Dark Buzz

Natura non facit saltus
Debunking the Paradigm Shifters

Links

Dark Buzz
RSS feed
Singular Values
(unframed)

About these blogs

Schlafly net



Powered by RogBlog






Google

Monday, Mar 31, 2003
 
Right to bark
John sends this amusing story about a man who barked back at a police dog, and arrested for it. An Ohio appeals court said that he was acting within his free speech rights. Glad to hear we have as much rights as a dog in this matter.
 
Movie stereotypes
John sends this article about racial stereotype in the new Steve Martin comedy. He says Eleanor thought that the movie was hilarious. A critic says that one black character "started talking like a slave during the movie."

I don't have much sympathy, because a lot of movies break racial stereotypes out of political correctness, and use the most offensive stereotypes about us computer geeks. In The Core, nearly all the characters are white, but the real genius scientist is a black man. Meanwhile, the computer wizard is an ugly and immature kid who has never had a girlfriend and isn't likely to anytime soon.

 
Motorcycle health insurance
John sends this Chicago Tribune story (reg reqd) about how the Clinton administration subverted the will of Congress in order to deny health benefits to motorcyclists.
 
Arnett, Rivera disloyal
NBC just fired Peter Arnett, and Fox may soon fire Geraldo Rivera for their un-American activities in Iraq. Arnett only half-apologized for going on an Iraqi gubmnt TV program with anti-American propaganda. Even now he claims that he just said "what we all know about the war" when he said the American-led coalition's initial plan for the war had failed because of Iraq's resistance.

The US anti-war liberals will probably complain that his free speech rights were infringed. But Arnett's statement is false. We don't all know that the US initial plan has failed, and I don't think that it has. I suspect that US military planners deliberately exaggerated the "shock and awe" of the initial attack in order to intimidate the Iraqi military, and convince them that we are serious. Some people thought that the entire Iraqi army would fold and surrender immediately, but I doubt that our generals thought that. The war has made enormous and rapid progress. The 1991 Gulf War was considered fast, and this is faster. For Arnett to say that the US initial plan has failed is to imply that he has some sort of inside info of US weakness, and that he wanted to use that info to give encouragement and support to enemy propaganda efforts.

George writes:

The initial war plan was a failure. The Gulf War was won in 5 days. Rumsfield thought that we'd kill Saddam Hussein the first day, and then the Iraq Republican Guard would surrender.
We bombed Iraq for 44 days before that 5-day ground war. Most pro-war officials have avoided specific predictions about the length of the war.

Sunday, Mar 30, 2003
 
Programmers are not engineers
Computer programmers in Texas cannot call themselves software engineers unless they get an engineering license, according to this Houston Chronicle story. Texas once investigated a publisher of self-help legal books for violating the laws against non-lawyers practicing laws. It seems ridiculous when applied to programmers, but Texas is just doing what all the states do when they protect various professions from competition.
 
Biased poll
Volokh objects to this poll question, because it gives an argument for one side without also giving an argument for the other:
15. As you may know, Bush has proposed a 726 billion dollar tax cut over the next 10 years. The Senate has voted to reduce that to 350 billion dollars in order to help pay for the war, reduce the deficit and shore up the Social Security fund. Do you support or oppose this reduction in Bush's proposed tax cut?
I have a different objection. I think that it is confusing because of double negatives. Having taught and made up exam questions, I've noticed that people have a lot of trouble with double-negative questions. In this question, the reduction is one negative, and the tax cut is another. Opposing it is another negative. You could even argue that taxation is a negative, because it is a depletion of the amount of money you get to keep. Just try asking someone a question like, "If you successfully oppose a reduction in your tax cut, will you have more money are less?", and see if you get an instant answer. Most people will hesitate because they are unsure.

Volokh is writing a book on academic legal writing. I wonder if he will have a section on double negatives, as academic legal writing is filled with it. I get the impression that lawyers would much rather say "it is not illegal to ..." than "it is legal to ...".

 
Cookies
John sends this NY Times article about privacy aspects of web cookies. I use a program called CookieCop to help control my cookies. It is free, and has some nice side-effects, such as blocking ads and pop-ups.

Saturday, Mar 29, 2003
 
Review of The Hours
Andy writes:
Gumma recommended this column about the latest feminist movie, "The Hours".

The column is written for those who saw the movie. However, the column does yield this general insight "It's superficial to think that happiness comes easy; some people have everything, and yet are still estranged from themselves. It's even more superficial, though, to think the point of life is to find personal happiness. Most people outgrow that egotistical worldview after their teenage years, and come to understand that the task is to live a meaningful life, if not a happy one."

About ten years ago Roger insisted that cryptography had advanced to where its codes could never be broken. He wrote a column [] making that claim, which I questioned. The Economist has an article this week about an Indian mathematician who has found a faster way to test whether a number is prime. A conference was recently held on this in Palo Alto. Here's the main point:

"Last August, Manindra Agrawal, of the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, and two of his undergraduate students, proved another, less famous, conjecture—that there is a fast way to show whether a number is prime. Since prime numbers lie at the heart of cryptography, that might, eventually, make codes easier to break." (may need to subscribe to see this).
Note that this advance occurred outside of the United States. Our universities have become shockingly unproductive. The only notable advances in the U.S. in the past 60 years have been experimental, and have largely occurred at industrial labs (e.g., transistor). But those labs are now essentially gone.
Joe responds:
Deju vu all over again. Maybe we can all just quietly read all our deleted email so as to save the strain on our keyboards.
I happened to catch about 10 minutes in the middle of The Hours. It appeared to be unbearably boring, with people staring off into space and turning pages in a book. Not on my list of movies to see. The review ends with:
It's no surprise that this heartless movie is a favorite of the American cultural elite, but for everybody else, The Hours isn't worth five minutes of one's time.
My 10 minutes were wasted.

Meanwhile, I just saw The Core, along with the 10 minute short, The Animatrix. The latter was entertaining for fans of The Matrix, and won't make any sense to anyone else. I guess it is suppose to whet our appetites for the upcoming Matrix sequels.

The Core was a silly disaster movie, like Armageddon (with Bruce Willis). Scientists play the big roles, and they just blabber gibberish. Nothing they say makes any sense. Supposedly the earth's core quit rotating, and electromagnetic radiation is about to kill all life on earth. A crew makes a journey to the center of the earth to plant nuclear bombs to kick-start the core and get it rotating again.

It used to be thought that the earth's magnetic field was crucial for deflecting radiation, and permitting life. But now it is known that the earth's magnetic field has flipped direction many times, even in the last million years, so apparently life can survive the temporary loss of the magnetic field just fine.

Some animals use the magnetic field for navigation and migration. Nobody knows how they survived the flips, but they did.

The Core did have some interesting special effects, such as a microwave beam that destroys the SF Golden Gate bridge.

The theorem about prime numbers is old news. It was announced and verified in August 2002. Even the NY Times decribed it in Dec. 2002. Here is more significant new theorem about prime numbers that was just announced. The SJ Mercury News story failed to state the theorem, and had to run a correction about what little info it did give. The theorem says that there are arbitrarily large primes p such that the difference between the next largest prime and p is less than (ln p)8/9. This is not as strong as the widely believed conjecture that there are infinitely many twin primes, but it is much stronger than previous results in this direction.

I don't agree with the Economist's suggestion that the new Indian prime algorithm of last year has any bearing on cryptography. Modern cryptography have use for prime finding algorithms, but the previously known algorithms are more suitable for cryptography than the new one.

I don't remember the column Andy mentions, but I would still maintain that advances in cryptography have made it essentially unbreakable. A faster prime finding algorithm would actually make codes more secure, not less.

 
Mothers going to war
Andy writes:
Here is the Washington Post editorial that [claims] that "Johnson's child is one of tens of thousands who have been left behind while their mothers -- or their mothers and their fathers -- go off to war." The claim is vague about whether it refers to this war, all Amercan wars, or even all wars worldwide in history.

I wouldn't repeat the number. The article itself says that women constitute less than one-sixth of the armed forces, and probably a much lower percentage of the forces in Iraq. How many do we have in Iraq now? If the total number is less than 500,000 or even a million, then it's unlikely there are tens of thousands of children of mothers fighting there.


Friday, Mar 28, 2003
 
C.T. Sell case
John sends this jewish magazine article about C.T. Sell, the dentist who is ordered to be drugged so that he can face trial for insurance overbilling.
Charles Sell is a prisoner of conscience. ... We're writing about him and his case because his treatment by the federal government has been - and continues to be - unconscionable. ... Due to legal expenses, he's already lost his practice, his office, his home and his savings. What more does the government want? His mind?

When I read columnists like this, I assume that they are not telling the whole story. I became convinced that Sell is being unjustly abused when I read the judge's order against him. The feds' case is very weak, and it appears to me that the judge has some sort of personal grudge against Sell. Regardless, it is outrageous that a nonviolent defendant (who should get a presumption of innocence) would be forcibly drugged with experimental psychotropic drugs just so he'll sit quietly in his trial.

 
XML problems
I found this in an anti-XML rant:
Adam Bosworth, a programming titan (his resumé includes Quattro Pro, Access, and IE4) recently wrote convincingly about the undue hardship programmers face in dealing with XML.
Sounds like his resume is padded. Bosworth managed a predecessor to Quattro Pro, but Quattro Pro was a complete rewrite.

I actually agree that XML is a bad idea. It is over-hyped, and over-complicated, and really doesn't do much that is useful. It was supposed to be concise, easy to create, editable by humans, easy for programs to parse, and be a standardized format for different applications to exchange data. But it really isn't any of those things.

Charlie writes:

Adam's right, IMHO--the official parsing XML parsing tools are a pain in the ass. Nothing beats good old string search code....In an hour or two you can code up your own parser that sucks out fields 100 times faster and has a more convenient API.
The XML gurus say that you are not supposed to parse XML unless you also validate that it is syntactically correct. That way, sloppy and non-conforming XML won't catch on the way that it did for HTML.

XML was also supposed to be concise, easy to create, editable by humans, easy for programs to parse, and be a standardized format for different applications to exchange data.

I hate to admit that Adam might be right about something, but I'm not a big XML fan either. With all the XML hype, I don't think its goals were realized very well.

Bob writes:

Not to mention that unless you parse it according to the syntax you might extract something incorrectly, such as from a comment. BTW, at Callidus we use XML extensively as a substitute for binary BLOBS. We have customers that like it as a messaging/web services approach to application integration, although that latter is mostly all talk. No customer yet has actually been ready to do anything with XML in that way.

Like RISC, client/server, object oriented programming and all the rest of the magic bullets, there isn't a magic bullet here. But, it is nice to have a standard rather than just inventing yet another little language. I recall QP-DOS had about 6 different interpreters in it with associated little scanner/parsers.

 
Ironic names
The Microsoft Palladium product manager is named Juarez. Add that to the list of ironic names. I also enjoyed this parody:
Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?

Neo: The Nexus?

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Nexus is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Nexus. is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance.
George writes:
What is going on? That last post makes no sense! I don't get it.
Palladium is a Msft code name for a future product that is supposed to be called "'Next-Generation Secure Computing Base". It was designed to help control piracy. The word warez is a hacker word for pirate software, and Juarez sounds like a Mexican equivalent. The nexus is the trusted root of Palladium that will control what secrets are available to software applications. The dialog is a parody of a scene in the popular 1999 movie The Matrix, where Morpheus tries to explain that Neo's body is in a jar somewhere, and his mental activity is stimulated by a massive computer simulation that is controlled by machines that have taken over the world. Is it funny now? Ok, maybe it is geek humor. I happen to think that it is funny. The movie has a sequel that is about to be released, and I am looking forward to it.
 
Iraqi opposition
A US general says:
"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against," Wallace, commander of V Corps, said during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division headquarters here in central Iraq.
Huhh? Surely they had war games that varied from an immediate Iraqi military surrender, to massive retaliation with the weapons of mass destruction that Bush claims Iraq has. The war has been something in between. I hope that our generals are not too surprised by anything they've seen.

Update: Jonathan send these friendly fire figures. 21% of US WWII casualties, and 39% of US Vietnam casualties. Seems high to me, but the site says the figures are conservative.

Update: Here is a Slate column that says the US may have cheated in the war games.

 
Friendly fire casualties
I found this on a mailing list:
NBC on 24 Mar 2003 had an item on self-inflicted damage, noting that in the Vietnam War, 24% of U.S. fatalities were due to friendly fire.
Is this a realiable figure? It seems very high to me. I could only find this statement in USA Today:
Of the 58,000 Americans who died in the Vietnam War, 81% were killed in combat, the Department of Veterans Affairs says. The comparable figure is 91% in the Korean War and 72% in World War II.
The article is written as if the remainder is friendly fire, but I am not sure how this really relates.

Thursday, Mar 27, 2003
 
Illegal poop
I didn't know the feds were shutting down sick web sites. The Smoking Gun has the scoop on the arrest of the operators of GirlsPooping.com.
 
Zimbabwe
The entire world pressured the white govt of Rhodesia to turn over political power to black folks in 1980. The NY Review of Books describes what happened. Now the people are starving. Bottom line: the blacks were much better off under white rule.
 
