB in the 49ers 3-4 defense. Delanie Walker, Marcus Hudson, and Vickiel Vaughn are either filling rosters spots or not even making the team. Vaughn shouldn't have been drafted. He was the best player on a horrible Arkansas team. Still he only had one good year and never lived up to the hype. Probably the most likely drafed player to be cut.
The 49ers 6th rd. pick of Melvin Oliver is interesting because out of all the later round selection s he is the only non "Nolan guy" (player with heart) pick. He has all the talent in the world, but only shows flahes of it. The guy is a no heart player who makes you want to kick him in the balls for not trying. The man reason Oliver was taken was for his "tweener" label. Too small to line up a DE but not fast enough to play a LB in a 4-3 defense. He is a perfect 3-4 "Sam" OLB. Has great size and ability to pass rush.
The rest of the draft, I would give the 49ers a B-. I loved the third round selection of Brandon Williams. The team needed a solid return guy that could also play as a fourth wideout. If he only returns kicks (and holds on to the ball), he will have done alot more than Jimmy Williams did all last year for the team. The next pick I did not like. Michael Robinson was a huge reached in the fourth round. He has talent. Great runnerback/QB for Penn State. There is no denying that he could run over people, but for a player who will have to switch positions (and noone knows what he will play), selecting him that high is a big risk when there were very good corners and LBs still on the board. Still, he might actually save the 49ers a roster spot if he becomes the team's third QB and RB.
Looking deeper into the draft, Parys Haralson was a good pick up at the DL. He will probably battle for a starting spot at OLB in the 49ers 3-4 defense. Delanie Walker, Marcus Hudson, and Vickiel Vaughn are either filling rosters spots or not even making the team. Vaughn shouldn't have been drafted. He was the best player on a horrible Arkansas team. Still he only had one good year and never lived up to the hype. Probably the most likely drafed player to be cut.
The 49ers 6th rd. pick of Melvin Oliver is interesting because out of all the later round selection s he is the only non "Nolan guy" (player with heart) pick. He has all the talent in the world, but only shows flahes of it. The guy is a no heart player who makes you want to kick him in the balls for not trying. The man reason Oliver was taken was for his "tweener" label. Too small to line up a DE but not fast enough to play a LB in a 4-3 defense. He is a perfect 3-4 "Sam" OLB. Has great size and ability to pass rush.
Spanish Anthem: Bad for Immigrants
The debate currently going on about the Spanish Anthem is just a small part in a larger education policy problem. I have personally seen the impact that liberal education policies have on young immigrant children. Many state politicians create these programs (and yes schools) that only teach classes in Spanish.
I will not deny that most of these policies were created with good intentions, but the road to despair is often paved with good intentions. For most students who are taught only Spanish they meet a world that they are not prepared to face. First, they will never be able to go to an American college without learning English. This means that they must spend time and money after high school to learn a tool (English) that their teachers should have given them. If they do not do this, then they will be forced to work in a profession that requires no communication skills or one that is not dominated by English speakers. In addition, English is the language of the well-off and rich. The one language used around the world for the transaction of business deals and other important events. If a set of people who want to be successful fail to learn English, they risk being marginalized before making it out the gate.
Second, without English most immigrants will have to rely on others to communicate to the English speaking world. This means placing their trust in the hands of others. Some of the worse frauds are commented by those of the same nationality or race. And because some Hispanic people know that these immigrants may not be legal, they bank on the fact that non will go to the police to report a crime. Heck, there a lot of people who kidnap illegals for money and know that there is no one who is going to stop them.
Finally, new Spanish immigrants (or illegals) should take a look at black history and see what a culture of exclusion does for one's race. Black people have continually disassociated themselves from whites and other groups. Politically, they advocate policies that promote racial gerrymandering for the simple reason to keep some corrupt black politicians in office. In addition, they blindly follow a political party that has done nothing but take their vote for granted. Spanish immigrants should be mindful that America is a nation of inclusion just as people who are already here should be accepting of others. Acceptence is a two-way street and while one party opens up its arms, the other cannot close its eyes and ears to the culture it is willingly coming into.
