Image
 

Some Sunday Morning BlogFodder: PC vs. Mac

•April 5, 2009 • 1 Comment

Microsoft’s new ad strategy is provoking lots of discussion, with most suggesting that it hits Apple right where it hurts: function over form.

Microsoft’s latest ad, launched Saturday, gives a dude named Giampaolo $1,500 and tells him to buy himself a new computer. Giampaolo, who describes himself as “technically savvy,” says he’s looking for portability, battery life and power. “I like a computer that allows me to customize,” he adds.

What he doesn’t like: Macs. “This is so sexy, but Macs to me are about aesthetics more than they are about the computing power,” he says. “I don’t want to pay for the brand, I want to pay for the computer.”

You can bet that little dig will have people in Redmond high-fiving each other, as did the one delivered in Microsoft’s last commercial, by Lauren, a red-haired actress. “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person,” Lauren said.

Microsoft isn’t there yet, but it’s looking in the right place. It’s looking for trouble.

This has provoked indignant protestations from Mac users. Microsoft’s David Webster explains the strategy:

Webster says, according to Lyons, that “the ugly attacks from Mac fanboys are exactly what Microsoft was hoping to provoke.”

“He says the idea was to turn Apple’s ‘I’m a Mac’ campaign to Microsoft’s advantage. ‘We associate real people with being PCs, [but then Apple] ends up looking pretty mean-spirited, the way they go after customers,’ he says. ‘It’s clear that’s who they are insulting.’ At the same time he can’t resist taking a crack at the preciousness of some Mac users. ‘Not everyone wants a machine that’s been washed with unicorn tears,’ he says.”

Unfortunately, the PC vs. Mac wars have intruded into my own life. My dear sweet mother has been turned to the dark side–by our priest, no less–and is now counted among the MacHeads. It still brings tears to my eyes to see her flock to the Apple store genius bar with the other lemmings. I had to reassure her, “I would still love you even if you were a murderer.”

Another example of overzealous MacHeads: A couple years ago I was looking for a new apartment and, as is usually the case, the landlady was trying to decide if I would be a good tenant. Her question: “So, are you Mac or PC?…Because we use Macs around here.”

Posted in Future Tech

President Obama’s Attack on the U.S.

•April 4, 2009 • 1 Comment

I don’t really have anything to add to what the Powerline Guys say. Except that if Obama loves Europe and dislikes the U.S. so much he should just stay there.

The President’s new comments aren’t the mere embarrassments we’ve all come to expect from him over the past three months. Yes, he’s a bumbling buffoon when it comes to representing America. It’s not really something to get angry over. Rather, we’ll just have to suffer until he and his wife learn on the job how to comport themselves with a little dignity.

On the other hand, this latest speech was planned and plotted, a neon-lighted “Fuck You” directed right at us while he campaigns for European Suck-up of the Year. And that is something to get angry over, the quisling fucker. The Powerline Guys use words like “contemptible”, “reprehensible”, “slanderous.” All true, but it doesn’t go far enough.

This guy is going to stand up Over There and badmouth Americans and President Bush? He’s a coward with an inferiority complex, a desperate desire to win the approval of his perceived European betters. What an ass.

Posted in Obama Administration, Pundits

Again, About the Death of the Dinosaurs

•April 3, 2009 • Comments Off on Again, About the Death of the Dinosaurs

I don’t know what it is about Fridays, but interesting articles about the demise of newspapers keep showing up on my desk each week. So far we’ve heard from two newspapermen, one who suggested we are on the brink of a revolution in journalism and another who traced the paperdämmerung to three men considered pioneers in the industry.