Supreme Court sodomy
The US Supreme Court is threatening to reverse its infamous 1986 5-4 decision upholding a Georgia sodomy law. Homosexuals were enraged by its finding:
Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." ...

To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

Here is a Slate article claiming that the above statement is factually incorrect. But having read the argument, I don't see what is factually correct. There have been anti-sodomy laws that go back 100s of years. The Slate columnist seems to think it is false just because there have been some variations in the definition of sodomy over the years.

The article also claims that the word homosexual has only been in use for about 100 years. Before that, people referred only to the acts performed. It is more recent that it has been common to assume that the acts are related to some sort of persistent psychological orientation. But still, I don't see how this is relevant. It is the acts that are illegal in Texas, that is the way it has always been. If psychologists convince us that being a murderers have a different psychological orientation, murder will still be illegal.

In 1960, all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws; now it is only 13, and the laws are rarely enforced. That is evidence that the political process is responding to changes in public opinion. It is not much of an argument for the SC to seize upon this trend, and claim that it is implicit in a constitution that was written 200 years ago.

 
SF charges dropped
San Francisco has dropped all the felony charges against the war protesters. This is the same city that indicted the police chief because his assistant's son got into a minor scuffle with another drunk coming out of a bar at 2am.

BTW, why are the protesters called "peace protesters" or "anti-war protesters"? They are not protesting the peace, they are protesting the war. So wouldn't war protester be more correct?

 
Funny errata
From the errata to Ross Anderson's book:
The most embarrassing socially was the reference to Bruce Schneier as Prince Schneier on page 113.
Schneier is the author of a popular cryptography book. Calling him Prince Schneier is almost as good as calling him the BS man!

I have the 2nd printing of Anderson's excellent book. The error has been corrected.


Wednesday, Mar 26, 2003
 
FERC finds price gouging
The Wash Post reports that FERC found that power companies overcharged California for energy. Well duhh.

The whole point of the power deregulation was to let private companies profit by trading energy, and thereby insure that Californians pay a market price for energy. As it turns out, the so-called deregulation scheme was broken, and rigged by California lawmakers so that Californian ended up paying above-market prices for energy. But I don't quite get the point of blaming companies like Enron for taking advantage of the system. Isn't that what California was asking them to do?

I also don't quite get the Californians who blame FERC for not rescuing California from its own flawed energy regulatory scheme. Granted, California is governed by incompetent morons like Gray Davis, whose decisions made the California energy crisis worse and wasted billions of dollars. It was the California energy-market rules that allowed power companies to profit by shutting down power plants and creating short-term price squeezes. And it was Calif. Gov. Gray Davis who prevent California utilities from buying long-term power contracts, until the spot price reached a peak, and then forced them to lock in those peak prices with 10-year contracts.

The real problem was that California had a stupid energy deregulation scheme that only partially deregulated energy, and the California politicians were either unable or unwilling to fix it when it went bad.


Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003
 
Press committing war crimes
I am amazed at the USA news media showing pictures of Iraqis being held as prisoners of war, after it was claimed to be a violation of the Geneva Convention. The 1949 Geneva Convention on treatment of war prisoners says that prisoners must be protected from public curiosity. TV reality shows routinely obscure the faces of bystanders who haven't signed waivers. The news media also makes an effort to protect the identity of minors when privacy considerations warrant. So why don't TV news shows and newspapers obscure the faces of Iraqi prisoners of war?

Monday, Mar 24, 2003
 
Sloppy quotes
One of my pet peeves is people who use quote marks for emphasis or some other purpose while criticizing someone else, leaving the reader with the false impression that it is a legitimate quote. The WSJ blog today says:
It's been a couple of weeks since Pat Buchanan's exposé of the "Zionist cabal" that has taken over American foreign policy ...
But Buchanan does not use the phrase "Zionist cabal". Meanwhile Buchanan says:
The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.
and the quote appears to be of Max Boot, a former WSJ editor. But Boot did not say it, and it is presumably an obscure reference to George Washington's farewell address that only his fellow conservatives would understand. These folks should learn to use italics or something else for emphasis, and not quote marks.
 
Paying for spam
A new $10/year email service called Mailblocks claims to block spam for you, and has gotten a lot of publicity. But Politech points out that its terms of service announces that it will bombard its subscribers with 3rd party spam, and there is no way to opt-out! Somebody is not too clear about the concept.
 
Qatar
The TV news is now pronouncing Qatar as "cutter". This explanation say cutter is more correct. But this seems like foolish political correctness to me. Listen to how the arabs say it, and it sounds more like KUH-tar to me. It sounds like those who want to call mohammedans muslims, instead of mohammedans or moslems, and call their bible the Qur'an instead of the Koran.

George writes:

The word Mohammadanism is offensive to muslims because it implies that Mohammed was a god, just as Christian implies that Christ was a god. Allah is their only god. The religion is Islam, and the followers are muslims, not mohammedans.
I don't think that you are correct. The word Mohammadanism was used to describe the religion for 100s of years. Confucianism and Buddism are religions, and yet their followers do not consider Confucius or Buddha gods. The first pillar of Mohammedanism requires accepting that Mohammed was Allah's most important prophet, and the leader of the religion and the revealer of all the beliefs. The word Mohammedanism is an accurate and non-derogatory term. The word Islam is fine also, altho it is usually used to mean something broader than just the religion.
 
Minnesota database on imperfect kids
Andy sends this story
Every newborn child in Minnesota will be required to submit to medical testing for congenital disorders and defects -- unless parents make an objection in writing that is based on a conflict with religious tenets and practice. No other objections are allowed.

The Minnesota House Health and Human Services Policy Committee will vote tomorrow on the HHS budget bill, which includes the requirement for medical testing of children, and the requirement that a state birth defects registry be created.


Sunday, Mar 23, 2003
 
Oscars
Glad I skipped them. Sure enough, they gave a documentary award to charlatan Michael Moore, who then griped about Al Gore losing the 2000 election, and another Oscar to fugitive child molester Roman Polanski. Moore had the nerve to say he believes in "nonfiction". Too bad he doesn't believe in facts. His movie is a silly and incoherent polemic for some of his favorite leftist causes. I guess it is nonfiction because of its polemical nature, but I wouldn't call it a documentary.

Joan writes:

I think you might have enjoyed parts of the show, Roger. The boos/jeers were actually louder, to my ears at least, than the applause/cheers for Moore. Most of the audience, though, remained silent (shocked? cowed?); maybe the nominees had been asked not to launch into a political philippic should they win (or, in Academy Award-speak, should "the Oscar go to" them ). Adrien Brody's (best actor award for his performance in "The Pianist," a "Holocaust saga," according to MSNBC) acceptance speech was a hoot. Talk about sniveling! (I'd never heard of him.) I was rather disappointed that Susan Sarandon and Barbra Striesand, both presenters, didn't launch into anti-Bush, anti-war diatribes; I only watched to see the Hollywoodenheads make asses of themselves...

Here's a site you might enjoy: www.francestinks.com

Drudge says the Oscar show was the lowest rated in history. So I guess I wasn't the only one who skipped it.

For more on Michael Moore's idiotic rants, see MooreWatch.com. Even the NY Times review of Bowling for Columbine says:

This exchange is followed by a montage, accompanied by Louis Armstrong singing "What a Wonderful World," of American foreign policy misdeeds from the 1950's to the present. Their relevance is, again, arguable, but by now it should be clear that Mr. Moore is less interested in argument than in provocation. The last image is of the airplanes smashing into the World Trade Center, accompanied by this text: "Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert C.I.A. training to murder 3,000 people." The idiocy of this statement is hardly worth engaging; it is exactly the kind of glib distortion of history that can be taken as a warrant to dismiss everything Mr. Moore has to say.
 
Biological loyalty test
I just heard a left-wing radio program called CounterSpin describe the military anthrax vaccine as a "biological loyalty test". The vaccine is controversial, but so are a lot of other vaccines. Why didn't they complain about the vaccine before the war, when others were complaining about it?
 
The think-tank war
One of the criticisms of the Iraq war is that it is a think-tank war that was planned out by a bunch of NWO neocon intellectuals long before 09/11 or the recent Iraq weapons inspections. Here is the New American Century site. It is a little spooky to see how many of those folks are not close advisors to G.W. Bush.

Saturday, Mar 22, 2003
 
Ranking the early USA presidents
Andy writes:
I rank the first 15 presidents in terms of how conservative they were as follows
  1. James Monroe - Anti-Federalist, issued Monroe Doctrine, gave us Era of Good Feelings, successful Missouri Compromise
  2. George Washington - did the ultimate conservative act giving up government power; also issued Farewell Address
  3. Thomas Jefferson -- strict constructionist who ended the slave trade and proposed the first balanced budget
  4. John Tyler - stood up against Jackson, also favored state power & vetoed fed bank; settled land disputes w/ Britain
  5. James Madison -- Father of Constitution, but ineptly allowed war & DC burning; his wife saved Washington's portrait
  6. John Quincy Adams - wrote part of Monroe Doctrine, devoted his life to ending slavery; but had Federalist leanings
  7. James Polk -- expansionist, but kept his promises, reduced tariffs, and popularized the Monroe Doctrine
  8. Zachary Taylor -- opposed Compromise of 1850 until he died, but he hadn't even bothered voting in elections
  9. Martin Van Buren - opposed slavery, but used federal deficits and mishandled the economy
  10. William Henry Harrison - captured the White House for an alternative party (Whig), but died almost immediately
  11. Andrew Jackson - opposed fed. power, but flouted Sup. Ct. & Congress and was brutal to Indians. Appointed Taney
  12. Millard Fillmore -- pro-slavery, signed Compromise of 1850 which allowed expansion of slavery
  13. Franklin Pierce -- pro-slavery, even tried to make Kansas a slave state
  14. James Buchanan -- pro-slavery, did nothing to prevent Civil War
  15. John Adams - Federalist, appointed John Marshall to lead Supreme Court, also signed Alien & Sedition Acts
John responds to Andy:
So, let's see the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was good but the Compromise of 1850 was bad? (You attack the Compromise of 1850 because it "allowed" the expansion of slavery - i.e., it preserved the status quo. However, slavery was not in fact extended to any new state after 1850. OTOH, you praise the "successful" Missouri Compromise under which slavery was extended to MO, AR, FL, and TX.)

You attack Madison because he "ineptly allowed" war with Britain in 1812, but fail to credit Adams for skillfully avoiding war with France in 1800.

You attack Polk for being expansionist and praise Jefferson for being a strict constructionist, but Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was the greatest single act of expansion in U.S. history. Also, if expansionism is bad, why do you give top honors to Monroe, who (aided by his secretary of state John Quincy Adams and the military exploits of Andrew Jackson) presided over the acquisition of Florida?

You praise Jackson because he "opposed federal power," but in most respects Jackson was a vigorous supporter of the Union and of national power; he fought and defeated Calhoun's attempt to assert the right of states to nullify acts of Congress.

You praise Washington for "the ultimate conservative act giving up government power" (presumably referring to his retirement after 2 terms); but while in office, Washington vigorously interpreted the power of the new federal government and of the presidency, as illustrated by his suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion.

You praise Jefferson for proposing the first balanced budget, but it was Jackson who actually paid off the entire national debt (which, however, caused a severe depression).

You attack Adams for appointing Marshall to the Supreme Court, but then you attack Jackson because he "flouted" Marshall's decision (presumably referring to Worcester v. Georgia (1832) in favor of the Cherokee Indians).

Your most important criterion for ranking the presidents appears to be the degree of their opposition to slavery, but don't explain why that makes them "conservative" in today's sense. Also, most of today's conservatives would be Federalists (i.e., we support the perpetual union of states under the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution) and expansionists (i.e., we support the expansion from the original 13 states across the continent).

I don't know how to make sense out of Andy's list, unless he defines conservative and explains how the term applies to the American politics of 200 years ago. It is not obvious. Eg, Washington was a revolutionary soldier who killed people in order to upset the existing order and install a radical new kind of gubmnt. I don't see how that was "conservative".

It reminds me of some news reporters who refer to some ultra-radical Islamicist or Communist like Osama bin Laden as a "conservative". Whatever they are, they are not conservatives in any sense of the word. They are not trying to maintain the status quo, and have very little in common with American political movements that use the term "conservative".

Andy responds to John:

By "conservative" I mean what it means today -- adherence to moral and logical principles. Look at the views of the attendees of Eagle Council if you're unsure.

John wrote "So, let's see the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was good but the Compromise of 1850 was bad? (You attack the Compromise of 1850 because it "allowed" the expansion of slavery - i.e., it preserved the status quo. However, slavery was not in fact extended to any new state after 1850. OTOH, you praise the "successful" Missouri Compromise under which slavery was extended to MO, AR, FL, and TX.)"

The Missouri Compromise did not affect FL or TX, and I don't think it even affected AR. It excluded slavery for nearly all of the unorganized Louisiana Purchase, and it solved the slavery crisis for 30 years. The Compromise of 1850, which only lasted 4 years, opened up vast territory to slavery and included a despised federal Fugitive Slave Act.

John wrote, "You attack Polk for being expansionist and praise Jefferson for being a strict constructionist, but Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was the greatest single act of expansion in U.S. history. Also, if expansionism is bad, why do you give top honors to Monroe, who (aided by his secretary of state John Quincy Adams and the military exploits of Andrew Jackson) presided over the acquisition of Florida?"

