KOP'S BLOG

McClellan on the Daily Show

2008-06-05T11:52:00.000-04:00

Pretty funny. Clip.

Moderate Republicans

2007-05-10T10:01:00.000-04:00

Tell Bush the gig is up.

NHI

2007-05-02T08:40:00.000-04:00

A Broward County Judge recently used "NHI" in the Courtroon to refer to a case involving a black victim, black defendant and black witnesses. NHI means "No Humans Involved" and dates back to the 1970s and is used to describe why some crimes against prostitutes, gays or blacks may not be pursued as vigorously as those with white victims. It is a term used commonly by police officers and prosecutors, and now judges.

Institutional Bias

2007-03-23T09:36:00.000-04:00

Because of politically conservative appointments from both Republicans and Democrats, the Court's have an institutional bias against civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants. Case in point: Oklahoma Federal Judge just threw out a $15 MM jury award against Ford for a rollover accident and ordered a new trial. The reason for new trial? Apparently the Plaintiff's attorney made improper remarks during closing, including (1) personal attacks on Ford witnesses and attorneys, and (2) "blatant suggestions" that Ford Explorers are responsible for 10,000 deaths per year, and (3) comparing the number of deaths in the Iraq War. I'm not convinced this is beyond the pale for argument, such that you'd take the case from the jury. But, even granting that it is, my point is: can you imagine a judge taking a high stakes criminal case away from a jury for similar remarks by the prosecution in closing? Seems unlikely.

HI-DEF Wars

2007-03-22T09:06:00.001-04:00

Blu-Ray is infront and pulling away from HD-DVD. So, you might want to hold off on that new HD-DVD drive that you had your eyes on. These sales numbers have apparently made Microsoft pull back a little with it its support of HD-DVD.

Viacom v. YouTube, Google

2007-03-14T09:35:00.000-04:00

Viacom sued YouTube and its parent company Google for copyright infringement yesterday, claiming over $1BN in damages. (Complaint) Google claims safe harber provisions under the DMCA. Should be an interesting case if it goes the distance. Some commentators think this will settle quickly. I'm guessing that both sides are looking to set precedent here.

2007-02-17T11:37:00.000-05:00

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Alabama's 1998 can on the sale of sex toys. The Court held that since their is no fundamental right to buy sex toys, then the law must only withstand rational basis scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny. The rational basis scrutiny is whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government objective. The 11th Circuit held that ban of sex toys is rationally related to upholding public morality.

This is obvious crap. First, using sex toys is not immoral. Second, the ban does not prevent the use of sex toys in the state, so if people are still allowed to use them in the state, the sale of them is not rationally related to the any legitimate government objective. This will get overturned by the Supreme Court.

In justifying the decision, the Alabama Solicitor General dubiously explained, "In rejecting that view, which necessarily would have invalidated traditional prohibitions on, for instance, incest, polygamy, and prostitution, the 11th Circuit recognized and reiterated that 'the law is constantly based on notions of morality.''' This is also obvious crap, buying sex toys is qualitatively different than incest, polygamy and prostitution all which have other reasons for their ban other than an appeal simple morality. Incest results in obvious public health problems. Polygamy is not as much a ban, as much as it is decision of what types of private relationships to publicly sanction. And, prostitution, which should be legal, is banned because of its objectifaction and exploitation of women. The sale of sex toys has no other justification other than some minority Christian fundamentalist view of morality, which by itself, should not be a legitimate government objective since it is merely promoting religion.

Everson

2007-02-04T08:42:00.000-05:00

Excellent lengthy article dicussing the legal and factual fallacies of the religious right's attempts to discredit the 60-year old Supreme Court opinion on separation of church and state.

SJC Dividing Line: Bears v. Colts

2007-01-24T12:58:00.000-05:00

Chicago Tribune article.

Libby Opening Arguments

2007-01-24T09:50:00.000-05:00

Article.

Surge/Escalation of Iraq War

2007-01-09T09:38:00.000-05:00

Couple choice quotes from an article about the proposed escalation:

Asked if Bush can expect full Republican support for his plan, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, replied bluntly, "No."

*****

Republicans also said they want to examine any new plan. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who last fall called for a new war strategy while chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, "The administration will state its case, and then I'll state mine."

*****

Politically and legislatively, support from his fellow Republicans remains vital for Bush's Iraq policy. But it is rapidly weakening under Iraq's relentless disintegration despite every change in administration tactics, and the November midterm election that knocked Republicans from power on Capitol Hill.

*****

The administration is expected to make a large new request for more money soon to finance the war in separate legislation, called a supplemental appropriation. Estimates are that the new request could be about $100 billion -- on top of the estimated $450 billion already spent for the war in Iraq.

*****

Bush is getting strong support, however from several leading Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona. Joining them is independent former Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. They sharply warned their colleagues that failing to back Bush's effort would ensure failure in Iraq and all its consequences.

Torture

2006-12-08T09:28:00.000-05:00

Do as we say not as we do. U.S. anti-torture laws seem to be inconsistent with the White House definition, which as you might recall is that it is torture only if there is organ failure. We are still indicting people for electroshocking genitals under U.S. law but say that it is okay under the Geneva Convention.

EV

2006-12-05T11:35:00.000-05:00

I'm starting to be less enthralled with biodiesel and more captivated by the prospects of electric vehicles. The Telsa Roadster got me started on this kick. But, now Pheonix motors seems to be on the verge of offering a more realistic option in the form of a truck or suv.

The obvious advantages of EVs are that they are more efficient that combustion engine vehicles. The Telsa Roadster gets the equivalent of 130 mpg, while going 0-60 in 4 seconds. Their only real question marks are range and price. The Tesla roadster is $100K, but it is a performance sports car. The Pheonix vehicles are more like $40-50K. The range for each is about 250 miles (compared with about a 60 mile range for GM's EV-1, the car from the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"). 250 miles is sufficient ranges for a primary commuter car, but not sufficient for long drives. Fortunately, it is anticipated that adavances in battery technology in the next 5 years will make it possilble for a EV range of about 600 miles or about as far as you can drive in a day, at which point you can stop and let the car charge overnight (actually it only takes about 3 hours). And, prices are expected to come down. Telsa expects to market a EV for about $30K by 2009. The future is here and it is electric.

While much of the electricity we use is from dirty coal, there are lots of clean options from solar, wind, nuclear and clean burning coal operations to make these EVs the best viable option going forward to both reduce our dependency on foreign oil and to stop pumping exorbinant amouts of carbon into our atmosphere. Especially since we do not have to build an entire hydrogen distribution infrastructure like we would with fuel cell cars.

Kites Pulling a Cargo Ship

2006-12-05T11:20:00.000-05:00

Ingenuity.

Vista: Obsolete before it's out the door?

2006-12-05T10:07:00.000-05:00

Great article about whether Miscrosoft's new Windows Vista operating system will be the last of its kind. Sampling:

One of the world's most powerful monopolies puts 10,000 people to work for five years to create one new product. And nobody is really sure if anyone wants it. How's that for a gamble?

That's what we have with Windows Vista, the new computer-operating system from Microsoft that debuted last week for businesses and, next month, for consumers. There has been so much buildup for this moment that you would expect Vista to cure cancer.

It's been so long in coming that I'll just be happy if it does the job and doesn't present me with a daily dose of the Blue Screen of Death. Already experts are predicting Vista may be the last of its kind. Obsolete before it's out the door? Geez, we haven't even had a chance to open our wallets yet.

"Suddenly, the market changed and competitors started delivering technology at the speed of the Internet," said James McQuivey, professor of market research at Boston University. "In some cases, they do it for free, and that's painful for Microsoft."

