Recently in Government Category

I just love that every day court cases are decided by out of touch, old, white, Christian males in the United States.  It practically guarantees fairness and justice because these men certainly are the wisest and most learned among us.  I have every confidence that our court system is based on the single principle that a complete understanding of the facts of a case will lead to a logical conclusion and a well thought out judicial opinion.

Wait, who the fuck am I kidding here?   Some of the statements made by judges in this country prove our judicial system is full of pompous, blowhards that have no idea what they are talking about and are incapable of looking at a case based on facts and not opinion.  Take, for example, the current litigation surrounding some the Harry Potter books.  I read the following statement today which is quoted from The Times Online.

"District Judge Robert Patterson Jr said that he had read the first half of the first Harry Potter novel to his grandchildren, but found the "magical world hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context."

This District Judge found Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone hard to follow?  How in the hell can he understand legal opinions, legal precedent, and written law if he can't follow a story that my 4 year old has no problem understanding?  I won't argue with the "strange names", and "gibberish" as that is all true but any work of fantasy fiction is going to have such things.  Try reading Lord of the Rings.  That book is considered one of the greatest books of the English language and it is full of words that didn't exist before Tolkien put them to paper.  Would this judge consider that classic work nonsense?   Even given that there is a lot of "gibberish" in Harry Potter how is the book hard to follow?  It's not.  The judge's REAL problem with the work is that he has no imagination and thus doesn't enjoy or relate to the material.  Since he doesn't like it, it is very easy for him to dismiss the book.  I wonder if Rowling's banker find the book/books so easy to dismiss.

I don't care what happens with the litigation.  Rowling is not a struggling writer and Scholastic is not a struggling publisher.  If they want to produce a guide book then they just need to do it.  Do it in a way that makes the book the choice of fans.  The creator and publisher should be able to product a book that exceeds anything a third party could produce which would beat the other lexicon in the market.  However, I also understand intellectual property and copyrights have to be defended or they can be lost.  In this sense the case has merit.  It can set a precedent for fair use and thus I am interested in the ultimate outcome no matter which way it turns out. 

What concerns me most is that the judge is making critical statements on the artistic merit of the work instead of looking at the legal issues in the case.  The content of the work is only relevant when it comes to deciding what a third party can use in derivative works.  The quality and relevance of the content itself should not be under discussion.  If the books contained nothing but logs of Rowling's bowel movements it should not matter.  If someone then wanted to make a derivative work from such logs then the judge should give opinions on the legal fair use of the original source material and not make any statements on the literary value contained therein.  Judges are supposed to "stick to the facts" and how they relate to the written law, legal precedent, and legal traditions of their jurisdiction.   The fact that this particular judge can't follow the plot of the book is a whole other concern but I don't think a judge needs to understand the plot of a novel to decide on fair use issues. 

This illustrates a growing problem with the US judicial system.  Our judges don't understand much of what they are tasked with giving judgments on.  I see judges woeful lack of understanding in cases regarding the RIAA, DRM, software licensing, and just about anything related to the internet or digital media.  They constantly make uninformed statements which make it clear that they do not have the understanding needed to make fair and equitable judgments.  I am concerned that the evolution of technology that I use and take for granted every day is and will continue to be hampered by judges and attorneys that are unable or unwilling to learn about the subject that will be monumentally affected by their actions. 

Maybe we need age limits for judges?

So yet another school board, this one in Pinellas County Florida, has decided that intelligent design must be taught along with evolution.  Superstition has thus become part of the curriculum.  While I am not surprised that a theory of creation with NO BASIS IN SCIENCE is being forced onto a student body, what does surprise me is a statement from one of the board members.  Board member Peggy O'Shea suggests that discussions on the origin of the universe are just too controversial to be important.  I wonder if she has a doctorate in thinkology. 

From the article at Tampabay.com:

"O'Shea suggested that parents who object to evolution being taught to their children might be able to opt them out of that day's lesson. "I'd probably ideally like to keep it all out of the classroom," she said. "If it's going to create this much controversy, how important is it?""

Not only is the origin of life just too controversial to be important, apparently it is ok for students to "opt out" of parts of their education that they don't agree with.  That sets one hell of a precedent don't you think?   Maybe I don't agree with coaches teaching math...can my child opt out of that?  How about if I really think that faster than light travel is possible?  Can my daughter then opt out of physics?  Wait, what if I am a communist?  Can my children opt out of American Government, Economics, and Civics?  Really Mrs. O' Shea?  Really?

Look, those that want to learn about "Intelligent Design" already have a place to get their fill of such nonsense.  As far as I know, most churches are open 7 days a week.   I am sure someone there would love to teach a class on magic.  Public school, however, is not the place to study superstition as the basis of the universe...unless it is in history or sociology class.  Do you insist on this "evolution is just a theory" argument?  That's fine with me.  Just about everything we know is a theory.   That is a solid, scientific approach to a scientific argument.  We also theorize that the sun will come up every day.  There is no way to PROVE this is true because we can't observe every day both past and future, but all evidence points to the sun rising (it actually doesn't rise...but we won't get into that today) every day and thus we accept it as true.  Let's keep mythology where it belongs...at the church.