Jefferson and Monroe bought their land. Polk conquered his with loss of life. Huge difference.

John wrote, "You praise Jackson because he "opposed federal power," but in most respects Jackson was a vigorous supporter of the Union and of national power; he fought and defeated Calhoun's attempt to assert the right of states to nullify acts of Congress."

Jackson vetoed the federal bank and internal improvements. But he did strengthen the federal presidency.

John wrote, "You attack Adams for appointing Marshall to the Supreme Court, but then you attack Jackson because he "flouted" Marshall's decision (presumably referring to Worcester v. Georgia (1832) in favor of the Cherokee Indians)."

Nothing inconsistent about this. Conservatives believe in Rule of Law.

John wrote, "Your most important criterion for ranking the presidents appears to be the degree of their opposition to slavery, but don't explain why that makes them "conservative" in today's sense."

Conservatives frequently compare abortion to slavery. Conservatism is based in morality.

John wrote, "Also, most of today's conservatives would be Federalists (i.e., we support the perpetual union of states under the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution) and expansionists (i.e., we support the expansion from the original 13 states across the continent)."

No, I don't think there is any consensus among conservatives about either of these issues. Conservatives are not fans of the Supremacy Clause or expansionism. Conservatives don't cite Lincoln, the leading proponent of a "perpetual union," as a hero on par with Washington.

John responds to Andy:
So does your ranking of the first 15 presidents reflect their relative "adherence to moral and logical principles"? Obviously not!
The Missouri Compromise did not affect FL or TX, and I don't think it even affected AR. It excluded slavery for nearly all of the unorganized Louisiana Purchase, and it solved the slavery crisis for 30 years.
By prohibiting slavery *only* in that portion of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36-30 (the southern boundary of Missouri) (except for Missouri itself), the Missouri Compromise in effect legalized slavery in all other federal territories. So it did indeed directly "affect" the territories that became the slave states of AR (1836) and FL (1845).

Technically you are right that it did not affect TX because TX was never a federal territory. However, that is a mere technicality because TX is south of 36-30 and did allow slavery from its independence in 1836 until it entered the Union in 1845. As such, TX played a key role in the Missouri Compromise by insuring the equal North-South division of the Senate from 1790 until 1850.

The Compromise of 1850, which only lasted 4 years, opened up vast territory to slavery and included a despised federal Fugitive Slave Act.
It opened up the possibility of slavery in territory north of 36-30, but the slavery forces were defeated and not a single slave state was created in that additional territory or anywhere else after 1850.

The federal Fugitive Slave Act (which, BTW, was "despised" only by abolitionists) merely implemented Article IV, section 2 of the original U.S. Constitution. BTW, the Missouri Compromise also contained a fugitive slave provision applicable to the territory north of 36-30.

Jefferson and Monroe bought their land. Polk conquered his with loss of life. Huge difference.
Polk also bought "his" land. It's true there was a war, but even though we won the war, we paid Mexico for the land we wanted instead of forcing them to pay us reparations. Some conquest! Our peace terms were extraordinarily generous. Mexico could not govern the vast territory anyway and they were more than happy to take the money instead. (Monroe's purchase of Florida was likewise accelerated by Andrew Jackson's military adventures there.)
John wrote, "You attack Adams for appointing Marshall to the Supreme Court, but then you attack Jackson because he "flouted" Marshall's decision (presumably referring to Worcester v. Georgia (1832) in favor of the Cherokee Indians)." Nothing inconsistent about this. Conservatives believe in Rule of Law.
If Marshall was right in that case - as he was in so many other cases - then why criticize Adams for appointing him? What Marshall decision would you overrule?
John wrote, "Your most important criterion for ranking the presidents appears to be the degree of their opposition to slavery, but don't explain why that makes them "conservative" in today's sense." Conservatives frequently compare abortion to slavery. Conservatism is based in morality.
Liberalism is also based in morality! And while some conservatives today compare abortion to slavery, nobody in the 19th century ever once compared slavery to abortion! So you have not articulated any coherent way to apply these labels.

Incidentally, if opposition to slavery is your most important criterion, how come you rank John Adams last? Adams was the only early president who was lifelong outspoken opponent of slavery and who never owned slaves himself.

No, I don't think there is any consensus among conservatives about either of these issues. Conservatives are not fans of the Supremacy Clause or expansionism. Conservatives don't cite Lincoln, the leading proponent of a "perpetual union," as a hero on par with Washington.
Washington certainly believed in the Supremacy Clause; he presided over the convention that wrote it, and he vigorously enforced federal supremacy during his term as president.

Except for a handful of neo-Confederates, all conservatives support the supremacy of the U.S Constitution. And I think everyone, even the cult of Southern agrarians, support U.S. territorial expansion up until 1898.

Andy's definition of "conservative" is incoherent. Mentioning "morality", "Rule of Law", or "logical principles" tells us nothing about how to distinguish conservativism from other philosophies.

Pres. Jackson had a legal dispute with Marshall about whether the Cherokee Nation was a sovereignty not subject to USA laws. I don't know who was right, but both sides would say they believed in Rule of Law. Saying that conservatives believe in Rule of Law tells us nothing. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Jackson was more likely to be right.

Andy reponds:

John and Roger seem to object to the very notion of rating presidents by how conservative they were. Both seem to think that liberals have principles too, and perhaps it's all relative. In fact, only conservatives think principles should trump personal desire. And yes, presidents should be held accountable for their lack of conservatism.

The Missouri Compromise was successful for 34 years, and overruling it in the Nebraska-Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision was the major cause of the Civil War. It banned the spread of slavery above 36-30 (except for Missouri), which was most of the territory at the time. I'm not aware of a meaningful fugitive slave provision in it. (The Compromise of 1850 had a tough federal fugitive slave provision.)

John wrote, "If Marshall was right in that case - as he was in so many other cases - then why criticize Adams for appointing him? What Marshall decision would you overrule?"

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, to name a few. Marshall was the antithesis of conservatism.

John writes, "Liberalism is also based in morality!"

Certainly not today. It's the view that personal whim and desire can trump principles of morality and reason.

John wrote, "if opposition to slavery is your most important criterion, how come you rank John Adams last"

I never said opposition to slavery was my most important criterion. It isn't. Also, Adams didn't do anything about slavery. His personal views were inconsequential.

John wrote, "Except for a handful of neo-Confederates, all conservatives support the supremacy of the U.S Constitution."

No, not as construed and applied by the Supreme Court. Conservatives oppose applying the Establishment Clause against the states, for example.

John wrote, "And I think everyone, even the cult of Southern agrarians, support U.S. territorial expansion up until 1898."

Wrong again. Many, including Lincoln, opposed Polk's war on Mexico. Opposition to the Ostend Manifesto was also intense.

Roger wrote, "Saying that conservatives believe in Rule of Law tells us nothing"

It tells us a great deal. It's the main difference between the U.S. and most countries.

I object to calling George Washington a conservative. He was a radical. What could be more radical than leading a revolution? If he were really so faithful to Rule of Law, he would not have led a revolution.

I don't see the USA being so different. When judges are nominated for promotion, the debate is almost entirely political, and not over who can best carry out Rule of Law.

John responds to Andy:

John and Roger seem to object to the very notion of rating presidents by how conservative they were. Both seem to think that liberals have principles too, and perhaps it's all relative. In fact, only conservatives think principles should trump personal desire. And yes, presidents should be held accountable for their lack of conservatism.
But your rating of the first 15 presidents is obviously not based on your stated criterion - whether principles should trump personal desire.
The Missouri Compromise was successful for 34 years, and overruling it in the Nebraska-Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision was the major cause of the Civil War. It banned the spread of slavery above 36-30 (except for Missouri), which was most of the territory at the time. I'm not aware of a meaningful fugitive slave provision in it. (The Compromise of 1850 had a tough federal fugitive slave provision.)
But if your stated definition of conservatism is adherence to principles of morality, how can you cite the 1820 Missouri Compromise as a major achievement? A compromise, by definition, is a (partial) surrender of principle.

You say the Missouri Compromise was "successful" - but successful at what? It certainly did not limit slavery, as I previously showed. That was not its purpose.

The purpose of the Missouri Compromise was to preserve the Union with an equal division of the U.S. Senate between pro- and anti-slavery states. It did succeed at that purpose for 30 years.

Hence, to call the Missouri Compromise a "conservative" achievement (under your definition of conservatism) necessarily assumes that preserving the Union was higher "principle" than ending slavery. (The compromise did indeed include a fugitive slave provision that, while not as "tough" as the 1850 law, was nevertheless more "meaningful" than what existed before.)

The reason the Missouri Compromise collapsed in 1850 is that California upset the balance between free and slave states in the Senate. In exchange for agreeing to admit California, pro-slavery states demanded and got other concessions.

I see no coherent basis to cite the 1820 compromise as conservative and the 1850 compromise as anti-conservative, and even less reason to use that as the main reason to rank the men who were president in 1820 and 1850.

John wrote, "If Marshall was right in that case - as he was in so many other cases - then why criticize Adams for appointing him? What Marshall decision would you overrule?" Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, to name a few. Marshall was the antithesis of conservatism.
I see nothing in modern conservatism that requires the reversal of any of those landmark decisions. What is wrong with them? How do they violate your definition of conservatism?
John writes, "Liberalism is also based in morality!" Certainly not today. It's the view that personal whim and desire can trump principles of morality and reason.
Liberals appeal to abstract moral principles much more often than conservatives, who rely more on history and culture. Clinton, for example, regularly justified his decisions because "it is right" or "it's the right thing to do" - phrases he used hundreds of times.
John wrote, "if opposition to slavery is your most important criterion, how come you rank John Adams last" I never said opposition to slavery was my most important criterion. It isn't. Also, Adams didn't do anything about slavery. His personal views were inconsequential.
In your ranking of 15 presidents, you referred to support of or opposition to slavery far more often than any other factor, and most of them didn't do anything "consequential" about it one way or the other.
John wrote, "Except for a handful of neo-Confederates, all conservatives support the supremacy of the U.S Constitution." No, not as construed and applied by the Supreme Court. Conservatives oppose applying the Establishment Clause against the states, for example.
Some conservatives think the First Amendment should not be enforced against the states, but that does not question the fundamental role of the Supremacy Clause.
John wrote, "And I think everyone, even the cult of Southern agrarians, support U.S. territorial expansion up until 1898." Wrong again. Many, including Lincoln, opposed Polk's war on Mexico. Opposition to the Ostend Manifesto was also intense.
Those who opposed the Mexican war, including Lincoln, nevertheless supported U.S. Westward expansion to that territory so long as slavery was prohibited there. Lincoln as president gave a tremendous impetus to expansion by supporting the railroad and the homestead act.
Roger wrote, "Saying that conservatives believe in Rule of Law tells us nothing" It tells us a great deal. It's the main difference between the U.S. and most countries.
But how is it useful to rank presidents?
Andy responds to John:
John wrote, "Liberals appeal to abstract moral principles much more often than conservatives, who rely more on history and culture."

Liberals do not appeal to "moral principles." They do appeal to terms like "rights" and "equality", but these are not moral principles. "Rights", for example, can simply be a demand to do as one desires, without any logic to it.

There are pseudo-conservatives who will invoke history and culture rather than making a logical or moral argument that might offend someone. But that approach doesn't speak for the conservative movement.

John writes, "I see no coherent basis to cite the 1820 compromise as conservative and the 1850 compromise as anti-conservative ..."

There are several reasons why the 1820 compromise was conservative, but the 1850 one was liberal. The sharp difference in the federal fugitive slave provisions is one. Yes, conservatives oppose a federal police, particularly when used to enforce something morally objectionable. See the recent case over RICO and abortion protestors. Another key difference is that the 1820 compromise mostly banned slavery from unorganized territory, while the 1850 compromise mostly allowed it. In other words, slavery lost the future in the 1820 compromise, but won it in the 1850 compromise. That's a huge difference, because politics (like the stock market) is about the future, not the past. A third key difference is that the 1850 compromise spent lots of federal money, unlike the 1820 compromise. Overall, the conservative compromise proved to be successful, while the liberal one proved to be a failure.

I said that conservatives oppose Marshall's decision in "Dartmouth College v. Woodward, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, to name a few. Marshall was the antithesis of conservatism."

John replied, "I see nothing in modern conservatism that requires the reversal of any of those landmark decisions. What is wrong with them? How do they violate your definition of conservatism?"

Let's take Dartmouth College. The US Supreme Court intervened and prevented the State of New Hampshire from altering its own charter within its own boundaries. Conservatives oppose that kind of federal intervention in state affairs.

John wrote, "But how is it useful to rank presidents?"

Accountability is good, and ranking promotes that. Liberals dislike political accountability. They would like to be able to flout moral and logical principles and not have anyone notice.