This week I came across a former newspaper editor and current Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judge who links faltering investigative journalism with a loss of accountability in government. It’s tucked into the end of this opinion released yesterday (PDF) about a police officer who released an internal memo to a newspaper. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s concurring opinion starts on page 21. It’s very short. The heart of it:

It is well known that the advent of the Internet and the economic downturn have caused traditional news organizations throughout the country to lose circulation and advertising revenue to an unforeseen extent. As a result, the staffs and bureaus of newsgathering organizations—newspapers and television stations alike—have been shuttered or shrunk. Municipal and statehouse coverage in particular has too often been reduced to low-hanging fruit. The in-depth investigative report, so essential to exposure of public malfeasance, may seem a luxury even in the best of economic times, because such reports take time to develop and involve many dry (and commercially unproductive) runs. And in these most difficult of times, not only investigative coverage, but substantive reports on matters of critical public policy are increasingly shortchanged. So, for many reasons and on many fronts, intense scrutiny of the inner workings of massive public bureaucracies charged with major public responsibilities is in deep trouble.

The verdict is still out on whether the Internet and the online ventures of traditional journalistic enterprises can help fill the void left by less comprehensive print and network coverage of public business. While the Internet has produced information in vast quantities, speedy access to breaking news, more interactive discussion of public affairs and a healthy surfeit of unabashed opinion, much of its content remains derivative and dependent on mainstream media reportage. It likewise remains to be seen whether the web—or other forms of modern media—can replicate the deep sourcing and accumulated insights of the seasoned beat reporter and whether niche publications and proliferating sites and outlets can provide the community focus on governmental shortcomings that professional and independent metropolitan dailies have historically brought to bear.

There are pros and cons to the changing media landscape, and I do not pretend to know what assets and debits the future media mix will bring. But this I do know—that the First Amendment should never countenance the gamble that informed scrutiny of the workings of government will be left to wither on the vine. That scrutiny is impossible without some assistance from inside sources such as Michael Andrew [the plaintiff]. Indeed, it may be more important than ever that such sources carry the story to the reporter, because there are, sad to say, fewer shoeleather journalists to ferret the story out.

Discuss.

Posted in Pundits

Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

•April 3, 2009 • Comments Off on Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Can’t get to the court’s webpage right now because their servers are alternately crashed or moving so slow they time out. However, word is filtering out of the Supreme Court building that the plaintiffs have won and that the Supreme Court has overturned Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage as a violation of equal protection under the Iowa Constitution.

Check back here for the Court’s ruling, if it ever loads again.

I’ve got to get to work; more updates then.

Initial news report is here.

Update: A copy of the ruling is available at Lefty blog Pam’s House Blend (PDF). The judges unanimously held that limiting marriage to unions bewteen a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which to me reads a bit broader the the U.S. Constitution’s version.

Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Posted in Gay Rights, Judiciary

Court Rules Combatant-Detainees in Afghanistan Can Challenge Detention…in U.S. Courts

•April 2, 2009 • Comments Off on Court Rules Combatant-Detainees in Afghanistan Can Challenge Detention…in U.S. Courts

Today, a district court judge in D.C. applied the Supreme Court’s ridiculous reasoning in last year’s Boumediene v. Bush to extend constitutional habeas rights to three aliens captured by the military during a war and held in a war-zone. The lengthy opinion is here (PDF).

Yes, aliens held overseas in military detention as combatants (and not just at Guantanamo Bay) have the constitutional right to habeas review in the federal courts. *facepalm*

The short version of the opinion is below the fold.

Continue reading

Applying the Boumediene factors carefully, the Court concludes that these petitioners are virtually identical to the detainees in Boumediene — they are non-citizens who were (as alleged here) apprehended in foreign lands far from the United States and brought to yet another country for detention. And as in Boumediene, these petitioners have been determined to be “enemy combatants,” a status they contest. Moreover, the process used to make that determination is inadequate and, indeed, significantly less than the Guantanamo detainees in Boumediene received. Although the site of detention at Bagram is not identical to that at Guantanamo Bay, the “objective degree of control” asserted by the United States there is not appreciably different than at Guantanamo. Finally, it cannot be denied that the “practical obstacles” inherent in resolving a Bagram detainee’s entitlement to habeas corpus are in some ways greater than those present for a Guantanamo detainee, because Bagram is located in an active theater of war. But those obstacles are not as great as respondents claim, and certainly are not insurmountable. And importantly, for these petitioners, such practical barriers are largely of the Executive’s choosing — they were all apprehended elsewhere and then brought (i.e., rendered) to Bagram for detention now exceeding six years.