I will not deny that most of these policies were created with good intentions, but the road to despair is often paved with good intentions. For most students who are taught only Spanish they meet a world that they are not prepared to face. First, they will never be able to go to an American college without learning English. This means that they must spend time and money after high school to learn a tool (English) that their teachers should have given them. If they do not do this, then they will be forced to work in a profession that requires no communication skills or one that is not dominated by English speakers. In addition, English is the language of the well-off and rich. The one language used around the world for the transaction of business deals and other important events. If a set of people who want to be successful fail to learn English, they risk being marginalized before making it out the gate.
Second, without English most immigrants will have to rely on others to communicate to the English speaking world. This means placing their trust in the hands of others. Some of the worse frauds are commented by those of the same nationality or race. And because some Hispanic people know that these immigrants may not be legal, they bank on the fact that non will go to the police to report a crime. Heck, there a lot of people who kidnap illegals for money and know that there is no one who is going to stop them.
Finally, new Spanish immigrants (or illegals) should take a look at black history and see what a culture of exclusion does for one's race. Black people have continually disassociated themselves from whites and other groups. Politically, they advocate policies that promote racial gerrymandering for the simple reason to keep some corrupt black politicians in office. In addition, they blindly follow a political party that has done nothing but take their vote for granted. Spanish immigrants should be mindful that America is a nation of inclusion just as people who are already here should be accepting of others. Acceptence is a two-way street and while one party opens up its arms, the other cannot close its eyes and ears to the culture it is willingly coming into.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
Worldly Advice
Why do you think a girl would get a lower back tattoo that she will never see? It’s so you have something to look out while you’re doing her doggy style. She wants you to be visually entertained during sex; how thoughtful is that?!
DC Government is a joke: The ongoing church parking issue
Once again we see that politicans don't really care about residents in DC. On Sunday, Mayor Williams decided that there will be no enforcement of parking laws and that a "taskforce" should be established to study the issue. What issue and how much studying do you need? It should be clear that ticketing cars that are parked in cross walkes, in front of fire hydrates, or double parked is the way to go. Plus, the community already established a commission to study the church parking issue and came up with a plan that the Mayor is now just throwing away. Pathetic!!!
If the city wants to give churches a special place in society then just come right out and say it. Better yet lets cut out the middle man and turn this sorry a-s city into a theocracy.
If the city wants to give churches a special place in society then just come right out and say it. Better yet lets cut out the middle man and turn this sorry a-s city into a theocracy.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Republican Party: Is it breaking apart?
This is a great article by Craig Shirley who discusses the reasons why many conservatives will be happy to see the Republican party fail. The Goldwater/Reagan wing of the Republican party has never truly won the war over who really controls the party. The liberal Rockefeller business camp has been a sore loser since 64 win they lost the Republican nomination to Goldwater. Ever since then its members have sat in waiting while Reagan came to dominate the party that they thought was rightfully theirs. Today we have a President who pretends to be a Reagan Republican when he more closely fits the Rockefeller model. Other Rockefeller Republicans still control most of the party even though they proclaim to carry the Reagan legacy. I say down with the Republican party and start over. Get rid of the tax and spend liberals and anyone else who doesn't want to enforce the law. Destroy the party and let the Democrats take over. They can't do any worse!
The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.
The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.
There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.
Major Republicans have taken to attacking others within their own party as unsophisticated nativists. In a recent Wall Street Journal column, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie warned populists to cease and desist from promoting "border enforcement first" legislation. "Anti-immigration rhetoric is a political siren song, and Republicans must resist its lure," he said. And in a recent editorial, the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol attacked populist Republicans for not recognizing the danger of "turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know-Nothing party."
Conservatives see this kind of rhetoric as inflammatory, anti-intellectual and offensive. Far from being driven by xenophobia and intolerance, conservative populists are motivated by a profound respect for the rule of law and by a patriotic regard for America's sovereignty and national security. Upholding the rule of law and protecting our country's borders is important to conservative populists and to most Americans.