Polling

2006-11-06T18:43:00.000-05:00

For you junkies. More than enough to chew on. That GOP pollster predicts the house will be 239 Democrats 196 Republicans. The Senate will likely be much closer, at most 51-49 Dems. But, a split house or GOP control are also very likely. Even with just the house, that's a brutal mid-term for the GOP. Looking forward to tomorrow.

Voice of the Right

2006-10-30T08:34:00.000-05:00

Limbaugh attacks Michael J. Fox's symptoms, mimicking Fox, who could be seen swaying and shifting markedly in some recent political ads, and griped that Fox was either acting or "off his meds." The tragic irony is that Rush, talking completely off the cuff had it completely wrong. Fox's swaying was because he's been on the meds for 15 years. Maybe some day people will stop learning how to think from such an idiot as Rush.

Air America files for Bankruptcy

2006-10-13T12:38:00.000-04:00

Yeah, nobody saw this coming. Just glad that this ill-fated, ill-advised venture will finally go away. Liberal Talk Radio is an oxymoron. There is no liberal counterpunch to Russ Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Neil Bortz. Talking out of their ass with spin and echo-chamber GOP talking points is their format. I hate that crap, whether its Republican or Democrat. Just give me "liberal" NPR and by "liberal" here I just mean well-produced, well-research informative news and commentary, in which the stories and facts conveyed are allegedly selected with a liberal slant. To which, ironically, there is no conservative counterpunch. Fox News is an entirely different bird.

N. Korea

2006-10-09T09:21:00.000-04:00

Bush's policy for his "Axis of Evil" is as I understand it (1) invade Iraq, (2) try diplomacy/sactions with Iran and (3) isolate N. Korea. I think he's 0 for 3. We need to engage N. Korea ASAP. Bush's strategy of we won't negotiate with N. Korea until it first gives up all of its negotiating leverage is clearly the dumbest strategy ever, regardless of how tough it might make him look for being so hardline.

D-Link WiFi/GSM VoIP Phone

2006-10-04T10:15:00.000-04:00

This stuff has been in the works, but this is the first major brand (D-Link) to introduce one in the US, that I'm aware of. I'm sure Ranja will be scared as usually by this cooky tech-speak, so I'll break it down for him like he's a 4 year old.

"VoIP" is "Voice Over IP", which is a technology for making very cheap phone calls over the internet. Since VoIP routes your phone call over the internet instead of the traditional telecom network, its much cheaper. As in unliminted calls for like $20/mo.(Compare that with you current cellphone and/or homephone bills)

"WiFi" is a wireless network, the kind you set up in your house or use at starbucks or the airport.

"GSM" is the current cellphone technology standard that most cellphones use these days.

The cool thing about this new D-Link phone is that it can switch on the fly between GSM and a WiFi network using VoIP. So, if you're in a WiFi hotspot, you can switch to your cheap VoIP service and quit burning your expensive GSM minutes under your cell phone plan. At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory. I doubt that Cingular, Verizon or Sprint will be offering this phone, but pretty soon this technology is going to eat into their business.

Iraq War Fueled More Terrorism

2006-09-25T08:34:00.000-04:00

NY Times broke the story of a leaked US intelligence report confirms dated April 2006. It discusses the "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," and cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report also "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse." The report is a concensus report based on intelligence from 16 US spy agencies.

Of course, the White House has already attempted to rebut the report by saying that it disagrees with the conclusions. Their mantra is the same as always, they hate us for our freedom, there were terrorists/jihadists in Iraq already, and the world is better without Saddam Hussein. No surprise there. Of course, that doesn't really contradict the report. All of the White talking points could be true and still not change the fact that war has helped spread terrorism across the globe.

Here's McCain's thoughts: "If it wasn't Iraq, it'd be Afghanistan. If it wasn't Afghanistan, it would be others that they would use as a method of continuing their recruitment." But McCain also cautioned that the longer the war continued, "the more likely they are to have more recruits." He added, "It's obvious that the difficulties we've experienced in Iraq have certainly emboldened [terrorists]. Lack of success always does that."

Sharpreader

2006-09-19T17:33:00.000-04:00

I figured that it was about time that I got a news reader. Now that I downloaded and installed Sharpreader, I don't know how I managed without it. It is fantastic. It's pulling 28 RSS feeds for me right now, including Wired, Slashdot, Norbizness, the Onion, Georgia Football news, Google news, several patent law blogs and several political blogs. I'm so behind the times. I can't believe it took me this long.

Why is our President an Obstructionist?

2006-09-15T09:18:00.000-04:00

Bush is threatening to veto another bill offered by the GOP-led Senate. As recently, as yesterday GOP pundits are still calling the Democrats obstructionists. Maybe someone should call BS. I bet Sean Hannity will.

Loremo - 157 MPG!

2006-09-08T09:15:00.000-04:00

Start-up German carmaker Loremo has diesel concept car that it plans to put into production in 2009 and ship world-wide. It gets a staggering 157 MPG and has a range of 1300 miles on one tank of diesel. That's 5 times better than my Rav4 that gets "great" gas mileage. It has some unusual design features like no side doors, a balloon body design shape that takes advantage of ballast aerodynamics, and rear-facing rear seats that double as a trunk. It will cost less than 11,000 euro or about US$14,000.

Sprint Nextel to Deploy WiMax

2006-08-11T10:02:00.000-04:00

This is pretty big news. There's been coverage all over about it. WiMax has been hyped since 2001 when it was debuted. It promises cheap wireless broadband internet service. Sprint is actually stepping up and investing about $4 billing in building a WiMax network, promising to have some markets launched by end of 2007 and 100 million peopel with access by end of 2008.

There are some neysayers, and they have some points. Namely, expect to be disappointed, and the media coverage has been shotty.

Sir Charles Barkley: Future Ala. Governor?

2006-07-28T13:04:00.000-04:00

Barkley just switched parties to become a democrat because, as he says, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." He's now testing the waters again at a gubernatorial candidate in his home state.

SCOTUS

2006-06-30T09:35:00.000-04:00

A friend found this new SCOTUS decision interesting. It is too technical for me to make much sense of it. I looks like it is pure statutory interpretation issue, which can and will be overrided by Congress.

Warren Buffett is Pro-Estate Tax

2006-06-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

Buffet quotes from Globe article:

"I'm not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth when there are 6 billion people who have much poorer lives."

"hate to see the estate tax gutted."

"I can't think of anything that's more counter to a democracy that dynastic wealth."

"The idea that you win the lottery the moment you're born: It just strikes me as outrageous."

The Million Dollar Homepage

2006-06-22T13:22:00.000-04:00

Wired tells the story: Last August, a high schooler from the UK launched the Million Dollar Homepage . The plan was to cram thousands of tiny banner ads onto a single page by selling a million pixels for $1 each, with a 100-pixel minimum (that’s about the size of a sesame seed). News of the site spread quickly, fueling traffic and demand. Japanese dating companies and toy train dealers gobbled up space. Within two weeks, Tew had earned enough to pay for three years of college. By September, he had pocketed $200,000. On January 11, he auctioned off his remaining 1,000 pixels on eBay, pushing his total earnings to $1,037,100. He got more than 800,000 unique visitors on a single day and had earned a page rank of seven on Google (Amazon is a nine).

Chainless Bike

2006-06-21T13:11:00.000-04:00

No more derailer or oily chain. Via Metaefficient.

Sealed v. Sealed

2006-06-12T16:56:00.000-04:00

Plame gossip.

Ups and Downs of Diesel Cars

2006-06-08T11:18:00.000-04:00

Detroit New Editorial discusses how strict emissions standards are putting the brakes on many diesel offerings in the U.S. despite their 40% better fuel efficiency. In particular the diesel Jeep Liberty is getting axed despite enormous commercial success because, since it will cost too much to achieve the necessary 97% reduction in sulfer emission. Current standard technology only reduces it by 90%. Does this make sense?