Based on those conclusions driven by application of the Boumediene test, the Court concludes that the Suspension Clause extends to, and hence habeas corpus review is available to, three of the four petitioners. As to the fourth, his Afghan citizenship — given the unique “practical obstacles” in the form of friction with the “host” country — is enough to tip the balance of the Boumediene factors against his claim to habeas corpus review. When a Bagram detainee has either been apprehended in Afghanistan or is a citizen of that country, the balance of factors may change. Although it may seem odd that different conclusions can be reached for different detainees at Bagram, in this Court’s view that is the predictable outcome of the functional, multifactor, detainee-by-detainee test the Supreme Court has mandated in Boumediene.

[…]

This Court lacks statutory jurisdiction to entertain these four habeas petitions. But MCA § 7(a), the statute stripping habeas jurisdiction, is unconstitutional as to three of the four petitioners. Under Boumediene, Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan, and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time — here, over six years — without adequate process may invoke the protections of the Suspension Clause, and hence the privilege of habeas corpus, based on an application of the Boumediene factors. Three petitioners are in that category. Because there is no adequate substitute for the writ of habeas corpus for Bagram detainees, those petitioners are entitled to seek habeas review in this
Court.

Honestly, it almost feels like the judge is fucking with the Supreme Court by saying, “You wanted it, you got it, chumps.” The judge practically blames Boumediene for leaving him no option but to provide habeas review for these aliens.

BTW, here’s the really short version: WAF!

Posted in Judiciary, Law Lesson - Domestic, War on Terror

About Immigration Court

•April 2, 2009 • Comments Off on About Immigration Court

The news yesterday that Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, has almost a year before her next immigration proceeding was met with outrage from many, for example Michelle Malkin, and grumblings of special treatment, from our own Blogger-in-Chief. So let’s talk about what happens in removal proceedings.

In a case like this, where removal proceedings have been reopened after an order of removal the first thing that happens is a status hearing so that the immigration judge can find out how the parties want to proceed.

On the one side is the respondent. That’s what the alien is called in removal proceedings; kind of like “defendant” in criminal proceedings. On the other is a trial attorney (known as a “TA”) from the Department of Homeland Security. The TA is roughly analogous to a prosecutor. The immigration judge works for the Department of Justice.

So several things can happen at the first hearing after reopening, but the point of the hearing is to find out what relief the respondent is seeking. Remember, she’s just had her case reopened and she has an outstanding order of removal. So she needs to immediately apply for relief and appear eligible for it. In Onyango’s case, we don’t know what she’s applying for because the proceedings are closed, but I suspect all she’s got is another shot at asylum based on changed conditions in Kenya.

That’s probably what she did yesterday. She and her attorney show up at court and tell the judge that they intend to seek asylum (again). They might have the application and supplemental documentation already, but that’s not usually required. The judge will set a deadline for filing of the application. Once that’s accomplished, the judge will set a date for what is called a merits hearing. At a merits hearing, the court takes testimony and hears the parties’ arguments. Usually the judge issues an oral decision on the day testimony is completed, but in complicated cases may chose to issue a written one instead.

Yesterday, the immigration judge scheduled a merits hearing on Onyango’s application for February 4, 2010. Ten months between hearings is not unusual in immigration court, at least at the “Big Four” immigration courts in San Fransisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Miami. I’m a little surprised this Boston IJ has such a crowded schedule that he’s taking ten months between hearings, but it does not surprise me. The immigration courts are seriously overworked, in part because of a hiring freeze on staff and new judges that has been going on for a few years. (BTW, that hiring freeze was just lifted because of the Omnibus Appropriations Act passed in February, so things might speed up as positions left vacant for years start to get filled.)

In short, what happened yesterday is exactly what was expected to happen. I don’t think Onyango’s proceedings should have been reopened and I suspect that the immigration judge impermissibly circumvented the regulations on reopening to do it. But now that she is back in front of a judge, her case is going the way all the others do. There has been no special treatment that I have seen.