To make their argument, some establishment Republicans are invoking Ronald Reagan's name. In fact, Reagan argued that it was our government's duty to "humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." Reagan was pro-legal immigration, pro-patriotic assimilation and in step with other populist conservatives.
The Republican Party is now unraveling. Sept. 11, 2001, and the war on terrorism stanched a lot of wounds inside the party, but resentment is growing over steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, a League of Nations mentality, the growth of government and harebrained spending, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the increasing regulation of political speech in the United States and endemic corruption. On top of all the scandals, it has just come to light that the RNC paid millions in legal bills to defend operative James Tobin, who was convicted with associates in an illegal phone-jamming scheme aimed at preventing New Hampshire Democrats from voting. In doing so, the GOP appears to sanction and institutionalize corruption within the party.
The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they've found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists' commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.
Unfortunately, the GOP has lost its motivating ideals. The revolution of 1994 has been killed not by zeal but by a loss of faith in its own principles. The tragedy is not that we are faced with another fight for the soul of the Republican Party but that we have missed an opportunity to bring a new generation of Americans over to our point of view.
All agree that the Democrats are feckless and without a plan or agenda. But most Americans are now presented with a choice between two parties that are both addicted to power -- the Democrats to government power and Republicans to corporate and governmental power. Who speaks for Main Street Reaganism?
It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this. But it may be too late, because conservatives don't want to be part of the looming train wreck. They know that this is no longer Ronald Reagan's party.
9th Circuit follow up comment
Just a thought but maybe the Supreme Court needs a special Reinhardt docket, where every case that he votes in the majority gets automatic expedited review, with the Supreme Court summarily reversing after 30 days unless someone pulls it off the docket.
The debate over homosexuality
I ran across this sentence in another blog that I sometimes view and I wanted to comment on it.
The difference, of course, is that some believe that homosexuality is amoral (as do I) and pedophila is immoral (as do I). It doesn't make any difference that each quality is enduring and resistant to change or remedy.
Let's not kid ourselves that the opprobrium assigned to homosexuality can be dissolved with hollow slogans like "Homosexuality is enduring, it's just like race!" to convince the public that homosexuals are not gross or immoral sinners, one must address the underlying morality of the act.
Homosexuality is an enduring status or quality; attacking "homosexuality" is indistinguishable from attacking homosexuals, just as attacking "being black" is indistinguishable from attacking black people.Although I don't think homosexuality is an immoral sin and don't care what sexual perferences you may entertain, this phrase is one of those oft-repeated saying that means nothing. There are a lot of qualities that are enduring which people find immoral. To name one, pedophilia (no, I am not comparing homosexuals and pedophiles). But it does seem to be an enduring status or quality. It's hard to "cure" these sickos just as it's hard to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. So what if a quality is enduring if that quality is immoral?
The difference, of course, is that some believe that homosexuality is amoral (as do I) and pedophila is immoral (as do I). It doesn't make any difference that each quality is enduring and resistant to change or remedy.
Let's not kid ourselves that the opprobrium assigned to homosexuality can be dissolved with hollow slogans like "Homosexuality is enduring, it's just like race!" to convince the public that homosexuals are not gross or immoral sinners, one must address the underlying morality of the act.
The 9th Circuit has validated the concept of "Freedom of speech for me but not for thee."
Thought anyone reading this blog might have some interest in at least knowing about this case. Becaically a kid wore an anti-gay t-shirt to school and was told to remove it. Case went to court and eventually got to the 9th Circuit. According to the majority (Justice Reinhardt...ugh), "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation" -- which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations -- are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools.
So by this ruling, the somewhat hip "Boys Suck" t-shirts would be protected (while they are a minority, our society has a past history of oppressing women) while a "Girls are stupid" shirt would be banned. As would some shirt making fun of someone for being fat. Or having glasses. That's just wildly illogical. But it's the 9th.
So by this ruling, the somewhat hip "Boys Suck" t-shirts would be protected (while they are a minority, our society has a past history of oppressing women) while a "Girls are stupid" shirt would be banned. As would some shirt making fun of someone for being fat. Or having glasses. That's just wildly illogical. But it's the 9th.