Keep in mind diesels tend to out perform their EPA mileage estimates. Jetta's EPA estimate is 42mpg, but reportedly gets 50mpg. And, the Liberty was reportedly getting over 30mpg, even though its EPA estimate was like 23. Compare with the Prius which under peforms, with an EPA highway estimate of 51mpg, but actually performs around 40mpg highway.

Anonymous Law Firm

2006-06-06T10:10:00.000-04:00

Hilarious. It's a fake law firm website that lampoons big law firms. Favorite line:

Our associate training program is one of the best we know of, designed not only to develop legal skills but also to turn associates into better people, where the value of a person is directly measured by the number of hours worked.

Our development program gives first-year associates a chance to bond with each other through team-building exercises, outdoor challenge events, and a 96-hour mock document review exercise that many associates say truly changed their lives.

McDonald's CEO Complains About Bad Rap

2006-05-26T09:06:00.000-04:00

Skinner, spinning junk like a true Republican, cries:

McDonald's is a leader in food safety and quality, toy safety, employment opportunity, training and development, charitable giving, animal welfare and the environment.

Fictitious information irresponsibly published and reported in the media has people questioning the quality and safety of fast food in general. But at McDonald's, we work closely with our suppliers to develop and implement the highest standards, and have for over 50 years.

Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, right. High standards for food quality? I wonder if he actually believes this stuff.

5.3% GDP Annualized Growth Rate for 1stQ of '06

2006-05-25T09:17:00.000-04:00

Good news for everyone.

Bush to Guard Border

2006-05-15T10:01:00.000-04:00

Clearly political move to look strong, but clearly dumb since the vast majority of illegals do not sneak in but overstay their visas. Border guards won't stop that.

Gender Select Your Next Child For Only $19K

2006-05-15T09:00:00.000-04:00

(Sorry, not available in most countries, except the United States.) Maybe instead of creating our own little societies and fiefdoms, we should think bigger. The Earth has bigger problems than making sure your sixth child properly balances your family. If that's worth $19K to you, I think your priorities are bit a skew. I'm just saying, maybe you should spend that money on diamond-studded spinners, a ginormous plasma TV, or a fur-coat. Parents, Sons and Daughters, you are part of something bigger.

NSA Datamining

2006-05-14T16:49:00.000-04:00

I'm slow. Not, yet sure what to make of it. Other than when the government decides to do something like this, it should as matter of democratic principle, if not law, get the people's approval.

Rough legal analysis here.

Government's motion to dismiss EFF's class action against AT&T.

Dean's an Idiot

2006-05-11T23:04:00.000-04:00

Exhibit A for what's wrong with the Dems.

Stephen Colbert Has Brass Cojones

2006-05-03T08:38:00.000-04:00

Clips from his roast of the President on CSPAN. Wow! Somebody shoot me in the face.

Ken Lay's Testimony

2006-05-01T08:45:00.000-04:00

Quote from the article: "For Lay, this is a new norm. This is a culture he's not used to, being aggressively questioned, and where his every utterance isn't seen as the ultimate truth."

Oh, to be the Decider!

Hookergate

2006-04-30T18:35:00.000-04:00

How about that GOP?

Tech Stuff

2006-04-28T08:48:00.000-04:00

Seagate introduced a 750GB Hard Drive.

Group of four friends out to destroy MS Internet Explorer. ExplorerDestroyer.com

PS3 Pricing Rumors, to debut at $399.

Vongages Wi-Fi VoIP struggles, but exapanding in UK. (Wimax VoIP will change the world.)

Google launches SketchUp, a free downloadable 3D drawing program.

Biodiesel Breakthrough

2006-04-19T21:20:00.000-04:00

Article:

A tiny chemical reactor that can convert vegetable oil directly into biodiesel could help farmers turn some of their crops into homegrown fuel to operate agricultural equipment instead of relying on costly imported oil.

The device — about the size of a credit card — pumps vegetable oil and alcohol through tiny parallel channels, each smaller than a human hair, to convert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly.

By comparison, it takes more than a day to produce biodiesel witih current technology.

Conventional production involves dissolving a catalyst, such as sodium hydroxide, in alcohol, then stirring it into vegetable oil in large vats for about two hours. The mixture then has to sit for 12 to 24 hours while a slow chemical reaction forms biodiesel along with glycerin, a byproduct.

The glycerin is separated and can be used to make other products, such as soaps, but it still contains the chemical catalyst, which must be neutralized and removed using hydrochloric acid, a long and costly process.

The microreactor under development by the university and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute eliminates the mixing, the standing time and maybe even the need for a catalyst.

"If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any other way," Jovanovic said.

The device is small, but it can be stacked in banks to increase production levels to the volume required for commercial use, he said.

Biodiesel production on the farm also could reduce distribution costs by eliminating the need for tanker truck fuel delivery, part of the growing effort to meet fuel demand locally instead of relying on distant refineries and tanker transport.

"Distributed energy production means you can use local resources _ farmers can produce all the energy they need from what they grow on their own farms," Jovanovic said.

Boot Camp

2006-04-18T08:54:00.000-04:00

Yesterday tech journalists everywhere gushed at Apple's introduction of its boot camp software that allows Mac owners to chose to boot into MacOS or Windows XP. Immediately Dell responded with a public query whether Apple would allow distribution of the MacOS for loading on PC's for dual boot capabilities. Steve Job's answer came fast. No.

This seems dumb to me. Why wouldn't Apple want its OS loaded on PCs everywhere? Their sales would go through the roof with minimal cost. It would be pure profit. They could sell it at a premium for like $200-300 a pop, about the cost of an Ipod, but with no cost of materials. They are too enamored with sell computers. Stupid.

Iran

2006-04-10T14:13:00.000-04:00

This New Yorker article has caused a ruckus:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

The CS Monitor explains the reports and the White House's response today.

This might not scare me so much if this administration weren't so incompetant at war planning and regime change, not mention its undue affection for secrecy and lack of appreciation for the true costs of waging war in the Middle East.

10 year study on Praying for Sick People

2006-04-03T15:00:00.000-04:00

No effect. Actual, a bad one for people who knew people were praying for them.

Canadian WiMax Launch

2006-04-03T08:38:00.000-04:00

The future is just around the corner.

Rumors

2006-03-31T09:17:00.000-05:00

Fitzgerald will seek new Whitehouse indictments against Rove and Hadley. I'm not going to hold my breath (but I am crossing my fingers.)

2008 Frontrunners

2006-03-24T08:50:00.000-05:00

Wikipedia has a good article on the upcoming election just around the corner, just 2 1/2 short years away, complete with polls and lists of possible candidates from both parties. I'll place bets on John Edwards vs. Rudolph Giuliani.

It is a little wishful thinking, but I think Kerry and Clinton have too much baggage. I realize my overlooking of them has more to do with me not liking their candidacy and ability to win the general election than an objective analysis of them winning the primaries. They both unfortunately have legit shots at the primaries.

I'd like to see McCain for Team Elephant, but I think Giuliani has a slightly better shot at making it out of the primaries since McCain is a proven failure in that department. Although Giuliani is also probably way too moderate himself to win the Elephant nomination.

The most interesting match up would be Hillary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice. That would turn American politics on its head. But, there's probably a fat chance of that happening.

Dell Buys Alienware

2006-03-23T08:35:00.000-05:00

Story.

DP World

2006-03-16T08:12:00.000-05:00

Dole's editorial running across the county.

Buck Fever

2006-02-18T14:16:00.000-05:00

The Post has an interesting article about hunting accidents and criminal penalties or the lack of them.