Oh, and while I’m thinking of it: That “little-used provision in U.S. immigration rules that allows denied asylum claims to be reheard” is the one of the most common filing in immigration court. It is not “little-used”, as the AP reported and as almost everyone repeated. A motion to reopen based on changed country conditions is very frequently filed and most frequently denied by immigration judges.

Posted in Immigration, Obama Administration

Holder Should be Reminded of His Oath

•April 1, 2009 • Comments Off on Holder Should be Reminded of His Oath

Drew wrote about the Attorney General’s disregard for the U.S. Constitution this morning and about how the A.G. doesn’t care whether a law is constitutional, but only whether a non-frivolous argument can be made in court. I want to emphasize something.

As an attorney, Eric Holder has sworn several oaths. When he was admitted to a state bar association he swore to uphold and defend the laws and the constitution of that state. When he was admitted to practice in any federal court he swore to uphold and defend the laws of the United States and the U.S. Constitution. And when he became Attorney General he swore again.

Just two months ago Holder took the oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.”

To some attorneys these are just words, not binding. Some attorneys are despicable creatures who do not admit any allegiance that stands in the way of their ambition. Today it turns out that Eric Holder is one of those attorneys.

That man stood and took the same oath that I did and it meant nothing to him. I am ashamed.

Posted in Judiciary, Obama Administration

DOJ Drops All Charges Against Ted Stevens

•April 1, 2009 • Comments Off on DOJ Drops All Charges Against Ted Stevens

Stevens was already convicted on seven counts of lying on mandatory financial disclosure forms, but the prosecution stalled in the sentencing phase because it turns out that DOJ lawyers withheld documents. The judge had already held in contempt four DOJ lawyers for misconduct during the trial. Afterwards, Stevens asked for a new trial, but Eric Holder is so, like, over it.

Attorney General Eric Holder has concluded that the conviction of Stevens cannot be supported because of problems with the government’s prosecution, which had been openly criticized by the trial judge, National Public Radio first reported.

Justice will withdraw its opposition to a defense motion for a new trial and will dismiss the indictment against Stevens, NPR reported, but that will require a court filing and none had been filed yet.

Holder is said to have based his decision on Stevens’ age, the fact that he is no longer in the Senate — and “perhaps most importantly,” because the new attorney general wanted to “send a message” to prosecutors that misconduct will not be tolerated, NPR reported this morning.

Uh huh.

Posted in 2008 Election, Obama Administration

Obama’s Attorney at the State Department

•April 1, 2009 • Comments Off on Obama’s Attorney at the State Department

I thought this was an old story, but it turns out we haven’t mentioned it here at the HQ. Everything you wished you didn’t have to know about Obama’s choice for State Department legal adviser Harold Koh was written back in September by Ed Whelan.

Here’s Part 1 and here is Part 2. A taste:

This passage from a 1994 New Republic article by Jeffrey Rosen (on the “emotional jurisprudence” of Justice Harry Blackmun) is also telling:

Why should liberals care if Blackmun was an indecisive, unsophisticated craftsman, unconcerned about dressing up his humane impulses in legal reasoning? “I’d rather have Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe to get to the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning,” says Harold Koh of Yale, a former Blackmun clerk.

Koh also has the intellectual temperament of an ideologue. As one Yale law professor has charitably put it (in the Yale Daily News article above), Koh “tends to wear his convictions on his sleeve.” Others have found him to be a bully who uses his position of power to intimidate younger scholars into not contesting Koh’s cherished positions.

There are few lawyers more radical than Harold Koh. He is expected to be among Obama’s picks for the Supreme Court and his nomination to State may be the first step. I can just see some knucklehead senator suggesting, “Well, we confirmed him for State, how can we say ‘no’ for the Supreme Court?”

Posted in Obama Administration

Obama Tells GM CEO to Hit the Road

•March 29, 2009 • 1 Comment

The president will present the rest of his Ailing Big Two plan tomorrow, which White House aides are touting as tough on everyone involved. The first condition for future funds, however, appears to be GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s resignation.

The White House confirmed Wagoner was leaving at the government’s behest after The Associated Press reported his immediate departure, without giving a reason. General Motors issued a vague statement Sunday night that did not officially confirm Wagoner’s departure.