And since we are talking about the origin of the universe let me make a point.  Do not try to argue with me that everything has to have a beginning.  That is a regressive argument that only allows me to negate your point.  Usually the argument goes like this:

Theist:  "If you believe matter and energy are the basis of the universe, who created them?"

Atheist:  "Why do they have to be created?  Why can't they just be?  Science says matter can neither be created or destroyed so maybe that is all there is?  Even before the big bang all matter and energy existed but just in a very compressed state."

Theist:  "But where did it come from?  Surely some intelligent force created matter and energy."

Atheist:  "No, I don't need to believe that.  I can believe that matter and energy are the beginning and end.  Those things have always existed and always will."

Theist:  "But it all had to start somewhere."

Atheist:  "Ok, you argue that there has to be a beginning.  You also argue that some intelligence, God, created matter, and energy, and the universe.  So, I ask you, if you insist on there being a beginning to EVERYTHING, who created your god?"

Theist:  "Oh no, God is God.  He has always existed and always will."

Atheist:  "Funny how I have to accept your God as a possible beginning with no creator, but you can not accept matter and energy as the beginning.  If you insist on everything having a creator then there is no end to the creator, creation chain."

Theist:  "But I know God created everything."

Atheist:  "Prove it."

Theist:  'Ummm...aahhh...The Bible....umm...personal revelation...umm...ahh....faith or something."

Atheist:  "Stop right there.  I seem to have an urgent appointment to go bang my head against a wall.  We'll talk later."

The whole "Someone must have started the whole thing" bit doesn't work with me.  Don't try it.

I think this entry be radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, pretty much sums up my feelings on the "shared school supplies" phenomenon. Has your child experienced this in their school? I'd love to hear about it if this has happened to your child. Please take the time to read this short piece. I think it would be very enlightening.

Neal Boortz on government schools

A recent incident in the so called "blog community" has got my ire up over the popular misconceptions of free speech.

LiveJournal and its parent company, Six Apart, recently suspended/deleted several LiveJournal accounts over what the company felt was inappropriate content. You can read about the incident over at www.cnet.com among other places. The short version of the story is that Six Apart felt that a percentage of fan written fiction, some of it having to do with underage characters from the Harry Potter novels, supported and endorsed pedophilia and underage sex. The company then exercised its right to remove that content. The resulting backlash from the fan fiction community for the censorship was loud enough to prompt the CEO of Six Apart to issue an apology for the action in an attempt to quiet the anger stemming from his customers. While I am not familiar with the content of the accounts that were removed, I suspect that Six Apart had at least some solid basis for deciding that those particular sites did violate their terms of service.

Determining at what level fan fiction champions pedophilia and underage sex is not an interest of mine, but what I am interested in is the correct use of the 1st Amendment. Any time the censoring of anything comes up the free speech nutballs begin screaming about their "rights". I have read some accounts of just such arguments being made in the Six Apart incident. Let's be clear, the 1st Amendment only states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can not make laws that restrict the exercise for freedom of speech. In other words Congress is prohibited from passing laws that limit free speech but other, non-government entities can censor at their discretion.

For example, if I want to stand outside and make a speech about how I think anyone over 7 feet tall can not possibly be human and therefore should be captured and dissected in order to determine their planet of origin then Congress can not pass a law that says speeches about 7 foot tall humans actually being extraterrestrials are to be banned and anyone making such a speech should be arrested. Congress also does not have the power to prevent me from publishing those views in a newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, website, podcast, etc. I have the right to say those things and I can disseminate those views as I see fit.

I do not have the right, however, to make some other entity publish those views. I don't have a right to "equal time" on the radio, The Birmingham News can not be forced to write about my speech, even the local magazine printing company does not have to print my Anti-Giant Quarterly magazine. No one is obligated to be sure that my views reach public ears. Publishing and media companies have the right to refuse my business. What I am trying to say is that freedom of speech does imply any guarantee that you will be heard nor does it guarantee you a forum to espouse your views. I don't think a lot of people understand that these days. In fact, Congress does not understand such things and has been passing laws that limit the exercise of free speech that I hope one day are found unconstitutional. The McCain-Feingold Campaing Finance Reform Act is one of such laws.

The government also seems to be in the business of telling private companies they they have be fair and give equal time to opposing viewpoints. This is seen most dramatically in the Fairness Doctrine. Although mostly repealed today, the Fairness Doctrine basically forced radio and television broadcasters to give air time to dissenting opinions. The Fairness Doctrine is making a comeback today thanks to the Democrat controlled Congress. Traditionally Conservative talk radio stations may soon be required to change their programming to incorporate liberal shows in order to be "fair". This is also directly opposed to the 1st Amendment.