Your Senator Needs an IPod

2006-02-07T13:10:00.000-05:00

IPac has a great idea. If you agree with their agenda and strategy, please consider contributing.

ACLU Sues for Injunction To Stop Bush From Illegally Spying on Americans

2006-01-17T11:28:00.000-05:00

Good. But, there will be standing issues and questions of judiciability. I think it is judiciable because this does not seem like a political question. It it a suit to enforce specified legal rights. I'm not sure about standing. The complaint says "the plaintiffs, who frequently communicate by telephone and e-mail with people in the Middle East and Asia, have a 'well-founded belief' that their communications are being intercepted by the government." I'm no standing expert, but from what I know that seems like a close call as to whether there is an actual injury to these particular plaintiffs.

Roberts dissents with Scalia and Thomas in 6-3 decision

2006-01-17T10:35:00.000-05:00

Now we know that Roberts was full of shit. He doesn't come to cases with an open mind as he stated in his hearing. He doesn't come without an agenda as he stated in his hearing. He has the full-on conservative agenda. He is firmly in the extreme conservative wing of the Court with wingnuts Scalia and Thomas. What a liar and a fraud. No doubt Alito is the same fraud.

Governmental Religious Advocacy

2006-01-11T18:23:00.000-05:00

A small rural school in California introduced a new "philosophy" class this year with a course description that said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid." It was taught by the wife of a minister at an Assembly of God church. The course apparently relies almost exclusively on videos produced by religious organizations. Three guest speakers were scheduled to advocate for intelligent design theory and zero were scheduled to present on evolutionary theory.

The school is of course being sued by 11 parents seeking a preliminary injunction. Didn't see that coming. The school board approved the class in a 3-2 vote. A school board member was quoted complaining about the cost of the suit and that it would negatively affect the students. I think that these idiot school board members that approve these obviously religiously based classes need to start being held individually and personally liable for forseeably creating these enormous costs. Maybe that will get their attention. They are in a position of public trust and creating unncessary costs by baiting these suits to enforce the First Amendment. Stupid.

Continued debate on illegal surveillence of Americans

2005-12-28T09:19:00.000-05:00

The lefty Think Progress lets the righties do the Bush bashing. First up is right-wing legal group the Federalist Society. They Bush bash by pointing out the following:

The text of FISA §1809 is unambiguous: “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance … except as authorized by statute.”
I know of no court case that has denied there is a reasonable expectation of privacy by U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens in the types of wire communications that are reportedly monitored by the NSA’s electronic surveillance program.
[I]n FISA §1811, Congress expressly contemplated warrantless wiretaps during wartime, and limited them to the first 15 days after war is declared.

Isn't Bush bashing officially un-American?

Next up, that commy bastard George Will also Bush bashing, aka political criticism of our rapidly expanding government.

Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive,'' which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution.

Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.

On the assumption that Congress or a court would have been cooperative in September 2001, and that the cooperation could have kept necessary actions clearly lawful without conferring any benefit on the nation's enemies, the president's decision to authorize NSA's surveillance without the complicity of a court or Congress was a mistake.

[G]enius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing.

Hmm. The voices of moderation and limited government.

St. Joe

2005-12-28T08:50:00.000-05:00

The 11-0 start by the Pumas ties a school best set during the 1918-19 season. In the last poll December 20th, SJC was ranked 4th in DII. Their last three wins came over ranked teams, 13th, 10th, and 14th respectively. The next poll is due out on January 10th.

President Liar

2005-12-21T10:34:00.000-05:00

AFP:

In 2004 and 2005, Bush repeatedly argued that the controversial Patriot Act package of anti-terrorism laws safeguards civil liberties because US authorities still need a warrant to tap telephones in the United States.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so," he added.

On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use "roving wiretaps," which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example," he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

But under Bush's super-secret order -- first revealed Friday by the New York Times and partly confirmed by Bush and other top US officials -- the National Security Agency does not need the court's approval.

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order," he said July 14, 2004 in Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin.

"In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order," he said. "What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America."

The president has also repeatedly said that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role."

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property," he said in June.

"Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools. And these standards are fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States," he added in remarks at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy.

He made similar comments in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 20 2005.

Vice President Dick Cheney offered similar reassurances at a Patriot Act event in June 2004, saying that "all of the investigative tools" under the law "require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out."

"And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional," he said in Kansas City, Missouri.

Asked whether Bush had misled the US public, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Bush "was talking about (the issue) in the context of the Patriot Act."

Slate:

Comment. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked at a Dec. 20 press briefing whether the president's 2004 remarks might have been a wee bit misleading, said, "I think he was talking about [it] in the context of the Patriot Act." In other words, Bush was reassuring his fellow Americans that he wouldn't impose warrantless wiretaps under the Patriot Act because he was already imposing warrantless wiretaps with no legal authority at all. He just forgot to say the second part.

Norbizness Serves the News Piping Hot

2005-12-21T10:11:00.000-05:00

From the numerous stories he compiled, my favorite quote:

And that gets us right back to the most important question: why would the President deliberately circumvent a court that was already wholly inclined to grant him domestic surveillance warrants? The answer is obvious, though as yet largely unstated in the mainstream media: because the President was likely ordering surveillance operations that were so outrageous, so unrelated to the War on Terror, and, to put it in Constitutional terms, so "unreasonable" that even a FISA court would not have granted them.

Sums it up.

Texas Gets Broadband Over Power Lines

2005-12-20T13:50:00.000-05:00

Good news for broadband competition

Gonzales: War powers authorized US Spying on US Citizens

2005-12-19T09:09:00.000-05:00

Doesn't even pass the smell test.

SJC Basketball

2005-12-06T09:52:00.000-05:00

7-0 Start is SJC's best start since 1919-1920 season. As of November 29th Poll, SJC was ranked 13th in the DII Basketball poll. New poll is due out today.

UPDATE: SJC ranked 8th in new poll.

NFL Playoff Race

2005-12-06T09:43:00.000-05:00

Handy bracket with seeding, tie-breakers, and scenario generating.

1,000th Person Executed in U.S. Since 1977

2005-12-02T09:57:00.000-05:00

A Christian nation. If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7] Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9] Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39] I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44]

The US supreme court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 after a 10-year ban. The first person to be subsequently executed was Gary Gilmore, who died in front of a firing squad in Utah in 1977. Thirty-eight states and the federal government permit capital punishment. Texas has the highest rate of executions since 1976 at 355. Amnesty International says only China, Iran and Vietnam held more executions in 2004 than the US.

122 death row convictions have been exonerated through DNA testing since 1977. So a roughly 10% known error rate.

Bamboo Clothes

2005-11-21T20:20:00.000-05:00

I'm not saying you should wear them. I'm just saying check into it.

Fla. DUI Defendants Request Breathelyzer Source-code

2005-11-18T11:28:00.000-05:00

Story.

SJC @ Indy 1/21, @ USI 1/28, @ NKU 2/11

2005-11-18T09:13:00.000-05:00

I'm not saying anyone should go, but a few drunk rowdy fans screaming unspeakable obscenities could help the team. They are 2-0 out of the gates beating Ferris State 103-85 and Upper Iowa 92-76 plus an exhibition win against D-I Ill-Chicago. SJC is picked to win the GLVC East Division this year.

Alito

2005-11-16T09:39:00.000-05:00

Washington Post Op-Ed:

Samuel Alito could not have put it more plainly. "The Constitution," he wrote in a 1985 job application he posted to the Reagan administration's attorney general, Ed Meese, "does not protect a right to an abortion.