John responds to Andy:
John wrote, "Liberals appeal to abstract moral principles much more often than conservatives, who rely more on history and culture." Liberals do not appeal to "moral principles." They do appeal to terms like "rights" and "equality", but these are not moral principles.
Not moral principles? They are the foundation of morality!
"Rights", for example, can simply be a demand to do as one desires, without any logic to it.
Yes, that's a good definition of rights doing as one desires, without regard to logic. Another name for that is freedom. Another name is moral agency (aka free will). (Andy is really showing his Platonic colors here!)
There are pseudo-conservatives who will invoke history and culture rather than making a logical or moral argument that might offend someone. But that approach doesn't speak for the conservative movement.
OTC, I the pseudo-conservatives are those who ignore history and culture to make purely logical or moral arguments. That is the liberal or libertarian approach.
There are several reasons why the 1820 compromise was conservative, but the 1850 one was liberal. ...
Your first and third reasons are basically the same point the 1850 Compromise made it a federal responsibility to enforce the fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2) of the original Constitution.

Previously the enforcement of that clause had been left to the states or private litigants, which proved ineffective in hotbeds of abolitionism where people were openly defying the Rule of Law. I thought you supported the Rule of Law? I see no conservative basis for declaring that the U.S. government cannot enforce the U.S. Constitution.

Your second reason is not well founded, as I previously explained. The 1820 Compromise did allow slavery in those territories where it was feasible and likely to spread and did in fact spread; it banned slavery only in those territories where it was unlikely to spread anyway (that's why the pro-slavery forces worked to acquire additional territory from Mexico and Cuba).

While the 1850 Compromise did open those unlikely territories to the possibility of slavery, in fact slavery forces were defeated in Kansas and never gained a single additional state after 1850. Meanwhile, the admission of California permanently gave the upper hand to free-state forces in the U.S. govt and made possible the election of Lincoln in 1860.

But aside from all that, your fundamental mistake is to test these two laws under some abstract Platonic logic and then attribute them entirely to the presidents who signed them. In fact, they were compromises between two bitterly opposing forces, each of which got only half of what they wanted.

Let's take Dartmouth College. The US Supreme Court intervened and prevented the State of New Hampshire from altering its own charter within its own boundaries. Conservatives oppose that kind of federal intervention in state affairs.
OTC, conservatives have always supported the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) of the Constitution, on which the Dartmouth decision was based, as a bulwark of our liberty.
John wrote, "But how is it useful to rank presidents?" Accountability is good, and ranking promotes that. Liberals dislike political accountability. They would like to be able to flout moral and logical principles and not have anyone notice.
My question was how your definition of conservatism is useful - that is, how it can be used - to rank the presidents. I still have no clue.
Andy doesn't make much sense to me either. Andy acts like conservatives can be identified based on arguments of morality, and Rule of Law. But often these 2 factors are at opposite sides of an issue. Eg, in the fugitive slave law debate, one side had Rule of Law squarely on its side, and the other had the moral high ground.

Andy responds:

Liberals do not appeal to "moral principles." They do appeal to terms like "rights" and "equality", but these are not moral principles.

John replied, "Not moral principles? They are the foundation of morality! ... Yes, that's a good definition of rights doing as one desires, without regard to logic. Another name for that is freedom."

This is where we differ -- at the very root. I doubt a single person in the Moral Majority would have agreed with John's description of morality. Or freedom, for that matter. Nor would anyone in the traditional wing of the Catholic Church agree with John's description.

Roger writes, "Andy acts like conservatives can be identified based on arguments of morality, and Rule of Law. But often these 2 factors are at opposite sides of an issue."

Rarely, if ever. When they are, as in the case of the immoral Fugitive Slave Act in the Compromise of 1850, conservatives work to overturn the law.

John writes, "OTC, the pseudo-conservatives are those who ignore history and culture to make purely logical or moral arguments. That is the liberal or libertarian approach."

There is nothing wrong with purely logical or moral arguments. Conservatives can and should make such arguments all the time. Prayer in the classroom, for example, is better argued based on morality and logic than on history and culture.

John wrote about the two slavery compromises, "your fundamental mistake is to test these two laws under some abstract Platonic logic and then attribute them entirely to the presidents who signed them. In fact, they were compromises between two bitterly opposing forces, each of which got only half of what they wanted."

John pretends that a compromise must be a halfway split. Not so, of course. The Missouri Compromise gave the future to the abolitionists in almost all of the relevant territory. The Compromise of 1850 gave the future to slavery in almost all of the relevant territory, plus a heinous federal Fugitive Slave Act. John is incorrect in pretending the two compromises were similar. They were very different, reflecting in part the different politics of who was in charge.

John wrote, "OTC, conservatives have always supported the Contract Clause (Article I, Section 10) of the Constitution, on which the Dartmouth decision was based, as a bulwark of our liberty."

Conservatives typically oppose federal interference with internal state issues, like chartering.

I've never heard anyone give an argument for prayer in the classroom based on morality and logic. And I don't know what is conservative about the state of New Hamshire dismantling the private Dartmouth College, and making it a state-run school. (Judge Marshall's decision let Dartmouth continue as a private college, based on a theory about upholding contracts.)
 
Oscar parties
Why do people have Oscar parties? I'd much rather watch the invasion of Baghdad on TV. I last watched the Oscar show about 20 years ago, and it was painfully boring and offensive.

This year, there will probably be dumb actors giving anti-war speeches. Michael Moore may get an Oscar for best documentary, even tho Bowling For Columbine will filled with lies and distortions, and was terrible as a documentary. Roman Polanski could win one, but he won't show up because he is a fugitive for a statutory rape charge. Apparently he has redeemed himself in Hollywood because he made a move about Holocaust survivors. His co-producer won't show up either, because he is facing corruption charges in Poland. If you want to know which movies were good, just look at the box office figures. It is a more reliable indicator.


Friday, Mar 21, 2003
 
French statement
Bob sent this:
PARIS, FRANCE - President Jacques Chirac announced today that France would be deploying two elite units of French troops to Iraq in the event of war. Five hundred crack troops from the 2nd Groupement d'Instruction en Abandonment are mobilizing to assist the Iraqi Army in the finer points of military surrender.

"The immediate capitulation of an armed force is a delicate and intricate tactic in which we French have much experience." said Defense Ministry spokesperson General de Armee Francois-Phillippe Hommes de Petit-Pommes. "There is a certain protocol in laying down your arms or fleeing the battlefield. To wave the white flag while remaining arrogant, pompous and insufferable requires experience and training. The French Army believes it is second to none in the fine art of surrendering quickly. The record of our armed forces in that area speaks for itself. The Iraqi performance in giving up without a fight during the last Gulf War was commendable but slip-shod. We hope to improve their level of surrender execution for the next war."

General Hommes de Petit-Pommes further announced that 1000 advisors from The Regiment de Collaborateurs Francais will also be dispatched to Iraq to assist the Iraqi people in collaborating effectively with any occupation force. "It is more important to protect their art treasures than to defend their honor," the General pointed out.

The General also expressed the hope that Baghdad has some tree-lined boulevards. "It was our experience that the Germans liked to march in the shade, and we feel the Americans and the British might like that same measure of comfort in Iraq-especially as warm weather settles in this spring."

He also sends this picture:
 
ReplayTV bankrupt
Sonicblue announced bankruptcy. It was a pioneer, and made the popular Rio mp3 music players, and the ReplayTV PVR (similar to TiVo).

It is amazing that the PVR has been such a flop in the marketplace. I think that TV is unwatchable without one. If I had to choose between a PVR, VCR, DVD player, HDTV, or big screen TV, I would take a PVR.


Thursday, Mar 20, 2003
 
Msft bug
For years, Msft email has had a problem with messages that have "begin " at the beginning of a line. I was amused by the official workaround:
To workaround this problem:
  • Do not start messages with the word "begin" followed by two spaces.
  • Use only one space between the word "begin" and the following data.
  • Capitalize the word "begin" so that it is reads "Begin."
  • Use a different word such as "start" or "commence."
  •  
    Cellphone rights
    Here's another thing that ought to be on Chuck Schumer's bill of rights for cellphone users: 411 listings. The AP story says 5% of US households have gone wireless, and use a cellphone instead of a land line. My kids call a cellphone a cell-o-phone, because that sounds more like telephone.
     
    Diversity may not benefit education
    This study says no. I don't have any confidence in these results, but at least it appears to look at the matter as a serious empirical question. Too many others just assume they know an answer, without any analysis.

    One of the authors is S.M. Lipset. An earlier survey of his was discredited by mathematician Serge Lang.

     
    USA code tariffs
    This ExtremeTech article suggest that the USA should have protective tariffs for American programmers, or else the jobs will move to India and elsewhere.

    It makes as much sense to me as having tariffs to protect steel workers, sugar growers, and peanut farmers. We also have special laws protecting the jobs of physicians, lawyers, and other professions. I say we should abolish all these laws, unless people are willing to also protect programmers.

     
    Colorado gun laws
    Colorado passed some pro-gun laws, and repealed some anti-gun laws. Good for them. I guess the post-Columbine anti-gun hysteria has now passed in Colorado.

    Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003
     
    Poor FBI lab work
    John sends this AP story about 3k criminal cases tainted by bad FBI lab work.

    If the USA alert level goes up to red, then Andy might have to stay home:

    Caspersen, a former FBI agent, was briefing reporters, alongside Gov. James E. McGreevey, on Thursday, when for the first time he disclosed the realities of how a red alert would shut the state down. A red alert would also tear away virtually all personal freedoms to move about and associate. "Red means all noncritical functions cease," Caspersen said. "Noncritical would be almost all businesses, except health-related." ...

    "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm."

     
    Right-wing awards
    John wants to nominate Andy for a conservative genius award. He also recommends this article:
    Seven of every 10 Silicon Valley companies that Wall Street first sold to the public during the technology boom -- a group that generated some of the biggest first-day gains in stock market history -- are now dead or valued at less than half their initial price. The grim toll raises the question of how much investment bankers, who arranged the stock deals for billions of dollars in fees, were to blame for the carnage. ...

    ``It was a unique period of time when it was unclear which business models were going to pan out,'' said Stuart Francis, head of technology investment banking for Lehman Brothers in Menlo Park. ``It's hard to `due-diligence' the future.''

    It is spouting meaningless buzzwords that comes easily to those guys.

    Tuesday, Mar 18, 2003
     
    More on Monroe
    Andy writes:
    James Monroe was a great conservative, and the Monroe Doctrine was his speech. JQA deserves credit, but he was a presidential wannabee trying to appeal to Monroe's constituency. The Doctrine declares our non-interference with respect to the Eastern Hemisphere:
    "It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. ... The political system of the allied [European] powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments.... Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none."
    This principle is general, applying to the Middle East as well as Europe.

    John writes, "Conservative goals now depend upon the success of the Bush presidency."

    This is the "only leaders define history" view. If that were true, America would have moved left during Clinton's presidency. In fact, it moved right.

    Conservatives shouldn't peg their future to a particularly politician like Bush. Rather, Bush has to constantly earn conservative support, or inevitably lose regardless of what anyone says. The first President Bush proved that convincingly enough.

    First Roger denied regression to the mean, and now Liza denies that older languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin) are more sophisticated than modern ones. In fact, it is indisputable that these older languages were far more precise, rich and complex than modern ones. Liza cites the Navajo language, but I doubt it has the precision and richness of these cited older languages.

    Neither Roger, Liza nor Joe have given any reason or evidence to think that human intelligence is increasing or is constant. Yet they are adamant that human intelligence cannot decreasing, despite the logic and overwhelming evidence of language.

    It is a revelation to realize that smart children are virtually never as smart as their smartest parent. What percentage of elite college students realize this? 0%? They would surely resist even the possibility as adamantly as possible. This simple insight deflates much liberal indoctrination.

    This is more nonsense from Andy. Note that Monroe only refers to European powers, and has no bearing on Iraq.

    I never denied regression to the mean. Regression to the mean is a perfectly valid concept. The problem is that Andy misunderstands it.

    I dispute Andy's claim that dead languages are any more precise, or better in any way. None of those languages are as precise as English. There is a reason that they are dead languages -- they were lousy languages.

    I cited 2 facts IQ scores are increasing, and human intellectual accomplishments in the 20th century exceed all other centuries. Maybe intelligence could decrease, but Andy's arguments are all fallacious.

    Andy replies:

    It's interesting how John, Joe, Liza and Roger are all stridently opposed to this simple proposition that human intelligence has declined. They even seem to be opposed to having a substantive debate about it.

    I sifted through all their replies but could only find this substantive comment

    I wrote "In fact, it is indisputable that these older languages [Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin] were far more precise, rich and complex than modern ones."

    Roger replied, "I dispute that. None of those languages are as precise as English."

    For ideological rather than linguistic reasons, I expect John, Joe and Liza to agree with Roger. Do they?

    It is hard to see what Andy means. Does he mean that average intelligence is declining? Or peak intelligence among geniuses? How does he want to measure? Innate intelligence (like an IQ test)? Or learned intelligence, as measured by tests or accomplishments?

    Also, what is the time period? Is he claiming that intelligence has declined over the last 20 years, 100 years, 1000 years, million years, or what?

    And where is the evidence? I mention several facts in opposition higher IQ test scores, greater accomplishments in the 20th century, higher literacy rates, etc. The trend over the very long term (100 kyrs) is surely towards increasing intelligence.

    English is more precise than those other languages, because of the richer vocabulary and functional syntax. Those dead languages existed before the invention of zero -- they couldn't even express zero!