“We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry. We continue to work closely with members of the Task Force and it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement,” the company said.

The surprise announcement about the classically iconic American corporation is perhaps the most vivid sign yet of the tectonic change in the relationship between business and government in this era of subsidies and bailouts.

Hey, you want the taxpayer money ya gotta dance to the government’s tune. Is this a smart thing to do to keep more of our money from being tossed into the endless craphole that is GM? Beats me.

Even were Wagoner to stay, he wouldn’t be in charge of his own company. The Obama Administration is setting the conditions for restructuring; it will determine how things will go for the workers, retirees, bondholders, and shareholders, not Wagoner or his replacement.

There is also this observation from the Politico article:

Obama’s move against Wagoner hearkens back to September 2008 when President Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, insisted that AIG CEO Robert Willumstad step down as part of an $85 billion bailout of the insurance giant. Paulson installed in his place Edward Liddy, a former Allstate executive. The AIG bailout has since grown to about $170 billion and Liddy has faced calls for his resignation in the wake of reports about hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of bonuses the firm agreed to pay to employees.

Who’s the boss now?

Thanks to numerous commenters for pointing out the story.

Posted in Economy, Obama Administration

First Twitter Libel Suit?

•March 29, 2009 • Comments Off on First Twitter Libel Suit?

Against Courtney Love, no less.

According to a libel claim lodged by [fashion designer Dawn] Simorangkir in Los Angeles Superior Court last Thursday, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain has carried out “an obsessive and delusional crusade” of malicious libel against her on Twitter, adding insult on MySpace and other websites.

The designer, who lives in Austin, Texas, also claims that numerous tweets posted by Love on Twitter accuse her of being a “nasty, lying, hosebag thief”; having “a history of dealing cocaine”; having “lost all custody of her child”; and, being guilty of “assault and burglary”. The singer adds that the designer would be “hunted til your [sic] dead”.

Twitter, the progress of human civilization right before our very eyes.

via meep…over Twitter.

Posted in Entertainment

Clinton’s Mexico Blunder

•March 28, 2009 • Comments Off on Clinton’s Mexico Blunder

I agree with John, this seems like it can’t possibly be a true story:

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the tilma, or cloak, of St. Juan Diego in 1531. The image has numerous unexplainable phenomena, such as the appearance on Mary’s eyes of those present in the room when the tilma was opened and the image’s lack of decay.

Mrs. Clinton was received on Thursday at 8:15 a.m. by the rector of the Basilica, Msgr. Diego Monroy.

Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion.

After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”

Really? Really? She asked, “Who painted it?”

Forehead-smackingly embarrassing. Non-Catholics and even some Catholics who don’t live in the southwest might not know the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. But Clinton claimed to have been to the Basilica before. Has Clinton never wondered why half the cars in the southwest have little replicas or stickers of the image? Hell, I’ve got one on my car.

Ignorance like this demonstrates cringe-worthy lack of preparation from our number one representative to other countries. We’d be in better shape if she sat in her office and tried very hard not to insult anyone else. I suggest duct tape might do the trick.

Posted in Obama Administration

Ninth Circuit Judge Takes Fellow Jurists to Task for Making Shit Up

•March 28, 2009 • 1 Comment

Ninth Circuit Judge Carlos Bea issued a protest yesterday (PDF) over his liberal colleagues’ practice of magicking up conclusions directly contradicted by law and prior Supreme Court precedent. He outlines a four-step process through which the other judges perverted the law.

Step One is to dig through Supreme Court decisions for dicta (that is, non-binding editorializing) that is arguably on point. Step Two is to mischaracterize that dicta as binding and creating a new constitutional test. Step Three is to “rephrase” the new rule so as to reach wider conduct. Step Four is to impose the new rule, while acting as if it was obvious all along.

Now you have it: Rodriguez announces a rule directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in Mendoza, and in conflict with the First and Second Circuits to boot.

Judge Bea is a Bush 43 appointee.