***

Now, maybe I'm cockeyed here, but I don't read Alito's abortion assertion as either personal or political. A personal view would say, 'I'm opposed to abortion.' A political declaration would say, 'Abortion is a bad public policy.' But those aren't the sentiments that Alito voiced. What he said, if you'll pardon the strict construction here, is that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Which is a viewpoint, if agreed to by five Supreme Court justices, that can change the law, and social fabric, of the land.

18 yr old High School Senior Elected Mayor in Hillsdale, MI

2005-11-11T13:50:00.000-05:00

Funny.

69% hold Cheney responsible for Plame leak; 60% want public hearings

2005-11-11T11:34:00.000-05:00

Hmmm Cheney: "George, this, uh, doesn't seem to be, uh, going away like we thought, uh, it would. I think, uh, we need, uh, more diversions. Let's invade Syria. Uh, it would provide, uh, us, uh, just enough cover. And, you could, uh, again, uh, say, 'I'm a war president.' I, uh, know how much you enjoyed saying that before."

GOP Nutcase Robertson

2005-11-10T20:56:00.000-05:00

Robertson speaking on a Pennsylvania school board that rejected a proposal to teach intelligent design:I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there.Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the boogey man.

Kings

2005-11-10T16:04:00.000-05:00

Article:

When the Pistons were introduced Tuesday night, the Arco Arena scoreboard flashed pictures of abandoned buildings, burned-out cars, piles of rubble and other negative images of Detroit. The Pistons won the game 102-88. The Kings apologized that night and owners Joe and Gavin Maloof bought a full-page ad that ran in Thursday editions of The Detroit News, expressing ``great respect for Detroit's long and rich tradition as a landmark American city and the incredibly positive impact the Motor City has made over the course of our country's history.''. . . NBA policy prohibits ``ridiculing of opponents or game officials ... via PA announcements, video, or matrix displays, music or mascot skits.''

NBA policy should allow for the other team to relatiate. I'd like to see Detroit to tweak Sacramento next time they come to town. All in good fun.

Kansas Rejects Science

2005-11-09T17:03:00.000-05:00

And institutes the teaching of alternatives to science in the class room. I just don't think they have gone far enough. They should also teach alchemy, that the Sun orbits the Earth, E=mc^3, the moon is made of swiss cheese, and all of the lesser known competing scientific theories. We should have an open debate about all of these theories in which we exclude scientists and all of their biases and supporting data. You know a good medievel free for all.

Upside Down

2005-11-09T15:24:00.000-05:00

There will be a new CIA leak probe. This time concerning the leak of information regarding secret CIA prisons set up around the world. The irony is that Senate Republicans are clammering about this leak on the heals of the Valerie Plame leak. The obvious difference is that this new leak is exactly the kind of stuff the American people should know about. We should know that we are secretly imprisoning people around the world. Secret prisons are tools of totalarianism, not those of an open society. This contrasted with the Valeria Plame leak which had no redeeming social value and was done solely for vindictive political purposes. The public there had no legitimate interest in knowing her classified (if not covert, since that is still unlcear) status. The GOP scarily has it backwards.

Eagles say Owens won't return this season

2005-11-07T17:03:00.000-05:00

Wow.

Brownie

2005-11-07T16:31:00.000-05:00

I'm late, but for the record:

e-mails [Michael Brown] wrote immediately before, during and after the disaster.... They reveal that as the worst U.S. natural disaster in modern memory took shape around him, he was looking for a dog sitter ('If you know of any responsible kids, let me know.'), worrying about his image ('If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god.') and wishing he were elsewhere ('Can I quit now?').

Rove's Security Clearance Possibly in Jeopardy

2005-11-07T12:38:00.000-05:00

Article:

An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his résumé using a commercial machine.

The clearance of a Defense Department employee was suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks saw his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where top adviser Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime aide to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.

That is drawing the attention of intelligence experts and prominent conservatives as a debate brews over whether Rove should retain his top-secret clearance and remain in his post as White House deputy chief of staff, even as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald considers whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the agent's exposure.

Bush Sidesteps Questions About CIA Leak

2005-11-04T14:08:00.000-05:00

This "I'm not going to comment on an investigation" line is looking dumber and dumber since he has commented on it repeatedly. He commented on Libby's indictment. He said he would fire people involved. He said leaks of classified information are serious matters and would not be tolerated. His spokesperson has commented that Rove was not involved.

Someone has some 'splaining to do, and I think it's the guy in charge. Saying "I won't comment on it" looks weak and suspicious. Republicans are calling for Rove's resignation. 60% of Americans polled think Rove should resign. WTF? Say something Mr. President.

Unexpected Praise for Alito from the Left

2005-11-02T13:46:00.000-05:00

Strong praise from various self-described left leaning persons, who I think are seeing him through rose colored glasses, but are allaying some of my fears: (LA Times):

"I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was not interested in the ideology of his clerks," [Alito's former cerk] said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record was not extremely conservative."

****

It is not unusual for former law clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito's enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking.

*****

The late Judge [A. Leon Higginbotham Jr.], a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based [3rd Circuit] at the time.

"As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito. I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to Lewis.

"I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench. "Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference."

Alito's Address on Criminal Defense Attorneys to The Federalist Society

2005-11-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

Asshole:

I next want to turn to the role of the criminal defense attorney. In doing so, it is not my purpose to pick on criminal defense attorneys or to suggest that they are venal and prosecutors are virtuous. (Hint: I don't believe you.) Prosecutors know the Berger script. They know how they are supposed to behave, and therefore, when they write or speak about the role of the prosecutor, it is always a version of those requirements.

Defense attorneys, on the other hand, can be more colorful and uninhibited in describing the role that they understand themselves to be playing. Here is an example, and I don't think it's atypical. "A Criminal Lawyer and His Field of Dreams" appeared in the March 1997 issue of The Champion, a magazine published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. The author, after referring to General Patton and General MacArthur, confesses that he has often "wanted to walk into the courtroom wearing a pair of matching ivory-handled revolvers, sunglasses and a leather jacket. The criminal defense lawyer, like the two great generals, sees himself as a gladiator and the courtroom as his arena of battle. Like MacArthur and Patton, he is an ancient knight fighting dragons, although his dragons are the bureaucracy and the constabulary."

This gladiatorial image is wildly inaccurate.... Even when criminal charges are filed, most criminal cases are resolved, not by a trial in the courtroom arena, but by a negotiated plea agreement. This often features an agreement by the defendant to cooperate with authorities. This too is hardly a gladiatorial resolution. Instead of the image of the two gladiators who fight to the death in the courtroom, a more apt image of what actually occurs is two gladiators who march into the arena with their armor and their weapons and then promptly throw down their armor, throw down their weapons, and go off to a little table in the shade and negotiate a deal. The image of the criminal defense attorney and the prosecutor as gladiators is quite inaccurate when you consider the whole range of activities in which they engage.

The description of our criminal justice system as purely adversarial, although misleading, does reflect an ingrained way of thinking. It affects the way we expect lawyers to behave, and in some instances, the way that they do behave. In the courtroom, this manifests itself in a number of ways. For one thing, the gladiatorial conception of the role implies to many lawyers an obligation to do everything on behalf of their client within the bounds of the law. That can easily, and wrongly, be translated into an obligation of the lawyer to tip-toe up to the boundaries of the law and perhaps even to take the proverbial bad-man's approach of doing whatever they can get away with. In court proceedings, this manifests itself in numerous ethical problems, such as instances when either a prosecutor or defense attorney calls a witness whom the lawyer has some reason to believe will or has committed perjury.

***

This is Rule 1.6, and it says that a lawyer may — not must — reveal such information to the extent necessary to prevent a client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes will "likely result in imminent death or serious bodily injury." The lawyer is not required to make disclosure. Any old kind of death is not sufficient, it has to be imminent death. It is not sufficient that this might possibly occur, it must be likely to occur.