    Liza responds:

    I agree with Roger.

    Andy cites no evidence for declining intelligence.

    English is far more precise and rich than those ancient languages, because of its much larger vocabulary among other things. It is also a lot easier to learn at a basic level.

    Russian has at least the complexity of Latin (6 cases, 3 genders, difficult verbs, much irregularity). Is that proof that Russians are smarter than Americans?

    John sent this NY Times story about S. African bushmen who using clicking sounds in their language, even tho the clicks are difficult and awkward. Are they the smartest of all?

    Andy writes:

    Roger and Liza deny that Latin and Greek have a greater precision than modern languages. I can't imagine any objective student of those languages agreeing. For example, this Latin phrase cannot be precisely translated into English "dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux." (Genesis 13). Translations into modern languages introduce a spatial or causative separation between God and light that does not exist in the Latin.

    If objective, Roger, Liza, Joe and John would admit and discuss the possibility that human intelligence has declined. But I doubt they will, because their views are skewered by their ideology.

    They seem unwilling even to admit that language precision is correlated to intelligence. Roger, with his long string of rhetorical questions, seems unwilling even to entertain the question of whether human intelligence has decreased.

    You can deny logic, but you can't stop it

    (1) Every child has two parents of unequal intelligence.

    (2) The child's intelligence will on average be less than that of the smarter parent. In fact, due to the harmful nature of mutations, the child's intelligence will on average be less than the average intelligence of the parents.

    (3) Ergo, intelligence has declined from generation to generation.

    My bible says:
    God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
    If anything, this only shows that Latin is less precise. The original Genesis was not written in Latin.

    I admit that language precision is correlated to intelligence. The world's smartest people speak English, and English is the most precise language.

    Andy has fallen for the "regression to the mean" fallacy. The same argument would show that people have been getting shorter for the last million years. We'd all be midgets by now!

    Liza responds:

    One of the many fallacies underlying Andy's completely unsupported thesis about the decline of intelligence is his implicit assumption that intelligence is 100% inherited. Experts such as Charles Murray think it is about 60% inherited. People of extraordinary intelligence emerge from nowhere all the time. I doubt that either of Albert Einstein's parents was anywhere nearly as smart as he was.

    The citation from Genesis proves nothing. The translation cited by Roger is perfectly adequate. In any case, Genesis was not written in Latin, so we don't know that the Latin version is any more authentic than the English version.

    Joe writes:
    It's just patently ridiculous to say that Latin is more "precise" than English. I happened to study Latin for four years under excellent teachers who wrote the SAT and AP tests. Certainly you can achieve a wonderful economy of expression in Latin, but my experience is that Latin is, if anything, more ambiguous than English. Many constructions such as the Ablative Absolute are inherently subject to several different translations. We spent many hours in class bickering over alternative interpretations that gave completely different shades of meaning. I am mystified at Andy's confident tone about this - as I recall, he never studied Latin at all.
    Not only that, but Andy is also confident about just what precisely God meant when he said, "Let there be light"!

    Andy responds:

    John, Joe, Roger and Liza all adhere to humanism in this intelligence debate. None will allow even the possibility that human intelligence has declined.

    It does surprise me how they insist that modern languages are as precise as Latin and Greek, but I guess humanism necessitates that view. I'm still waiting for a precise translation of "fiat lux" into a modern language. "Let" distorts the cause, and "there" distorts the location.

    It's also interesting how they resist the biological fact that smart children are rarely, if ever, smarter than their brightest parent. But, again, humanism requires that fiction. It's remarkable how many liberal college students (and even many parents) fall for that fiction.

    Note the implications of this discussion on the Latin controversy in the Catholic Church. If intelligence and language degrade, then the Catholic traditionalists are right in wanting only Latin. Otherwise, the Church inevitably degrades as language does. Of course the humanists are fine with that.

     
    french military defeats
    Bob suggests googling french military victories. Better yet, type it in manually, and hit the I'm Feeling Lucky button. It even works on the French versions of Google. Here is the Newsday story about it. And here is a Geoff Metcalf column about it from over a month ago, so I guess this isn't hot news.
     
    Andy says dead languages are best
    Andy writes:
    The Monroe Doctrine, one of the greatest conservative works by one of the greatest conservative Presidents, does prohibit what we're doing in Iraq. The Monroe Doctrine is based on the fact that our economic and political system is different from the Eastern Hemisphere. We can't install our system in Iraq. It's not possible, so don't kill people trying.

    John says GWB could become a hero, but there may be a price in moral credibility -- which could hurt conservative goals.

    On intelligence, Roger and Joe are denying basic statistics as applied to the Bell Curve. Roger even attempts to deny "regression to the mean," but there's no disputing it. It's logic, folks the percentage of smart people declines over time. Smart children are rarely, if ever, as smart as their smartest parent. Insisting otherwise is ideologically motivated.

    Overwhelming evidence for this is in language, which has sharply degraded over time. The further back in time one goes, the more sophisticated the language is. Hebrew, then Greek, then Aramaic, then Latin -- all of which were at a much higher intellectual level than modern languages. This proves that people were smarter in the past.

    My sources say:
    The Monroe Doctrine was a statement of foreign policy which proclaimed that Europe should not interfere in affairs within the United States or in the development of other countries in the Western Hemisphere, and that the United States would not interfere in European affairs.
    See also the Columbia encyclopedia. Invading Iraq does not interfere with European affairs. I don't think that our intention is to install our system in Iraq. We have never installed our system in any other country, and I doubt we'll try in Iraq. Bush loses moral credibility if he fails to act.

    The smartest people are nearly always smarter than either their parents or their kids. Andy needs to understand regression to the mean. Does he think that Riemann's father was smarter than Riemann?

    All of those languages are grossly inferior to English.

    John responds:

    The Monroe Doctrine (Dec. 2, 1823) says that the U.S. will not permit European powers (including Russia) to plant their systems in the Western Hemisphere.

    I don't think it necessarily prohibits us from planting our system over there.

    However, the man who actually wrote the Monroe Doctrine - Monroe's brilliant secretary of state, John Quincy Adams - delivered a famous speech on July 4, 1821 that included the following eloquent words:

    "America ... goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all; She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
    This is the doctrine that a determined, decade-long campaign by the neocons has succeeded in overturning.

    Conservative goals now depend upon the success of the Bush presidency. I don't like it any more than you do, but we must all face that unhappy fact.

    And the success of the Bush presidency hinges on disarming Iraq and expelling Saddam Hussein.
     
    Jewish war support
    Here is a US News column on whether this statement is true:
    If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. [Congressman Jim Moran]
    Pat Buchanan risks being called an anti-semite again, and addresses the issue in this essay.

    I don't think that the statement is true. The war does not benefit Israel very much. It may benefit Saudi Arabia more. But the issue should be openly analyzed. If we were going to war in N.Ireland, it would be fair to ask whether the war was being promoted by Irish-Americans.


    Monday, Mar 17, 2003
     
    More war debate
    John continues the war debate:
    As a ratified treaty, the UN Charter is part of the "supreme law of the land" as defined in the Constitution. Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs on a member of the United Nations." All other use of military force must be authorized by the Security Council.
    Iraq's attack on Kuwait should satisfy that condition.
    This is the argument that (1) the first Gulf War never ended, (2) a new invasion of Iraq is authorized by the 1990 UN Resolution 678, (3) which is still operative even though (4) its purpose has been fulfilled because Iraq has been completely expelled from Kuwait and (5) the 16 subsequent UN resolutions concerning Iraq (6) have nothing to do with the invasion of Kuwait or any other UN member country and (7) lack the essential words "all necessary means" authorizing military action.

    I think the argument is far-fetched.

    Nonsense. We've lost our sovereignty if the USA is no longer able to make decisions like that without UN approval.
    That was the price of ratifying the UN treaty. Yes, we lost part of our sovereignty. That's why Ron Paul and the Birchers want to withdraw from the UN. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the ABM treaty, unsigned the ICC treaty and opted not to join the Kyoto treaty. He can take steps to withdraw from the UN, but until he does, the U.S. is legally bound by its procedures.
    So both sides had very weak claims to the land. Then they fought a war in 1948. The jews won. The arabs had numerous opportunities to get their own state on the West Bank -- in 1948, 1967, Camp David, Oslo, etc. Every single time they choose to fight instead, and lost. All national borders are defined by wars. Israel won the war. It is as simple as that, as far as I am concerned. Mexico accepted defeat. The arabs did not. Unless and until the arabs accept defeat, they have no rights whatsoever under traditional international law. They are like the enemy combatants that we hold in Guantanamo Bay.
    So in your view, it's fair for Israel to deal with an entire population of 3 million mostly women and children in the same way that the U.S. treats 500 armed young male terrorists. That is the essence of our disagreement.

    Unlike the Arab countries, Israel claims to be a democracy. That claim is based on the "fiction" that the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is just a temporary situation pending a final peace agreement.

    Israel has to decide either withdraw from the West Bank (including Jewish settlements), or annex the West Bank (and ethnically cleanse it by expelling the Arabs). The status quo is not an option because if the status quo is permanent then Israel is not a democracy - it's no better than the Arab tyrannies next door.

     
    Supreme Court a source of rights
    Andy writes:
    Federal courts do not create new rights. I've read that the US Supreme Court has not created a bona fide new right in 30 years -- going back to Roe v. Wade.

    I've been involved in two other cases before the Supreme Court this term. In each case, the petitioner obtained certiorari, but then argued for the Court to create a new right. In the first case (Eldred v. Ashcroft), the petitioner implicitly argued for a new public property right. Petitioner went from having four votes to obtain cert. to having only two votes when the decision was rendered. In the second case (Sell v. U.S.), the petitioner argued for a new right to refuse medical treatment. The Court responded by telling him to brief a jurisdictional issue, suggesting that Court would use that ground to dismiss the petition.

    In my opinion, this is where the Eldred case was lost.

    Justice Rehnquist: You want the right to copy verbatim other people's books, don't you?

    Mr. Lessig (for Petitioner): We want the right to copy verbatim works that should be in the public domain and would be in the public domain but for a statute that cannot be justified under ordinary First Amendment analysis or under a proper reading of the limits built into the Copyright Clause. [transcript]

    It's almost hopeless arguing for new rights before the Supreme Court.
    Warren Court activism is dead. The Rehnquist Court is too timid to take a stand on anything that will have any significant effect. Some decisions might be interpreted as creating a right. Eg, last year the SC said that low IQ folks have a right not to be executed.

    So why did the court agree to hear a sodomy case?

     
    Cheap ISP
    Looking for a cheap dialup ISP? This site seems to have a good directory of ISPs.
     
    War is possible UN Charter violation
    I am trying to understand when war violates the UN Charter. Is a Security Council resolution needed to endorse the war? Yes, except in self-defense, according to some.

    Here is what the UN Charter says:

    Article 1: The Purposes of the United Nations are:

    To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

    To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

    To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

    To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

    Article 2:3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

    2:4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

    Article 33:1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

    Article 51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    The UN Security Council has only endorsed war 3 times.

    I think that Bush would say that the upcoming Iraq war is completely consistent with the purposes of the UN.

     
    See No Evil
    Bob raves about a new book called, See No Evil, The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism, By Robert Baer. Here is the Preface. Baer states: "The CIA was systematically destroyed by political correctness, by petty Beltway wars, by careerism, and much more. At a time when terrorist threats were compounding globally, the agency that should have been monitoring them was being scrubbed clean instead."
     
    Vaccination
    John sends this story that says:
    Nationally, groups like the conservative Eagle Forum, headed by Phyllis Schlafly, have come out in opposition to mandated immunizations, particularly for hepatitis B, although its objections seem to be based on political, rather than religious or medical, grounds. She fears immunization information will be used to create a "Big Brother-like" medical database.

    "Has America become a nation where bureaucrats can force controversial medical procedures on children without informed choice by parent or child?" Schlafly wrote in a 1998 column.

    If the Eagle Forum objection were purely political, then it wouldn't single out hepatitis B. That 1998 column cited medical reasons for objecting to that HBV vaccine. Eight months later, the official US recommendation to give HBV vaccine to all newborn infants was cancelled for medical reasons, as this later column explains.

    Those fears about a Big Brother-like medical database were not just idle concerns either. It is in place now, and you can read about it on the CDC website, and an audio excerpt.

     
    David Boies
    John sends this story about high-profile lawyer David Boies getting into his own ethics problems. I don't know why people think that Boies is so smart. He is famous for losing the Westmoreland/CBS libel case, losing the Microsoft antitrust case, losing the Napster case, and losing the Bush v. Gore 2000 recount case. He is now suing IBM over Linux infringing Unix, and will probably botch that case also.

    Sunday, Mar 16, 2003
     
    More war debate
    John responds to Roger:
    >Bush and Blair will certainly be accused of international war crimes. >They may have to spend the rest of their lives defending themselves in >court. They are apparently willing to take that chance.
    Not sure Bush appreciates the risk. There is a whole infrastructure of lawyers and legal precedents standing by to prosecute those involved in a war. Here are a few illustrations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/2850043.stm http://nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3200493 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030312/COBLAIR/TPComment http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030315.coibbi0315/BNStory/International http://www.WorldNetDaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31535 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27790-2003Mar14.html
    >The act of Congress, P.L. 102-1, merely authorized the president to use >force to implement UN resolutions.
    Yes, and that is what Bush is going to do, even if it means bombing Iraq.
    Provided he can prove it is authorized by existing UN resolutions. He has to make the case. It's not obvious.