Civil Rights Act and Racial Preference
When the civil rights act was being debated in Congress in the 1960s southern senators opposed the bill because they said it would lead to a system of racial preferences. Most liberals regarded these senators as bigots (perhaps rightly so) and emphasized that they all were seeking was equal treatment under the law. Hubert Humphrey said he eat the bill if anyone determined it to legalize a racial preference. It seems that the southerners were right—the Act did lead to a system of racial preferences.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Global Warming: A Scientific Canard?
I am not sure if I believe all the dire predications or not, but seeing that the scientific community can't figure out what is going on I am going to hold off on take a side. Although I admit the Earth is getting warming, I wonder if this is simply a geological fluxuation rather than a permant man made symptom.
Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Thursday, April 20, 2006
DHS Is going to get tough with Illegal Immigration
The apprehension on Wednesday of more than 1,100 illegal immigrants employed by a Houston-based pallet supply company, as well as the arrest of seven of its managers, represents the kickoff of a more aggressive federal immigration enforcement campaign intended to hold employers accountable for breaking the law, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said today.
Saying the hiring by companies nationwide of millions of undocumented workers is often a form of organized crime, Mr. Chertoff, a former federal prosecutor, said the government will now attempt to combat the practice with techniques similar to those used to try to shut down the mob.
"We target those organizations, we use intelligence to define the scope of the organization, and then we use all of the tools we have — whether it's criminal enforcement or the immigration laws — to make sure we come down as hard as possible and break the back of those organizations," Mr. Chertoff said during a news conference at the headquarters of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division.
Mayor Williams gives himself more power than provided by law
There is an ongoing parking debate in the nation's capitol. Many city officials feel they don't have to enforce the law if they don't want to. Mayor Anthony Williams is the lastest to make such an assertation:There's a zone of discretion for the executive...especially when it comes to something broad and systematic. I think it'd be wrong for me to say 'I'm walking down the street and I'm going to give you a parking ticket that I won't give you.' But as a matter of broad policy it's a different question.So, the Mayor says he has a type of discretionary authority. Well, I would disagree. At the state level, legislative bodies do give governors the right to "fill in the details of legislation." The state executive uses his or her ordinance making power which is a type a of dicretionary authority but that is clearly limited to areas where the legislative body has given the executive such power.
In addition, in the wake of a natural disaster such as a flood or tornado, a mayor may declare an official state of emergency that empowers him or her to issue binding rules of behavior for a limited period of time. A curfew ordering persons to be off the street is an example of this. Although such orders are discretionary and the law of the land, they are limited, unusual, and termporary.
From what I can tell, neither the U.S. Congress or the D.C. City Council has given Mayor Williams any discretionary power when it comes to parking enforcement. His role is clear cut and defined not only by the law, but what the common law limits executive authorities to.
Director of National Intelligence: Another layer of bureaucracy?
I'm not too shocked to see that the House Intelligence Committee has finally come out and warned what I, and many other congressional experts said, when Congress created the director position.
Adding bureaucracy might seem like a good idea (as it did with the Deparment of Homeland Security). Yet, when you actually get down to the practical operation of such a huge system, the lines of communication get cut off with so many layers and levels. America experienced this with FEMA after Katrina. It will again when the next terrorist attack occurs. Bureaucracy is a curse, not a blessing.
This quote by James Borden pretty much sums up what the DNI and DHS bring to the table: "Guidelines for Bureaucrats: 1. When in charge, ponder. 2. When in trouble, delegate. 3. When in doubt, mumble." Not too reassering.
In an April 6 report, the Intelligence Committee warned that Mr. Negroponte's office could end up not as a streamlined coordinator but as "another layer of large, unintended and unnecessary bureaucracy."
Adding bureaucracy might seem like a good idea (as it did with the Deparment of Homeland Security). Yet, when you actually get down to the practical operation of such a huge system, the lines of communication get cut off with so many layers and levels. America experienced this with FEMA after Katrina. It will again when the next terrorist attack occurs. Bureaucracy is a curse, not a blessing.