When the model rules were formulated, a hotly debated subject was whether mandatory disclosure should be required, and the proponents of mandatory disclosure lost. Thus, if I were a criminal defense attorney and a client told me that he was planning to kill someone or to bomb an office building or airliner, I would not be under an ethical obligation to disclose that information, although I would be permitted to do so. This seems to me to be an extension of the gladiatorial role far beyond reasonable bounds.

***

Consider the comments by a very well-respected lawyer who wrote an article entitled "Why Lawyers Lie". The author begins by setting out the traditional gladiatorial role of the criminal practitioner. The lawyer, he writes, is not quite given James Bond's license to kill, but it is proper and, at times, even necessary for a criminal practitioner to lie to the public and to the media on behalf of a client. The public statements of prosecutors and defense counsel, he says, must be viewed with the greatest skepticism.

Battle lines drawn. Any prosecutor reading this will nod their head in agreement and criminal defense attorney reading this should be horrified, because you know he is speaking to the Federalist Society and you know what he is slying saying. You got all of the code words right? Good. He's an Assface.

Alito Opinions

2005-11-01T11:12:00.000-05:00

Death Penalty. The US District Court threw out Ronald Rompilla's death penalty sentence because of ineffective assistance of defense counsel. Defendant's attorney failed to investigated his clients background to discover at least three significant mitigating factors which should have been presented, but were not: childhood neglect, alcoholism and mental retardation. Alito writing for the 3rd Circuit in a 2-1 opinion (pdf) reversed the District Court, reinstating the death penalty. Alito wrote:

"In conclusion, it appears to us that Rompilla is now arguing that this trial counsel were constitutionally derelict in failing to take all the steps that might have been pursued by the most resourceful defense attorneys with bountiful investigative support.... But while we may hope for the day when every criminal defendant receives that level of representation, that is more than the Sixth Amendment demands."

This year the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Alito 5-4 with O'Connor joining the majority, again tossing the death penalty. SCOTUS Opinion html or pdf.

Bush Nominates SCOTUS Sausagefest

2005-10-31T09:39:00.000-05:00

Bush nominates Scalito an Ivy League person this time (as contrasted to double Souther Methodist Miers.) Apparently, Harriet Miers was the only woman in the U.S. qualified to be a SCOTUS justice. I'm reserving judgment on what kind of justice I think Scalito will be until I read more about him and by him. I'm opposed to adopting someone else's opinion on him hours after I learn his nomination. But, it is a disgraceful nomination. Yet another white guy. White guys make up less than 1/3 of the population but will now account for 78% of the Supreme Court.

Update: Okay I've read enough. I vote for a filabuster. His wikipedia entry will give you a taste, a bad taste. And, this is what I expected and feared:

Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.

Libby Indicted 5 Felony Counts, Resigned

2005-10-28T12:44:00.000-04:00

UPDATE: Read the indictment (22 page pdf)
UPDATE II: Libby resigned, submitted his letter of resignation earlier today. My short comments: the indictment narrative makes a good case for violation of the leak statute with high level involvement in the White House with Cheney in the center. This is big. This is bad.

2 Counts Perjury, 1 Count Obstruction of Justice, and 2 Counts Making False Statements. From the indictment: "Lied to FBI agents that interviewed him on October 14th and November 26th 2003, committed perjury while testifying under oath before the Grand Jury on March 5th and March 24th 2004, and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation in the unauthorized disclosure or leaking of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the Spring of 2003."

2pm Fitzgerald New Conference Today

2005-10-28T09:24:00.000-04:00

Early rumours today say Libby will be indicted and Rove will not, but Rove will remain under investigation and in legal jeopardy.

UPDATE: Fitzgerald website has media advisory (pdf) that says 2pm press conference.

UPDATE II: Reportedly Fitzgerald is supposed to release an indictment document at 12pm noon. I'm guessing it will simultaneously released on his website too.

Meirs Withdraws

2005-10-27T10:03:00.000-04:00

How fragmented is the GOP when they control the Senate and the White House and can't even put forward an acceptable nominee?

Fitzgerald says no announcement today. GOP scrambles for a strategy to handle any possibly forthcoming indictments.

The Fitzgerald Website

2005-10-21T15:01:00.000-04:00

This is very interesting. Fitzgerald has apparently launched a new informational website for the investigation. This doesn't look like an act consistent with closing up shop any time soon. This looks like ramping up for some serious litigation and serious need for public information. But, hell I was never very good at reading tea leaves, so what do I know.

Commentary

2005-10-21T09:47:00.000-04:00

Funny:

As for vice presidents, they can be indicted. Indeed, Vice President Aaron Burr was indicted by two states for the murder of Alexander Hamilton. Vice President Spiro Agnew negotiated an indictment for failing to pay taxes (rather than bribery), and resigned from office.

The problem with an indicted vice president, however, is that unless he resigns, he remains in office until impeached by the House of Representatives, and convicted by the Senate. That leads to a potentially absurd situation: As the presiding office of the Senate, a vice president who had been impeached could preside over his own trial. (The Constitution failed to account for this situation by naming another official who could preside -- a slight flaw, to say the least.)"

Interesting:

While I may be letting the air out of some rising balloons, I think Fitzgerald's silence has fed speculation that postulates indictments way beyond the realistic potentials.

The really big fish in this case is the Vice President. And I have little doubt, based on my knowledge of the case, and of the way Cheney typically operates, that a case could be made against him.

But Fitzgerald is an experienced prosecutor, and that means only if he found himself confronted with an exceptionally egregious case (the equivalent of Spiro Agnew's taking payoffs from Maryland contractors in his Vice Presidential Office), would Fitzgerald consider indicting Vice President Dick Cheney.

Make no mistake, Fitzgerald has the power to indict anyone he finds to have violated federal law -- and there are over 4,000 criminal laws today. And understand that prosecutors who truly want to nail someone (as Kenneth Starr did with President Bill Clinton) can do just that.

But Ken Starr was not a seasoned prosecutor. And it may make a difference that Fitzgerald and Cheney are both Republicans, whereas, of course, Starr and Clinton were politically opposed. As a rule, prosecutors do not bite the hand of the party that feeds them.

At the time Fitzgerald was appointed as Special Counsel, he was given "the power and authority to make whatever prospective judgments he believes are appropriate, without having to come back to [the Deputy Attorney General, who has since resigned] or anybody else at the Justice Department for approvals" He is, in effect, attorney general with respect to this investigation.

VW Shows Us the Diesel Future

2005-10-20T21:12:00.000-04:00

VW's concept EcoRacer with a 1.5 liter NON-hybrid engine does 0 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and gets 70-80 mpg. They are perfecting the diesel engine dramatically more than any gasoline engine can hope for.

DeLay "Lawyers Up"

2005-10-20T14:35:00.000-04:00

With a Democrat no less. If DeLay is so obviously innocent as he himself claims, why hire the best criminal defense attorney in Texas? It seems like a no brainer of a case like this one, where the charges against DeLay are so obviously baseless not should require hiring a Democrat to defend him.

Yvon Chouinard - Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman

2005-10-20T13:39:00.000-04:00

I was just listening to an NPR interview with Yvon Chouinard, founder and CEO of Patagonia, Inc., who has a new book out. I hope it comes out in audio.

In the interview he expressed several interesting and fresh ideas. I found him fascinating. He was talking about how he would let his employees leave to go surfing whenever the surf was up. That he is committed to making products which do no harm to the environment, which includes expansive research into all of his products to make sure no toxic dyes are used. He provides consistent examples how this philosphy has continually made his business more successful, counter to conventional wisdom and business philosophy. He said that it is more difficult to live an examined life, but it is more fulfulling and rewarding. He said, unlike him, CEO's of public companies do not have the freedom to follow their conscience. They can't make the right decisions even if they wanted to.