Six Apart has every right to censor any of its LiveJournal customer's websites as it sees fit. While it may be a poor business decision (it may also be a good one), it is certainly not an infringement on freedom of speech. Free speech arguments can not be applied to such businesses. Those customers that were suspended have every right to create their own community, financed by their own dollars, hosted on their own servers, and policed by their own people if they so choose. That's the beauty of the United States. If someone can't do it for you, do it yourself.

Well, as long as you don't violate the rights of other citizens in the process, but that is another argument entirely...

I logged into MySpace this morning and guess what I saw? Joe Biden was on the list of Cool New People. My response?

Yeah, WHAT? just about covers it.

If I can take my lunch break and drive 30 miles back home to vote then so can you! If you don't know who to vote for, choose any Libertarian on the ticket. The rest, flip a coin. You're gonna get screwed either way.

What else is up? My blood pressure? My Cholesterol? I would have to say yes to both even though I have not had a test in a while. Knowing how I have let my diet and exercise plans slip lately I can confidently assume those number certainly aren't coming down any.

The odds are pretty good my brother and his wife will have a baby today. It makes me think back to when Emily was born. Yikes, those were some tough days. I love my daughter very much, but I am much happier now that she is walking and talking than I was when she was just a little squirmy creature. That first year is tough folks. I wish them the best and hope to be able to get over and visit with them over the weekend.

I resolve today to stop bitching about school here. Quite frankly, it is getting old, even to me. Either I need to buckle down and get my shit done or drop the whole shooting match and get on with life. I am pissed off at myself at how my attitude toward the whole thing has created a rift within my family. I have asked people close to me to make some sacrifices so I could pursue a goal and coming back three years and saying it was all a big mistake makes all of those sacrifices worthless. So, I will stop complaining. The endgame of this semester is still in doubt as I have much left to do and little time in which to do it. I shall live up to my commitments and get through the next few weeks.

I would like to join a hiking club. I really miss that hobby. It was something I picked up as a Boy Scout and have always enjoyed. I know here is at least one group here in the Magic City. Once I have some free time this fall/winter, maybe I can take some day hikes and some overnighters to get back into the grove. My equipment surely needs to be updated and I likely need a new pack, but just being outdoors again would do great things for my current state of mind. If you are in Birmingham and are familiar with an organization of this type, please drop me a note.

A new "Sweepstakes" center has opened up at the Birmingham Race Track. Of course we can not call it a casino or gambling center because that would be against the law. Therefore, the owners have come up with this idea of a sweepstakes center. Somehow, they are trying to say that your have already one or lost before even sitting down at one of the "sweepstakes" machines. I haven't really looked into how it works, but basically it is a way to try and skirt the law. People still loose money trying to win something. Sounds like gambling to me.

Here's a story

Anyway, the local sheriff, Mike Hale, has decided to take this center on and find some way to shut them down. He has said on several news stations that he will be sending undercover police to the facility to try and determine the legality of the operation. Basically, he means that he is sending spies in to collect evidence that would lead to an eventual closing of the business and unemployment for all of the workers. Real nice guy huh?

Why do we have to deal with the stupid religious law holdovers in the 21st century? If people want to blow there money on gambling, they should be free to do so. I think the sheriff is taking this as a personal mission because it is being highly publicized and it will make him look like he is tough on crime. That's bullshit. Homicide rates are rising in Birmingham for the first time in many years. People are getting mugged daily on Southside and car theft is running rampant. Who knows how many children are being molested as I type. You think somebody's wife is getting beat down right now? You're probably right. The sheriff, however, has decided that this kind of violent crime is not a priority, but people spending their own money on games of chance has to be stopped immediately.

Great. Thanks Mike. I am sure I will feel much better leaving my office on Southside tonight after dark knowing that those sinful sweepstakes machines are being watched like hawks.

This is the kind of stupid crap that makes me hate religion. Keep your nose out of my business.

You are a Social Liberal (66% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (80% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

First, is dumbass one word or two?

Birmingham Mayor Bernard Kincaid has decided that all taser use by police officers is to be halted immediately. The city wants to "evaluate" the effectiveness and lethality of the device. Basically, the mayor is concerned that tasers can cause death. There has been one case at the city jail where a man died within hours of being stunned with a taser. Although the mayor says that the event did not lead directly to the ban, I expect it was a major deciding point.

Now that tasers are banned, what other options do the police have? Batons are no good because they are close range weapons. Mace is ok, but it won't always put someone on the ground. This leaves lethal force otherwise known as firearms. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that guns are more likely to kill people than tasers? Taking tasers away is supposed to mitigate the chances of loss of life during a a police encounter? Not if that means the cops have to use their guns! My guess, and it is just a guess mind you, is that the odds of death from a gunshot wound are exponentially higher than those from a taser blast.

This is just another case of a politician interfering in matters he knows absolutely nothing about. No wonder the rest of the country thinks Alabama is full of inbred, idiot, hillbillies.

I have a lot to say about recent Supreme Court decisions. I think, however, the following article says things much better than I can.

Read this opinion and let me know what you think.