    Interesting that Sen. John F. Kohn, I mean Kerry, says his vote for the war last October "wasn’t all that significant since Bush already had the authority to use military force without it" (but he doesn't say why). http://msnbc.com/news/885688.asp?0cv=CB10&cp1=1

    Neither Congress nor the President >claimed any authority or justification for that war except the UN.
    They do not get their war-making authority from the UN. You are losing me here.
    Oh, yes indeed they do! Otherwise, the war would be illegal and U.S. leaders and soldiers would be war criminals. Everything the U.S. has done in Iraq since 1991 has been pursuant to UN authority. Any new war likewise has to be authorized by the UN. If there is not going to be a new resolution, then it has to be proved that the old resolutions authorize a new war. That will not be easy. It is not obvious.

    On Meet the Press this morning, Dick Cheney was asked how the U.S. could justify attacking a country that had not attacked us first. He waffled, meandered and filibustered for about 5 minutes, never giving a cogent answer to that question.

    No >one has ever claimed or made the case that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was >tantamount to a direct attack on the United States.
    No, it was an attack on our oil supply, and a friendly country.
    "Our" oil supply? We buy about 10% of Kuwait's oil, which supplies 1% of our consumption. That relationship alone does not justify war under historical principles of international law, the laws of war or just war theory.

    Otherwise, it would prove too much. We get most of our cocoa and chocolate from Africa. Does that justify sending U.S. troops whenever there is inter-tribal conflict in Africa?

    Since the U.S. had no treaty with Kuwait guaranteeing Kuwait's borders, the UN Treaty was the only basis for armed intervention. Once Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, that authority lapsed.

    The president said >the war proved we were in a "new world order" which implies that the >traditional historical justifications for war no longer apply.
    I do not think that is what NWO means.
    It meant that all countries, including the U.S., have lost part of their sovereignty to institutions of world government like the UN.
    The West Bank certainly is a part of Israel. Just as much as N.Ireland is a part of U.K., and Puerto Rico is a part of the USA. You might not agree with their electoral procedures, but the same is probably true of most of the countries of the world.
    All residents of Northern Ireland are U.K. citizens. They are represented in the British House of Commons. All residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico had a referendum in which the majority voted to support the status quo and only 2.5 percent wanted independence.

    OTOH, Arab residents of the West Bank are not citizens of Israel. They do not have Israeli passports. They have no civil rights whatsoever in Israel, which means they have fewer rights in their own land than American Jews have.

    Israel has never annexed the West Bank (except Jerusalem) because doing so would mean expelling the Arabs who live there - i.e., ethnic cleansing.

    How would you treat terrorists and suicide bombers?
    Bury them.
    I assume you mean a Palestinian jew-free state. There is a Palestinian state -- but the arabs there have, as their biggest complaint -- that jews are allowed to live there! There is nothing wrong with those settlements, unless you believe in some sort of Islamic jihad.
    You're saying Israel is the "Palestinian state"? It is a state in Palestine, but one in which Arabs whose ancestors have lived there for 1,500 years have no citizenship and no civil rights.
    In California, we have settlements of Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, Vietnamese, and many other groups. Having an ethnic settlement across town does not justify planting bombs.
    Nothing wrong with settlements of U.S. citizens whose ancestors came from those countries. But what about settlements in California by Mexicans who retain their Mexican citizenship?

    What if the Mexican government asserts responsibility for their welfare? What if the Mexican army polices and patrols those settlements and all the roads that connect them with Mexico? What if the Mexican army arrests, imprisons and executes without trial Americans who it believes commit crimes against Mexican settlements?

    The decision to give Iraq an ultimatum was made many months ago. The invasion decision has not yet been made, and depends on Iraq's response.
    We are long past the point of no return. To abandon the war now would mean the collapse of the Bush presidency and the destruction of the Republican party.
    Andy responds:
    John's right about the war, but fails to explain why conservatives have allowed themselves to be led down this path. Note that Bush's plans for an unprovoked invasion are unprecedented in US history, and violate the Monroe Doctrine. There's no predicting how bad the political fallout could be.

    Roger and Joe are adamant that human intelligence cannot be declining, for one reason they cling to evolution. They care little that the laws of entropy predict a decline; the Bell Curve predicts a decline; the nature of mutations predicts a decline; and the evidence shows a decline.

    All systems increase entropy over time in the absence of intelligent intervention. Adding energy does not cause a decrease in entropy without intervention. Like everything else in the universe, the expectation is that human intelligence should be declining.

    The Bell Curve predicts a decrease in variation over time -- i.e., a decline in human intelligence at the high end. And because mutations cause genetic problems, the overall mean must decline over time.

    SAT scores and every other indication of intelligence have been declining. The greatest intellectuals in virtually every field were hundreds or more years ago. The greatest English novel -- 150 years ago. The greatest playwright -- 400 years ago. The greatest mathematician -- at least 150 years ago. The greatest philosopher -- over 2000 years ago. The only achievements of the 20th century were experimental (e.g. Quantum Mechanics), not intellectual.

    I thought that the Monroe Doctrine only pertained to the Western Hemisphere.

    Does Andy's theory predict that the size of the universe is declining?

    Andy doesn't even believe most of 20th century science. In math, I guess he believes that Gauss or Riemann was the greatest ever. Maybe so, but the amount of great, original, important, brilliant, etc math coming from the 20th century exceeds the 19th by a factor of about 10 to 1. At least. The same is true in theoretical physics.

    John responds to Roger:

    I thought that Bush backed the USA out of the ICC. Regardless, I am glad that we have a president with the guts to act without being paralyzed with fear about his own personal retirement.
    The ICC claims "universal jurisdiction."
    Note that Congress was authorizing the use of force, and Congress did not make it contingent on the UN agreeing that the use of force was necessary. All Bush needs is authorization from Congress to enforce a UN resolution.
    P.L. 102-1 was contingent on the UN specifically authorizing the use of force. 102-1 says "The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990)." UN Resolution 678 "authorizes Member States cooperating with the government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660."

    Subsequent UN resolutions, passed after Iraq was ejected from Kuwait, lack the key phrase "all necessary means."

    Clinton bombed Iraq as recently as 1998. Are you saying that makes Clinton a war criminal?
    Depends on whether it was authorized by UN resolutions.
    On Meet the Press this morning, Dick Cheney was asked how the U.S. could justify attacking a country that had not attacked us first. He waffled, meandered and filibustered for about 5 minutes, never giving a cogent answer to that question.
    It will have to be explained to the satisfaction of the public. I think that is likely.
    So you agree that a satisfactory rationale has not yet been formulated? How likely we'll get one at this late date? This morning's MTP transcript has been posted. See what you think of Cheney's lame response.
    Yes, our oil supply. We found it in the desert there, developed it, made a market for it, and depend on it. Oil from Kuwait is significant enough that world prices were significantly disrupted.
    You could make the same argument about China's manufacturing. Should we intervene to protect the independence of Tibet?
    Otherwise, it would prove too much. We get most of our cocoa and chocolate from Africa. Does that justify sending U.S. troops whenever there is inter-tribal conflict in Africa?
    Under historical principles of war? That is debatable. We can do without cocoa more easily that without oil.
    Not sure Anne would agree that we can do without 80% of our cocoa and chocolate more easily than 1% of our oil.
    Where did you get the crazy idea that all wars have to be authorized by treaty or UN resolution?
    As a ratified treaty, the UN Charter is part of the "supreme law of the land" as defined in the Constitution. Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs on a member of the United Nations." All other use of military force must be authorized by the Security Council.

    Therefore, a new attack on Iraq either has to be authorized by the Security Council or it has to qualify as self defense under Article 51. The argument has to be made. Here is the argument of a conservative English writer defending Blair, but there are strong arguments on the other side.

    Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, but only under terms that Iraq has violated. We have every right to enforce those terms.
    Only if the UN approves.
    The West Bank certainly is a part of Israel. Just as much as N.Ireland is a part of U.K., and Puerto Rico is a part of the USA. You might not agree with their electoral procedures, but the same is probably true of most of the countries of the world.
    All residents of Northern Ireland are U.K. citizens. They are represented in the British House of Commons.
    Is this new? Last I heard, several years ago, they were denied voting for direct representatives.
    Since 1972, Northern Ireland has had 18 seats in the British House of Commons, which is roughly proportional to its population.
    All residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Puerto Rico had a referendum in which the majority voted to support the status quo and only 2.5 percent wanted independence.
    But no representatives in Congress.
    P.R. elects its own Governor, Senate and House of Representatives.
    The PLO does not hold free elections, and for all we know, only 2% of palestinian arabs support independence.
    I think we do know The Palestinian Arabs want independence for all of Palestine in a single state comprising what is now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Then they would outvote the Jews and control the government.
    At any rate, it seems ridiculous to use democracy as an argument for a PLO state because the PLO is opposed to democracy and is not likely to create a democratic state. The current situation is more democratic than is likely under a PLO state.
    Democracy is a red herring. Maybe the Arabs prefer to have a monarchy or dictatorship - provided it's an Arab Muslim. But they don't want to be ruled by the Jews.
    No civil rights? They might have more civil rights now, than they would under arab rule. What arab countries has citizens with full civil rights?
    They have whatever civil rights are accorded to all citizens of those countries. By contrast, the Arabs of Palestine are allowed fewer rights than the Jews.
    This is like saying that the USA never annexed Puerto Rico. It is a meaningless legalism, at best. The West Bank is part of Israel and has been since 1967.
    The U.S. did annex P.R. and its residents are U.S. citizens. Israel refuses to annex the West Bank and denies any claim to that territory (except for Jerusalem and Jewish settlements) because it cannot risk making the Arabs Israeli citizens.
    Certainly Israel is a Palestinian state. So is Jordan. They cover the area historically known as Palestine, and they are populated by Palestinian arabs and Palestinian jews. What else would it be?
    But only Jews are full citizens.
    What nonsense. Most of those arabs in Israel came there from elsewhere to take advantage of the prosperity that the jews created. There is no such thing as civil rights as we know it in the arab world. The arabs on the West Bank are treated better by Israel than they would be by any country in the arab world.
    Most of the Jews also came there from elsewhere. To the extent that Arabs came to Palestine from elsewhere, they were coming to the land where their fathers lived. Jews, OTOH, came to an area where there were no Jews for about 1,900 years.
    What if the Mexican government asserts responsibility for their welfare? What if the Mexican army polices and patrols those settlements and all the roads that connect them with Mexico? What if the Mexican army arrests, imprisons and executes without trial Americans who it believes commit crimes against Mexican settlements?
    That would be war. If the USA and Mexico were to fight a war, then the winner would be able to dictate the outcome. If Mexico defeated the USA, then Mexico could put all the settlements in California that they wanted. They do anyway!
    And if Mexico defeated the USA, what would happen to the American residents of California? Which country would they be citizens of? You keep avoiding that key question.

    When the U.S. defeated Mexico in 1848, the treaty provided that residents of the territory we acquired would have one year to choose which country they wanted to be citizens of. If they wanted to be Mexicans, they were free to remove their property or sell their property and take the proceeds to Mexico. If they wanted to be Americans, they would be U.S. citizens on an equal basis with all other U.S. citizens. Compare and contrast that generous settlement with what Israel has done in Palestine.

    If war were abandoned without disarming Iraq, then the public would probably turn against Bush. That is because the public wants Iraq disarmed.
    The public wants it over and done with. If it's all over in short order with minimum bloodshed, Bush will be a hero.
     
    Is intelligence declining
    Andy writes:
    The media and academia love to hype intelligence, pretending that the elite is getting smarter and smarter. In fact, human intelligence is surely declining from generation to generation. Entropy is increasing and mutations are always harmful. The collective IQ of the human population must therefore be declining. There is no way around it people are getting dumber. You can debate how quick the decline is, but not the inevitability of a decline.

    I commented that human intelligence must be declining. Roger wrote, "What convinces you of this?"

    Entropy is increasing and mutations are harmful. Everything in the universe is decaying. Intelligence cannot be an exception.

    Anecdotal evidence tends to support this. Older writings tend to be at a higher intellectual level than modern ones. Scores on basic aptitude tests are declining. Of course, there are additional reasons for this, but the basic law of entropy predicts the same trend.

    Joe, I read your cited Discovery article. It showed how elite physicists ridicule ideas having obvious plausibility, like the change in physical laws and constants over time. Note that this breakthrough is occurring in England, where speech is more free than in the U.S. I passed the article out to several of my science students, whom I taught last semester that relativity is based on the unproven (and implausible) assumption that the speed of light is invariant.

    Joe responds:
    Intelligence must be declining? OK, so cavemen had higher IQ's than we do? When did IQ peak? With the first person? Let me guess Adam and Eve were the smartest people ever. Andy doesn't believe in evolution, so he doesn't worry about our being smarter than earlier life forms.