Example, Patagonia elminated all of their packaging for their underwear against the advice of their marketing experts who said that they would see dramatic decreases in sales because all of the competitors were using fancy packaging. The opposite occurred. Their sales dramatically increased because people could feel the fabric and bought more of it.

Example, people said you will not be able to get people to work for you if you let them go surfing whenever they want. In fact, Patagonia has more committed and dedicated employees who believe in his company and work harder for it, and are much more productive when they are there. They value their job more when they are not made to feel like a slave.

Miers Answers to Senate Questionnaire

2005-10-18T18:43:00.000-04:00

57 page pdf, snippet (questions italics; answers bold:

27. Selection Process:
a. Please describe your experience in the entire judicial selection process, from beginning to end (including the circumstances which led to your nomination and the interviews in which you participated). List all interviews or communications you had with anyone in the Executive Office of the President or the Justice Department regarding this nomination, or any other judicial nomination for which you were considered, the dates of such interviews or communications, and all persons present or participating in such interviews or communications.

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor first announced her desire to retire, I was asked whether my name should be considered. I indicated at that time that I did not want to be considered. I participated in all interviews that ultimately resulted in the President’s selection of Judge John Roberts.

When Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away, I participated in consideration of potential nominees to fill a second vacancy. At some point I understand that individuals at the White House began considering me as a potential nominee without advising me. During approximately the last two weeks before the announcement of the intent to nominate, I spoke with Deputy White House Counsel William Kelley, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and the President, and realized that my name was under consideration. I met with the President four times to discuss the possibility of my nomination: September 21, 28, 29, and October 2. I had a discussion with the President on the evening of October 2nd and had dinner with the President and Mrs. Bush. At that time he offered and I accepted the nomination. The dinner was arranged by the Chief of Staff.

b. Has anyone involved in the process of selecting you as a judicial nominee (including, but not limited to anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department, or the Senate and its staff) ever discussed with you any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning your position on such case, issue, or question? If so, please explain fully. Please identify each communication you had prior to the announcement of your nomination with anyone in the Executive Office of the President, the Justice Department or the Senate or its staff referring or relating to your views on any case, issue or subject that could come before the Supreme Court of the United States, state who was present or participated in such communication, and describe briefly what transpired.

No.

c. Did you make any representations to any individuals or interest groups as to how you might rule as a Justice if confirmed? Please describe and provide four (4) copies of all communications by the Bush Administration or individuals acting on behalf of the Administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule if confirmed.

No.

28. Judicial Activism: Please discuss your views on the following criticism involving “judicial activism.”

The role of the Federal judiciary within the Federal government, and within society, generally, has become the subject of increasing controversy in recent years. It has become the target of both popular and academic criticism that alleges that the judicial branch has usurped many of the prerogatives of other branches and levels of government.

Some of the characteristics of this “judicial activism” have been said to include:
a. a tendency by the judiciary toward problem-solution rather than grievance-resolution;
b. a tendency by the judiciary to employ the individual plaintiff as a vehicle for the imposition of far-reaching orders extending to broad classes of individuals;
c. a tendency by the judiciary to impose broad, affirmative duties upon governments and society; 54
d. a tendency by the judiciary toward loosening jurisdictional requirements such as standing and ripeness; and
e. a tendency by the judiciary to impose itself upon other institutions in the manner of an administrator with continuing oversight responsibilities.

The role of the judiciary in our system of government is limited. While its role and its independence are essential to the proper functioning of our tripartite system of government, the courts cannot be the solution to society’s ills, and the independence of the courts provides no license for them to be free-wheeling. And, of course, parties should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative branch or the executive branch of the wisdom and correctness of their preferred course. Courts are to be arbiters of disputes, not policy makers. As has been said many times, the role of the courts is to interpret law and not to make it. My own beliefs about these issues have been formed over many years, and find their roots in the beginning of my legal career.

Beginning during my two years as a Federal district court clerk, I was taught by the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Joe E. Estes, the importance of Federal courts’ keeping to their limited role. His first task – and therefore mine in assisting him – in every case before him was to examine whether the case was properly in court. Was there a party with standing? Did subject matter jurisdiction exist? Was venue proper? These were all questions – and all related questions going to whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction – that he wanted answered before any others. If the answer was “no” to any of them, the case was dismissed promptly. These basic rules of Article III impose a clear responsibility on courts to maintain their limited role.

“Judicial activism” can result from a court’s reaching beyond its intended jurisdiction to hear disputes that are not ripe, not brought by a party with standing, not brought in the proper court, or otherwise not properly before the court because of the case’s subject matter. An additional element of judicial restraint is to be sure only to decide the case before the court, and not to reach out to decide unnecessary questions. The courts have the essential role of acting as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, including drawing the appropriate lines between the competing branches of government. But that role is limited to circumstances in which the resolution of a contested case or controversy requires the courts to act.

As I entered private practice, I grew to appreciate even more the importance of predictability and stability in the law, and came to believe that those values are best served by a rigorous and focused approach to the law. For the legal system to be predictable, the words are vital – whether they are agreed upon by parties to a contract or are the product of legislative compromise. Many times in practice I found myself stressing to clients the importance of getting the words exactly right if their interests were to be protected in the future. Legal practice also taught me the importance of stability in the law. A lawyer must be able to advise her clients based upon the existing case law. Courts should give proper consideration to the text as agreed upon, the law as written, and applicable precedent. Then our system of justice can achieve appropriate stability, clarity, and predictability. Those values cannot be effectively pursued unless the law and the facts determine the outcome of a case, rather than the identity of the judge before whom a case is brought. Time and again, I saw that principle in real world cases. The importance of the rule of law, as opposed to peculiarities of specific judges, was just as critical in small matters involving individuals as it was big litigation involving millions of dollars.

“Judicial activism” can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent, but reconsideration under appropriate circumstances is also necessary. There are clear examples, like Brown v. Board of Education, where revisiting precedent is not only right, it is prudent. Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to that question. Thus, whether the prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests militate against overruling.

As my career progressed, I became an elected official charged with legislative power. In that role, I was able fully to appreciate the difference between the role of those who are to make the law and those who are to interpret it. On the Dallas City Council, we dealt frequently with the legal issues facing the City, and with the legal and constitutional implications of our actions. We set policy for the City by, among other devices, passing ordinances. We understood our role, and we expected the courts to understand theirs – part of which was to respect the policy-making prerogatives of the City Council. There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional.

Finally, my time serving in the White House, particularly as Counsel to the President, has given me a fuller appreciation of the role of the separation of powers in maintaining our constitutional system. In that role, I have frequently dealt with matters concerning the nature and role of the Executive Power. And by necessity my work has required that I deal with the power of Congress in relation to the Executive. The remaining, and essential, component in our system is of course the power of the Judiciary. The Judicial Branch has its own role to play in the separation of powers. It is part of the system of checks and balances. In interpreting the law in the course of deciding contested cases and controversies, the Supreme Court holds the Executive and Legislative Branches to their respective constitutional roles.

Judicial review by the Supreme Court, including determining the meaning of the Constitution and declaring unconstitutional the actions of another branch of government, is a tremendous power exercised by judges who are not accountable to the electorate. Because their power is so great, and because it is largely unchecked, judges must be vigilant in exercising their power in a humble, prudent, and limited way. The courts must always be ready to decide cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to do so fairly and without regard to the wealth or power of the litigants before them. But it is just as important for the courts to stand ready not to decide in instances that do not call for a decision.