This quote by James Borden pretty much sums up what the DNI and DHS bring to the table: "Guidelines for Bureaucrats: 1. When in charge, ponder. 2. When in trouble, delegate. 3. When in doubt, mumble." Not too reassering.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
First Black Senate Page
In 1965, New York Senator Jacob Javits sponsored Lawrence Wallace Bradford Jr. to be the United States Senate first black page. Mr. Bradford was a 16-year old honor student a New Lincoln School in New York City.
Philips coming out with a DV Recorder that forces you to watch commericials
Awesome idea! Here is what one blog had to say about it:
Royal Philips is being a royal pain in the arse with a new technology to make TV watchers unable to skip commercials. Their recent patent filing indicates that broadcast flags would be inserted into commercials in order to allow supported TVs to disable channel changing during breaks. In addition, the flags would also be recognized by digital video recorders so viewers can’t fast forward even if they’ve seen the ads already. Great job on tapping into the consumer zeitgeist, Philips. Oh yeah, and we also hear you’re going to follow this patent up with one on telemarketing calls between 6 and 8PM. Good luck with that.
Monday, April 17, 2006
What to do with Iran: The Russia, China, and Europe Problem
Russia, China, Europe, et al., want the US hobbled, and so are willing to go along with Iran, as they view the US and Israel as the main target. Russia and China, at least, will exhibit their well known restraint and respect for human rights as soon as Iran turns to bite them.
As to America's problems in the world, it is a demonstration of the truthfulness of Machiavelli's maxim. America in general, and the left specifically, want to be loved. When you are successful and powerful, it is hard to be loved, especially when you are supporting so many others and doing necessary work that they can not, highlighting their inferirority. No one responds well to having their faults demonstrated, and so the US is hated and will always be hated as long as it continues to succeed.
America's position in the world and foreign policy aims would be dramatically better served by a policy that aims to be feared rather than loved. Making it so that there are very, very serious and immediate consequences to baiting the US or opposing it would dramatically reduce the popularity of cheap anti-americanism. Rather than having it win you a German election, it should see serious questions about continued diplomatic relations, reduced or eliminated military co-operation, and a thorough review of all non-commercial interactions.
Important and necessary allies do not and would not stoop to these kinds of cheap tactics. It is almost guaranteed that only enemies, antipathetical neutrals, and vestigial allies for which there is no longer any reason or purpose for alliance would engage in such contact. The best examples of this are in Europe, where the reasons for tight alliances have been removed (Russians on the doorstep/ muscular Germans), and the states slack under the shadow of a remote and benevloent giant.
Rather than simple musings about closing German bases, the Bush administration should have publicly and immediately announced that it would be closing all German bases and repositioning forces. Alliances have a purpose, and should be ruthlessly pruned when their is no longer an immediate need, so that closeness does not make the heart grow colder.
As to America's problems in the world, it is a demonstration of the truthfulness of Machiavelli's maxim. America in general, and the left specifically, want to be loved. When you are successful and powerful, it is hard to be loved, especially when you are supporting so many others and doing necessary work that they can not, highlighting their inferirority. No one responds well to having their faults demonstrated, and so the US is hated and will always be hated as long as it continues to succeed.
America's position in the world and foreign policy aims would be dramatically better served by a policy that aims to be feared rather than loved. Making it so that there are very, very serious and immediate consequences to baiting the US or opposing it would dramatically reduce the popularity of cheap anti-americanism. Rather than having it win you a German election, it should see serious questions about continued diplomatic relations, reduced or eliminated military co-operation, and a thorough review of all non-commercial interactions.
Important and necessary allies do not and would not stoop to these kinds of cheap tactics. It is almost guaranteed that only enemies, antipathetical neutrals, and vestigial allies for which there is no longer any reason or purpose for alliance would engage in such contact. The best examples of this are in Europe, where the reasons for tight alliances have been removed (Russians on the doorstep/ muscular Germans), and the states slack under the shadow of a remote and benevloent giant.
Rather than simple musings about closing German bases, the Bush administration should have publicly and immediately announced that it would be closing all German bases and repositioning forces. Alliances have a purpose, and should be ruthlessly pruned when their is no longer an immediate need, so that closeness does not make the heart grow colder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)