    Every component of a system does not have to become more disordered. Overall entropy can increase while subparts become more ordered. Andy is totally wrong on this.

    Actually, it is the rise in IQ scores that is puzzling, and needs to be explained.

    When was the last time you read an older writing? In most cases, I've found the ideas disappointingly poorly expressed. It doesn't mean that people are smarter now. We now have the advantage of greater knowledge.

    Yes, Andy is totally wrong. If intelligence has been declining for millions of years, then it is tough to explain why there has been more intellectual progress in the 20th century than any other in history.

    On the subject of evolution, AMC just broadcast the 1960 movie Inherit the Wind. It is amazing how people think that the movie is factual and then wonder why all the names were changed. Instead it is faithful to a stage play that was supposed to be a anti-McCarthyism propaganda. So it is the movie, not Tennessee law, that suppresses the truth. Here are some links that explain the numerous factual distortions.

    George writes:

    Most of those links are to creationist sites that don't believe in evolution. Those creationists are laughingstocks as much as the movie portrayed William Jennings Bryan.
    Maybe so, and I am not endorsing what they say about their own beliefs about religion or science. But the sites demonstrate that the movie gets the facts wrong from beginning to end. Eg, the movie starts with Bryan being a phony honorary "Colonel" and Darrow objecting. In reality, Bryan was a real Colonel in the army.

    The scientific evidence that Darrow submitted did indeed involve bogus and offensive stuff about Piltdown Man and Eugenics. Bryan was not an idiot, and had good reasons for objecting to it.


    Saturday, Mar 15, 2003
     
    Felony emotional impairment
    JG sends this Denver Post story about a Colorado proposal to create a new felony: the impairment of a child's emotional or psychological development. This is an amazing bad idea, because there is no consensus about what impairs emotional or psychological development, among other reasons.
     
    Medical malpractice
    Andy writes:
    John circulated an article about House passage of a malpractice reform bill (HR 5).

    Here is the analysis I did for AAPS, which has not endorsed the bill

    The House malpractice bill (HR 5) has problems. I'm all for capping non-economic damages at $250k. which it does. I'd prefer the states to do it (as about a half-dozen have), but I'm fine if the Congress does it too. I'm also fine with trying against all odds in the US Senate, where the chances for malpractice reform are bleak. FYI, you can view HR 5 at thomas.loc.gov.

    But Congressman Greenwood's HR 5 has many other provisions that are indefensible. There are many new federal statutes of limitations, for example. This helps enrich insurance companies on a statistical basis, but will have unjust application. There is a new federal limitation on freedom of contract between client and attorney for any health care contingency case. There is a new federal immunity for companies that comply with FDA regulations. There is a new federal immunity for vaccine manufacturers in certain circumstances.

    Interesting, there is a large section devoted to punitive damages. I suggested this in Pennsylvania, but was told it is not an issue. Evidently it is.

    There is another disturbing flaw in HR 5. It would establish, by federal law, that the jury NOT be informed of the $250k cap in non-economic and punitive damages. While I strongly favor malpractice caps, I oppose concealing information from a jury.

     
    Iraqi citizens have guns
    John sends this Slate article about how Iraqi citizens have guns. Supposedly it is a counterexample to the notion that people have guns in free societies, and they don't in police states.

    I'd like to see some more analysis of this point. Have Iraqi citizens always been armed? It has been a very long time since anyone successfully invaded Iraq. Was gun ownership a factor? Is gun ownership undermining allied support for an invasion today? Iraq seems like a police state to us, but are the people there any less free than other Mohammedan countries in the area?


    Friday, Mar 14, 2003
     
    Disbar lawyers for filing lawsuits
    John sends this story and this LA Times story about the state of California wanting to disbar some lawyers for filing a large number of harassing lawsuits.

    Thursday, Mar 13, 2003
     
    Andy against the war
    Andy writes:
    I'm trying to make some sense of the positions here, but cannot find anything coherent.

    John, Liza, and Joe are outraged about civil lawsuits over the RI inferno, but couldn't care less about the criminal witchhunt.

    Roger seems to oppose the criminal witchhunt in RI and the 5-year incarceration/forced medication of Dr. Sell, but couldn't care less how many people we kill in Iraq.

    Of the positions, John seems to be most consistently skeptical of govt representations, Liza most consistently accepting of them, and Roger all over the map depending on how he feels. Bottom line everyone cancels each other like, just like the "middle" of the political spectrum.

    I do object to the claims that invading Iraq is to help Israel rather than, say, Saudi Arabia. There is no apparent connection between Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A crusade to free Jerusalem from terror may be worth considering, but that is not what an invasion of Iraq would do. Rather, it will kill innocent people, expand the federal government even further, wreck our economy even more, entangle us for years in an occupation, make us a target for terrorism there, and engender enmity for the U.S. worldwide. Is this what we want?

    War involves killing people. Better them than us. Failing to act might get more people killed.

    John responds to me:

    Bush's position is that Iraq is in serious violation of UN resolutions. France apparently thinks that the violations are not serious enough for war yet, but that is just France's (and Russia's and Germany's) opinion.
    It's not just their opinion. Like it or not, France has the power to veto UN resolutions. That's the deal the U.S. agreed to in 1945. Some say the U.S. doesn't need another UN resolution to start the war because the existing resolutions concerning Iraq already provide enough authority. However, that case has to be made. We can't just ignore or disregard the UN, as some members of the War Party are now saying. To do so would expose participants to prosecution under the new ICC.
    >By legality I meant international law. That requires more than >authority from Congress. It means the existence of facts and >circumstances that historically have justified resort to war, as well as >compliance with international agreements like the UN Charter.
    Those conditions clearly exist. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and threatened our oil supply. We have been in a state of war ever since, as Iraq has never fully complied with our demands.
    The legitimacy of the 1991 Gulf War depended entirely on the UN resolution that authorized it. The U.S. never justified the war by claiming that Iraq threatened our oil supply.
    In S. Africa, there was an international consensus that the govt should abolish apartheid. There is no consensus about Israel, except perhaps that Israel should offer the PLO a homeland that leaves Israel with safe and secure borders. Israel has done that. It is not what the arabs want, so there is really no consensus.
    How many people does it take to make a consensus? Why does it matter how many people agree? The question is whether it is true.
    I don't have any solution for Israel's problems, but it is at war with people dedicated to its destruction and that justifies everything that it is doing.
    >That last sentence is incoherent and self-contradictory. If you don't >have a solution, that means you must agree that the status quo is not >acceptable or justifiable. Otherwise you are saying the status quo is >the solution.
    Yes, the status is the solution unless somebody finds a better one. No one has.
    The status quo is not the solution.
    Why? Because bigoted arabs don't want to live next to jews. It is the arabs who seem to want some sort of apartheid, and kick out all the jews. Those jews have every right to live there, and if a hypothetical arab state cannot tolerate that, then it is appropriate for Israel to defend them.
    Yes, the Jews have the right to live in the West Bank or any Arab country - provided they are willing to live under the same laws that apply to Arabs. There is no evidence the Arabs refuse to live next to Jews as individuals or want to kick them out. They just don't want the Israeli army rampaging through their country.
    >Yes, Israel is at war with its Arab neighbors who have never recognized >its existence. That is Israel's problem, not ours.
    Yes, it is Israel. Helping Israel is a lousy reason for bombing Iraq. I realize that there are some pro-Israel folks who are gung-ho for an Iraq war. But I don't think that they have much influence on GW Bush or Tony Blair. They want war for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Israel.
    And what are those reasons? Their failure to articulate a clear, overriding reason for war invites speculation about what the true reason may be.
    John responds to me again:
    >It's not just their opinion. Like it or not, France has the power to >veto UN resolutions. That's the deal the U.S. agreed to in 1945.
    Yes, and how many wars have taken place since then without France's approval?
    For the first 55 years there was no enforcement mechanism. But on July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court went into force. It's a whole new ball game now. The ICC claims jurisdiction over any alleged war crimes in Iraq.

    Last month, the highest court in Belgium ruled that Sharon can be tried for a 1982 war crime committed during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The trial can begin as soon as he leaves office. In 1998, the highest court in Britain ruled that Pinochet could be arrested and extradited to Spain to be tried for crimes committed in Argentina in the 1970s. He was released only because doctors said he was unable to stand trial. And Milosevic is locked up indefinitely in The Hague (although the man responsible for sending him there was assassinated yesterday).

    The UN passes a resolution requiring Iraq to disarm, fails to enforce, and then someone is going to prosecute those who do enforce the UN resolution? I don't think so.
    Bush and Blair will certainly be accused of international war crimes. They may have to spend the rest of their lives defending themselves in court.
    >The legitimacy of the 1991 Gulf War depended entirely on the UN >resolution that authorized it. The U.S. never justified the war by >claiming that Iraq threatened our oil supply.
    Nonsense. It was also legitimized by those historical justifications, as you call it, and by an act of Congress.
    The act of Congress, P.L. 102-1, merely authorized the president to use force to implement UN resolutions. Neither Congress nor the President claimed any authority or justification for that war except the UN. No one has ever claimed or made the case that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was tantamount to a direct attack on the United States. The president said the war proved we were in a "new world order" which implies that the traditional historical justifications for war no longer apply.
    My opinion is that Israel has been extremely lenient to the arabs. You can form your own opinion.
    Some people had the same opinion of the white government of South Africa. Israel's army does not rampage thru their country. The West Bank is part of Israel. Lots of palestinians live in Jordan, Jordan has ended its war with Israel, and Israel doesn't bother anyone in Jordan. The West Bank is not part of Israel. If it were, Israel, which claims to be a democracy, would have to let the Arabs vote. After the first election, that would be the end of the Jewish state.

    But while Israel does not claim the West Bank is part of Israel, it does claim the right to rule the Arabs living there with harsh brutality, like the ancient Romans treated a conquered province. Israel further claims the right to build Jewish settlements (i.e. suburbs) throughout the West Bank, build roads connecting them, and use the Israeli army to patrol them - thereby preventing a potential Palestinian state there.

    They have not made a war decision yet. Iraq can still avoid war by complying. If and when a war decision is made, I hope they articulate their case better than they have so far.
    The decision to move against Iraq was made many months ago. That's why 250,000 U.S. troops are massing on Iraq's border. The "case" (such as it is) was made by Bush in 3 high-profile speeches - 1 2 3

    You may not be satisfied with the case they have articulated so far, but it seems a little late in the day to come up with a new one.

     
    Schlafly Beer inspected!
    This PDF report says that "Busch, U.N. Order Schlafly To Submit To Bottling Plant Inspections – Demand Full Compliance".
     
    Abortion inconsistency
    The US Senate voted 52-46 to endorse Roe v. Wade, and then voted 64-33 to outlaw partial birth abortion. Somebody's mixed up there. The net effect of Roe v. Wade was to declare that a pregnant woman has an unqualified constitutional right to any abortion procedure that any physician wants to do, including partial birth abortion. The only way to ban partial birth abortion is to overturn Roe v. Wade. At least 16 Senators are contradicting themselves.

    Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003
     
    Elizabeth Smart
    I am surprised that the Smart girl was found alive. The next question is whether she was a runaway. Most of the time, a missing 15-year-old is a runaway. Surely, she had many chances to escape, if she wanted to.

    A number of things are fishy. The sister observed the kidnapping, at 1am, but did not report it until 3am. Why would anyone keep such a secret for 2 hours? I cannot imagine a 9-year-old sitting on such information from 1am until 3am. Months later, the sister announces that Emmanuel was the kidnapper. How would she know, and why didn't she say earlier? According to some reports, Elizabeth Smart had been found by police a couple of times, but she evaded detection by using a false name.

    The only explanation I see is that Elizabeth was really a runaway, that she voluntarily ran off with Emmanuel, and she told her sister to say it was a kidnapping. She told her to wait 2 hours to give them a chance to get out of range.

    Update: Now Drudge reports that Elizabeth Smart told a cop, "You think I am the girl who ran away." More evidence that she ran away.

     
    Does this ring false
    Katha Pollitt writes in The Nation:
    Violence is no longer the sacred preserve of men: The NRA does everything short of painting guns pink to sell them to women. For progressive women, in 2003, to fall back on the ideology of woman-as-peaceful-outsider rings as false as Phyllis Schlafly pretending to be a housewife.
     
    Is this a warblog?
    Joe asks:
    To change the subject, what is Roger's position on the war at this stage. Now that we have come this far, if the UN is dithering in two weeks, does he believe we should go?
    As I see it, Iraq caused us a lot of grief by invading Kuwait in 1990. We backed off when Iraq signed a conditional surrender. Iraq has not complied with those terms. We have given them an ultimatum to comply. If they don't, then I think that we should start dropping bombs until they do, or a new govt is in place.

    I am a little concerned that a war will be a big waste of money and resources, without much improvement in American interests in the area. But assuming that the military can achieve its objectives, I think we have to go thru with it now. Otherwise, no one will ever take our threats seriously.

    Listening to the anti-war crowd makes me pro-war. They are mostly commie stooges, anti-Israel bigots, anti-Bush leftists, environmentalist wackos who don't think we should be using oil, pacifists, and other nuts.