My experience working for Judge Estes provided another valuable lesson. He decided every case according to the law and facts, and he did not worry about the potential for a negative reaction to his decisions. He felt no pressure to please anyone. His only lodestar was the law. The example of Judge Estes helped to instill in me an appreciation for the importance of judicial independence that has only grown stronger over time. Criticism of courts that overstep their role is justified. We must zealously guard, however, the independence of the courts. While legitimate criticism of judicial activism is healthy, even essential, we must be wary of unduly criticizing judges merely because we disagree with the result in a particular case. Judges are given life tenure and independence to shield them from the potential tyranny of the majority. While life tenure and independence should not be a license to usurp the rule of law in favor of a rule of man, they provide an essential structural protection to ensure that judges are able to make decisions based only on the fundamental vision of the Founders – the rule of law.

Rove, Libby, Contingency Plans

2005-10-17T15:03:00.000-04:00

Numerous sources reporting, MSNBC here:"Citing legal and Bush administration sources familiar with the thinking, Time magazine reported Sunday that Libby and Rove have made plans to step aside or resign if they are indicted."

Midwest Biodiesel Distributors

2005-10-14T15:03:00.000-04:00

If you live in the Midwest, you seriously have no excuse for driving a gasoline powered car, other than you do not care about clean renewable energy. The price for biodiesel here in Florida today is $3.09/gal. It has to be cheaper in the Midwest where they are growing the stuff and pumping it on every corner.

Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain

2005-10-14T10:21:00.000-04:00

Moderate Voice roundely discusses the White House staging, scripting, pre-screening, and coaching for Bush "conversation" with the troops about Iraq which is all over the news. The White House just keeps stepping on its genitalia. With so many distractions they can't even get a routine photo-op right without it turning into a major news story about how incompetent and contrived the White House is. The well-oiled propaganda machine is breaking down and my guess it that it is because Rove is being distracted by the Grand Jury. He does not seem to be on his game. The White House appears to be in disarray right now.

Katrina, Miers, Rita, Iraq, and Plame are sucking resources like a V12 SUV. And, we still have to find time and money for dealing with North Korea, Iran, Syria, the Pakistan earthquake, Hurricane Stan (quietly the most deadly hurricane this year which struck Mexico), finding Osama Bin Laden, preparing for and countering on-going terrorist threats, restructuring U.S. intelligence, Social Security, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, gas and oil prices, and dismal military recruitment. All of which are top priorities the last time I checked. How many top priorities can we have? Especially when the president wants to throw in tax cuts on top of all of that. I am a little skeptical whether this administration is competent to take the lead and handle all of this. When you despise government like the GOP openly does, how can you effectively govern?

Scatology

2005-10-13T10:29:00.000-04:00

Letters between Bush to Miers. There are some interesting lines in them, but the most interesting is when Bush wrote in one of his notes: "P.S. No more public scatology."

I was pretty sure I knew what scatology was, but I had to look it up to make sure. I was right. Websters defines:

1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet).

As far as what public scatology might mean, I suppose we will have to wait for the hearings.

Disecting Dobson

2005-10-10T16:43:00.000-04:00

Interesting Editorial (edited for quicker digestion):

Could Rove have told Dobson that Harriet Miers supports the teaching of intelligent design and the Bible in public schools, as Dobson does? Or could he have offered his assurance that Miers advocates banning gay teachers from public schools, as Dobson does? Perhaps Dobson was informed Miers agrees with him that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is "the most dangerous man in America" and should be impeached, along with all insufficiently right-wing judges, including Sandra Day O'Connor and the entire 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Or maybe Rove told Dobson that Miers shares his belief that gay marriage will lead to "men marrying donkies" and "the destruction of this nation and many others."

Dobson has spent over 25 years working to transform America into a clerical authoritarian state more informed by biblical law than the Constitution and he will settle for nothing less. The departure of O'Connor, the Supreme Court's swing vote, was to have brought about the climax of his campaign. Bush would nominate a far-right jurist, the Democrats would be defeated in a rancorous confirmation battle, Roe v. Wade would be reversed, and the wall of separation would crumble. Praise the Lord!

But to the dismay of almost all of Dobson's allies, a corporate lawyer with no record of conservative views who is endorsed by Dallas gay-rights leaders and defended by Barbara Mikulski has scored a date with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We need to consider the possibility that Rove revealed nothing to Dobson about Miers, and that Dobson is being disingenuous to obscure an even darker secret than anything Rove could have entrusted him with: his real motives for backing a lame horse.

After pressuring Bush into declaring support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2004, Dobson endorsed him for president. That means Dobson told millions of supporters on the over 3000 radio stations that broadcast his show that Bush would deliver the goods: a ban on abortion, gay marriage, etc. During the presidential campaign, Dobson's newly-formed 501 c-4, Focus on the Family Action, used the threat of Kerry victory as fodder to raise $8.8 million dollars in 5 months. When Bush won, FoF Action made the courts its priority, spending a whopping $1.2 million during last spring's Senate filibuster fight.

Dobson was nearly outdone by protege Tony Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council, a Washington-based think tank Dobson founded. Perkins sent out an unrelenting stream of fundraising pitches in advance of Justice Sunday I (an elaborate rally addressed by Dobson at the height of the filibuster fight) and Justice Sunday II (a rally for the confirmation of John Roberts and a generally more right-wing SCOTUS, which was also addressed by Dobson). In one pitch, Perkins specifically asked supporters for contributions upwards of $1000 dollars "to strike a great blow against judicial activism."

Any denunciation would sound like a concession of defeat, thus betraying the confidence Dobson inspired in his donors. It would also damage his cozy relationship with the White House, which he will depend on for the next three years, no matter what happens. So Dobson has taken a cue from Rove and declared victory in the midst of defeat. In supporting Miers, Dobson has essentially donned a flight-suit and declared "Mission Accomplished."

Key Merck Witness Struck From Vioxx Trial

2005-10-07T20:46:00.000-04:00

Interesting:

The judge in the second Vioxx product-liability trial delivered a stunning blow to Merck & Co. Friday when she barred the testimony of its first defense witness from the record.

[Judge] Higbee struck the testimony of Merck researcher Dr. Briggs Morrison from the record because she said he was not an expert on the studies he had told the jury about Thursday, nor did Merck give the court sufficient notice about what he would discuss.

"I felt sick last night, and I realized how I got sucked into this. I feel that the court was misled repeatedly with this testimony," Higbee told attorneys.

Merck in August lost its first multimillion dollar product liability case in Texas over the death of another Vioxx user, and 5,000 similar lawsuits are pending.

Higbee said Morrison's testimony differed greatly from what he had said in a February deposition about internal studies to determine whether Vioxx posed heart risks.

Higbee's rebuke over Merck's actions reached a noisy crescendo as she signaled a break following her ruling. Merck attorney Diane Sullivan repeatedly tried to add something to the record.

As Sullivan continued loudly, Higbee, standing to leave the bench, shouted, "Miss Sullivan, sit down and be quiet. Sit down or I will have you taken out of the courtroom.

"I gave you an opportunity to argue. I listened to you yesterday for hours. Once I rule, it's over," Higbee said.

After a break, Sullivan asked the judge to reconsider the ruling, allow time for Merck to appeal to a higher court, or declare a mistrial. Higbee denied those motions, making it the sixth time she has refused a Merck request for a mistrial.

Observers in the courtroom Friday expressed shock over the shouting match between Higbee and Sullivan.

Samuel L. Davis, a lawyer for several other Vioxx plaintiffs, said he did not believe Sullivan's outburst was spontaneous.

"When a very seasoned, experienced lawyer gets in the judge's face, that (is) calculated to draw the judge into a fight. Then that fight serves as the basis for a recusal. Or a mistrial," Davis said. "This judge did not bite."

DeLay, Blunt Traded Secret Donations

2005-10-06T21:25:00.000-04:00

Oi vey.