Posted in Conservatism, Judiciary

The Majority Leader Goes After the Chief Justice

•March 27, 2009 • Comments Off on The Majority Leader Goes After the Chief Justice

Harry Reid goes after John Roberts:

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

Harry Reid wasn’t tricked by C.J. Roberts about anything, he voted against Roberts’ confirmation.

This, along with Bawny Fwank’s recent attack on Justice Scalia, are the Democrats’ way of laying a foundation to confirm judges who are far to the left of Justice Ginsburg.

The “dire situation” on the Supreme Court will no doubt lead to (more) rumbles about denying Republicans the use of the filibuster.

Posted in Congress, Judiciary, Obama Administration

On Newspapers’ Demise

•March 27, 2009 • Comments Off on On Newspapers’ Demise

As a follow-up to Clay Shirky’s excellent essay on what will replace newspapers, which we discussed a few weeks ago, this essay is too good to pass up; go read the whole thing. A newspaperman identifies three guys who led the papers to their current dire straits. Here is the editor’s note to whet your curiosity:

The following essay was written by the late John Walter, who served as executive editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and was a founding editor of USA Today. A few months after Walter died due to complications from surgery last September, his wife, Jan Pogue, found this essay on his computer. With her permission, Poynter has reprinted an edited version of it here.

He concludes “Newspapers are dying. Journalism will go on, but the thing in the blue bag is over. These guys did it.”

Posted in Pundits

Flipping “the Bird” is Constitutionally Protected Speech

•March 25, 2009 • Comments Off on Flipping “the Bird” is Constitutionally Protected Speech

So ruled U.S. District Judge David Circone on Monday (PDF), but this is apparently a fairly settled question.

Here, the plaintiff, David Hackbart, was parallel parking at a meter along a city street when another car approached from behind. That car’s driver then pulled partially into the metered parking spot, thus preventing Hackbart from pulling into the spot. The other driver then refused to move, so Hackbart flipped him the middle finger.

This was witnessed by a passing police officer who then told Hackbart, “Don’t flip him off.” Well, Hackbart then flipped off the police officer too. So the police officer pulled him over and cited him for disorderly conduct. Hackbart fought it and now a federal judge says the police officer violated Hackbart’s First Amendment speech right.

I can’t say I every really thought about it before so I’m a little surprised by this result, but the judge did a great job analyzing the question. And he’s not alone:

Moreover, several courts, including federal and state courts in Pennsylvania, have found that the expressive use of the middle finger is protected speech under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250, 1255 (6th Cir. 1997)(Use of the words “f–k you” by driver while extending his middle finger to a group of protestors was clearly speech entitled to First Amendment protection); Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990)(Directing a series of expletives and an obscene hand gesture at police officer represented an expression of disapproval toward the officer, and therefore, falls within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment); Nichols v. Chacon, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1102 (W.D. Ark. 2000)(giving someone the finger is protected speech); Brockway v. Shepherd, 942 F.Supp. 1012, 1015 (M.D. Pa. 1996)(gesture with middle finger toward a police officer is protected speech and not obscene under the Pennsylvania disorderly conduct statute); see also Commonwealth v. Kelly, 758 A.2d 1284, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2000)(same).

Sounds like somebody’s headed for a nominal fee of $1 and loads of the other party’s attorneys fees.

Posted in First Amendment

Newspaper Bailout Proposed

•March 25, 2009 • Comments Off on Newspaper Bailout Proposed

Maryland Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin is proposing a law which would allow newspapers to restructure as nonprofits, so as to take advantage of more lenient tax requirements.

“This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat,” said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

[…]

Cardin’s office said his bill was aimed at preserving local and community newspapers, not conglomerates which may also own radio and TV stations. His bill would also let a non-profit buy newspapers owned by a conglomerate.

“We are losing our newspaper industry,” Cardin said. “The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.”

Here’s the kicker: contributions to reorganized, nonprofit newspapers could be tax-deductible. So is it a contribution when I buy their newspaper or when George Soros buys their newspaper?

Posted in Economy, Pundits

Judge Orders FDA To Allow “Plan B” Contraceptive Sales to 17 Year Olds Without Prescription

•March 24, 2009 • Comments Off on Judge Orders FDA To Allow “Plan B” Contraceptive Sales to 17 Year Olds Without Prescription

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman likely overstepped his authority yesterday when he ordered the FDA to allow 17 year-olds to purchase “Plan B” contraceptives without a prescription. Under current rules, women younger than 18 must have a prescription to get access to the drug.

The proper remedy was to remand to the FDA to reconsider its rulemaking. The judge gave lip service to this remedy by ordering the remand, but also ordered the FDA to come to a certain conclusion: it must allow 17 year-olds to purchase Plan B without a prescription.

The judge also applied the wrong standard when determining if improper political influence affected FDA rulemaking. This is a decision crying out for appeal. The decision and order is here (PDF).

Posted in Judiciary

Warner Bros. is Releasing DVDs for Old People

•March 23, 2009 • Comments Off on Warner Bros. is Releasing DVDs for Old People

Erm…maybe that came out wrong. What I meant to say was that Warner Bros. is opening its vault in a “made-to-order” manner, trying to scare some life back into the home video business (BTW, wasn’t it just a year ago they were telling us that the movie theater was dying and the future was in home cinema? I guess that was before Dark Knight, huh?):

Over the last 12 years, Warner Home Video has released about 1,200 vintage films from its vast library on DVD. But that still leaves about 3,800 feature titles that have yet to make their digital debuts. At the studio’s current release rate of 100 per year, they wouldn’t all be available until midcentury.

So in an industry first, the company today is, in a manner of speaking, inviting the public into the vaults to order what it wants. And like the neighborhood pizzeria, it won’t make it till you order it.

The consumer who visits http://www.warnerarchive.com initially will find 150 classic titles from Warner Bros. Pictures, MGM and RKO that each can be ordered either as a computer download ($14.95) or as a DVD ($19.95) that arrives in the mailbox approximately five days after purchase.

The studio says it intends to bolster that list at the rate of 20 new titles a month — including TV series and TV movies. Many of the movies and shows were once available on video cassette, but none has been on DVD, and many others have never been available for purchase at all.

Some of the works listed: Clark “Who?” Gable films, including “Possessed” and “Men in White”; Greta “When?” Garbo’s silent version of “Anna Karenina”, “Love,” ; Joan “WhoShotWhointheWhatNow?” Crawford’s “This Woman Is Dangerous”; and “Wisdom,” with Emilio Estevez and Demi “Hey that Chick that Married Ashton” Moore.

Posted in Entertainment

Foreign Policy Gaffe Machine Strikes Again; Obama Sends Note to Chirac Pledging Friendship, Working Relationship

•March 22, 2009 • Comments Off on Foreign Policy Gaffe Machine Strikes Again; Obama Sends Note to Chirac Pledging Friendship, Working Relationship

Update: I agree with the commenters who think that Obama was just being cozy with Chirac, and hadn’t actually forgotten who the President of France was. At the same time, this is a clear snub to Sarkozy and his pro-War on Terror policies (or at least, more pro-WOT than his predecessor). It’s also slightly ridiculous for Bambi to claim to be looking forward to working with an out-of-power French leader, especially when he has made no visible effort to work with France’s current one.

Original Post: The actual President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been trying for months to get a sit-down with President Obama is not amused.

Le Figaro reports (Warning: French) that Obama sent the former leader of France a “very nice” letter, which included this idiotic comment:

“I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.”

That sound you hear is me banging my head on the desk because I just don’t know what to say. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!

Is this snub revenge for Sarkozy calling Obama’s foreign policy “utterly immature” during the campaign?

Making a List:

1. Canada: NAFTA fiasco.
2. Poland: missile shield “misunderstanding”.
3. UK: Churchhill bust return.
4. Russia: “overcharge” button.
5. UK: insulting gifts to the Browns.
6. France: not realizing that Chirac has been out of power for two years.

What am I missing? Thanks to helpful commenters for reminding me:

7. Brazil: Misspelling the president’s name.
8. Mexico: NAFTA
9. India: Thinking Kashmir is Pah-kee-stan.

Posted in Obama Administration

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
 
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started