    John responds:

    The trouble with blowing off the UN at this point is that the whole purpose of the war - as stated by the president and as authorized by Congress - is to enforce UN resolutions against Iraq. (The same was true of the first Gulf War.) The stated pretext for both wars is Saddam's violation of UN resolutions.

    Since we drove Iraq out of Kuwait in February 1991, Iraq has not invaded Kuwait or any other country. While it may be true that Saddam has violated *other* terms of the 1991 cease fire, it's not clear that such violations would justify invasion by the United States - unless you think it is our duty and obligation to enforce all UN resolutions.

    This [2nd] paragraph is incoherent. You say we have to go thru with the war if the military can achieve its objectives. But in the previous sentence you state that, in your opinion, the war will not achieve its objectives. So where does that leave us?

    There is nothing bigoted about being anti-Israel. That is a slur used by supporters of Israel against their opponents.

    There is good reason why many people are searching for the real reason behind the push for war (Israel, oil, etc.) How many times have we heard Bush supporters justify the war because Saddam gassed his own people? Since that 21-year-old incident clearly could not possibly be a true reason for the current war, it is an insult to Americans to keep repeating it. It is an invitation to look for alternative theories, no matter how wacky.

    Yes, a lot of lousy pro-war reasons are given as well. We wouldn't goto war to save the Kurds, or bring democracy to Iraq, or to enforce obscure UN resolutions.

    I don't object to people theorizing that the real purpose for the war is to support Israel, or to get cheap oil, or to settle a score for Bush Sr. That's not bigoted. But a lot of the anti-war crowd will rant about how Israel has no right to exist, how Israel is terrorist, how Israel is illegally occupying arab land, how the suicide bombers are just doing what they have to do under Israeli oppression, etc. Those anti-Israel positions have no merit. When people express views like that, then I disregard everything else they say.

    John responds:

    Then what is a good reason, in your opinion? Or (not necessarily the same thing), what is the true reason that motivates the War Party?

    If enforcing UN resolutions is not a valid reason, then what is the basis for the legality or constitutionality of this war and the first Gulf War?

    You did not answer my challenge about the likelihood that military action will achieve its objectives and produce a substantial "improvement in American interests in the area," or whether it is just as likely to make things worse.

    Leftist critics of Israel point out the strong parallels between Israel/Palestine and the former South Africa. Israel may have a right to exist, but does it have a right to rule over 3 million Arabs?

    Israel won't allow the Arabs to be citizens of Israel, won't allow them to have their own state, and doesn't dare to ethnically-cleanse them to some third country. So what is left? The Arabs are not going away; their population is growing much faster than Israel's.

    What is the War Party? The Repubs and Demos seem more or less equally war-like to me. Clinton also bombed Iraq when he didn't approve of what Hussein was doing, and he also led wars in Yugoslavia.

    The legality is based on getting a declaration from Congress. That was done in the Gulf War, and has been done to support all actions so far.

    Well, I hope it improves American interests. We may not know for sure for years, if ever.

    I don't see the parallel between Israel and S. Africa. The arabs are in a state of war against Israel. Unless and until the arabs either win the war or surrender, Israel has a right to rule them. That is how the world has worked for thousands of years, and I don't know how else it could work.

    Israel offered them their own state, and they turned it down, because they prefer to be in a state of war. They are not going away, but they don't seem to be capable of civilized self-government either.

    I don't have any solution for Israel's problems, but it is at war with people dedicated to its destruction and that justifies everything that it is doing.

    John responds:

    The term War Party doesn't refer to Democrats or Republicans. It means the party (in the generic sense) or faction pushing, promoting, and supporting the war against Iraq. It means the people named here and here.

    The constitutionality of presidential warmaking depends on authority from Congress. But the congressional authorizations, both for this war and the first Gulf War, specifically cite and rely upon UN resolutions. If we disavow and disregard the UN, that would undercut and perhaps revoke the congressional authorizations.

    By legality I meant international law. That requires more than authority from Congress. It means the existence of facts and circumstances that historically have justified resort to war, as well as compliance with international agreements like the UN Charter.

    Well, I hope it improves American interests. We may not know for sure for years, if ever.
    This is not encouraging! One of the requirements of a "just war," in addition to compliance with all relevant legal processes, is a reasonable likelihood of success.

    How is that different from the white government of South Africa?

    I don't have any solution for Israel's problems, but it is at war with people dedicated to its destruction and that justifies everything that it is doing.
    That last sentence is incoherent and self-contradictory. If you don't have a solution, that means you must agree that the status quo is not acceptable or justifiable. Otherwise you are saying the status quo is the solution.

    Israel did not offer the Arabs a viable state. Under the 2000 proposal, the West Bank would remain honeycombed with a network of Jewish settlements connected by roads patrolled by the Israeli army - a ridiculous and impossible situation.

    Yes, Israel is at war with its Arab neighbors who have never recognized its existence. That is Israel's problem, not ours.

    Liza writes:
    I completely agree with Roger about the whole Mideast-Iraq situation.
    Bush's position is that Iraq is in serious violation of UN resolutions. France apparently thinks that the violations are not serious enough for war yet, but that is just France's (and Russia's and Germany's) opinion.

    Those conditions justifying war clearly exist. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and threatened our oil supply. We have been in a state of war ever since, as Iraq has never fully complied with our demands.

    In S. Africa, there was an international consensus that the govt should abolish apartheid. There is no consensus about Israel, except perhaps that Israel should offer the PLO a homeland that leaves Israel with safe and secure borders. Israel has done that. It is not what the arabs want, so there is really no consensus.

    Yes, the status is the solution unless somebody finds a better one. No one has.

    Why is it impossible for jews to live on the West Bank? Because bigoted arabs don't want to live next to jews. It is the arabs who seem to want some sort of apartheid, and kick out all the jews. Those jews have every right to live there, and if a hypothetical arab state cannot tolerate that, then it is appropriate for Israel to defend them.

    Yes, Israel war is Israel's problem. Helping Israel is a lousy reason for bombing Iraq. I realize that there are some pro-Israel folks who are gung-ho for an Iraq war. But I don't think that they have much influence on GW Bush or Tony Blair. They want war for reasons that have little or nothing to do with Israel.

     
    MOAB
    MOAB is supposed to stand for Massive Ordinance Air Blast. That is surely a contrived acronym, with the real one being the Mother Of All Bombs. Like the USA PATRIOT Act that supposedly stands for United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
     
    Radio spectrum is unlimited
    This Salon article explains David P. Reed's campaign to use the radio spectrum in new ways.
     
    No illegal alien left behind
    Andy points out that illegal alien kids get federal funds for learning English:
    GRANT AVAILABILITY: School districts with a concentration of immigrant students can apply for federal funds to help pay for activities that will help immigrant students attain English proficiency, meet academic standards, and acclimate themselves to American society. The funds are available under Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act.
     

    VDARE John sends a link to VDARE.com. I'm not sure why, but there are a number of good articles there by Peter Brimelow, Paul Craig Roberts, and others.

    John explains:

    Nice NASA pic of North America. Here's a great pic of sunset over Europe, taken from the space shuttle.

    Regarding VDARE, what I intended to send you was not the home page, but this article with supporting hyperlinks to various sources including BusinessWeek about how multinationals are replacing U.S. high tech workers with aliens brought into the U.S. on L-1 visas.

    A separate but related issue is how multinationals are establishing centers in Third World countries like India, where they employ English-speaking natives to do high-tech, tech support and customer-service work. Wired story

    Here's an interesting article about free WiFi.

    I didn't know that about big companies importing cheap foreign labor with L-1 visas. The L-1 visa programs seems to have even more loopholes than the H-1B program.

    The picture is from RushLimbaugh.com. The boundary line for the sunlight looks like it is cutting right thru Paris. Was Rush trying to make a political statement about how the Sun is setting on France?


    Tuesday, Mar 11, 2003
     
    NASA picture
    Here is a nice picture of N. America. From NASA.
     

    Unabomber This was reported before, but now there is a book about it. The Unabomber was the subject of a bizarre psychological experiment when he was a student at Harvard, and it may have influenced his worldview.
     
    Suing the deep pockets
    John sends this Boston Globe story, confirming predictions that a beer-maker would be sued over the RI nightclub fire. Here is an RI story.
     
    Great Lakes frozen
    90% of the Great Lakes are frozen. The article says Lake Superior froze completely in 1979. I didn't think that ever happened. Shipping could be serious interrupted. Where is global warming when we need it?
     
    Public key crypto
    I ran across this, from Rick:
    is it possible to give a real-life explanation of the public/private key cryptography without using any complex math? for example, taking a safe and locking valuables with keys and sending to the other side etc.
    Yes. The traditional example goes as follows. This is closer to an example of Diffie-Hellman key exchange than it is normal public key cryptography, but it is informative none-the-less.

    I have a chest that has a spot for two padlocks. I put a secret in it and put my padlock on the chest and lock it. I send you the chest. You take your padlock and put it on the chest also. (now it has two padlocks on it). You send the chest back to me. I unlock my padlock and remove it. The chest now only has your padlock on it. I send it to you, you unlock your lock and open the chest. Now you can get the secret.

    That is a good explanation. The method is subject to some attacks, such as the wrong person putting his padlock on, but DH and other public key methods have similar problems. It does illustrate how a secret can be conveyed by passing locks, and not keys.
     
    Jews for the war
    Virginia Democratic (Irish-American) Congressman Jim Moran is so anti-semitic that some of his jewish constituents voted for his Republican opponent in the last election! And what did he say? He said that the Iraq war depends on the support of the American Jewish community. His statement is probably false, but not anti-semitic.

    Update: Slate's Kinsley lists some others who have commented on jewish influence, without being branded anti-semitic.

     
    Santa Cruz protesters
    Santa Cruz peace protesters and homeless activists have been blocking the sidewalk in front of the surf shop for 4 days now. Here is the local story. Do they think that surfers are pro-war? Santa Cruz seems to draw these wackos like a magnet:
    T.J., 21, a homeless man who moved to Santa Cruz from Los Angeles in December, had been staying up 40 hours straight as part of the protest, without the benefit of coffee.
    Is coffee pro-war? Or maybe no one will give him the money for a cup of coffee?

    Others want to stop paying taxes because:

    Protesters say their action, in part, is a response to then-U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig’s 1982 statements that protesters can march all they want as long as they continue to pay taxes.
    I think they missed Haig's point. They have to pay taxes to maintain their protest rights, under Haig's logic. They seem to be inspired by the Vice Major, who is a tax protestor himself!
    Santa Cruz Vice Mayor Scott Kennedy ... has been withholding a portion of his taxes, and facing the consequences, since 1971. "In the end they charge you interest and penalties," he said. "We’ve had our bank account seized. My wife and I have had our salary seized."
    Only Santa Cruzans would elect a politician who doesn't even pay his own taxes. Why would anyone want someone managing city tax money, when he refuses to pay himself?

    Also in Santa Cruz news, the libraries now have anti-Ashcroft signs:

    The signs, posted in the 10 county branches last week and on the library's Web site, also inform the reader that the USA Patriot Act "prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you." "Questions about this policy," patrons are told, "should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."
    It is not Ashcroft's policy. It is a law that allows the feds to subpoena tangible records records related to foreign terrorists. Volokh's blog says:
    It is a general law that allows the FBI to collect evidence in cases involving "foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or . . . international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
    It was passed by Congress, signed by Bush, and sunsets in 2005.
     
    New California taxes
    This site lists the new taxes that have been proposed to help pay for Gov. Gray Davis's mismanagement of the state.

    George writes:

    The whole country is in recession. You can't blame Davis for the recession, and you can't blame him for 9/11.
    California tax revenues are up about 50% since 1996. The state was running a big surplus when Davis was elected in 1998. His party dominates state politics. The state gubmnt has plenty of money. The problem is Davis's runaway spending that has increased much more rapidly than revenues.

    George Will has a new column on this recall effort, and says state revenues have risen 28 percent since 1998.

     
    Ritchie on unix lawsuit
    Dennis Ritchie, one of the creators of the original Bell Labs Unix, has put up a web page with USL vs. BSDI documents. That was the case where the Unix owners sued BSD, a unix clone, and lost. The current case against IBM Linux seems similar, and conventional wisdom is that it will fail similarly.

    Ritchie suggests that this case might be different, and he might be right. HP and Sun paid millions of dollars for broad Unix licenses that would allow shipping unix clones. IBM only pays for AIX. IBM has been quoted in the press saying that their whole business strategy is to cannibalize AIX (where it pays unix royalties) in favor of Linux (which is royalty-free). IBM's Linux strategy may just be a plan to take over unix, and not pay for it.

     
    Bill to weaken the DMCA
    Zoe Lofgren introduced a pro-consumer modification of the DMCA. Hollywood is unhappy:
    ``As drafted, this legislation essentially legalizes hacking. It puts a dagger in the heart of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,'' said MPAA Chairman Jack Valenti in a prepared statement. ``It would deny content owners the ability to protect their works by technological means.''
    No law is going to do that. The content owners can use either legal or technological means to protect their works, or both. The legal debate is only over the legal means of protection.
     
    Bad reporting
    Here is a Mercury News story that is ruined because the editors don't want to include info that is too technical. It complains that a Msft email product puts cryptic characters on the subject line, but fails to give an example, so the reader has no idea if this is a problem or not.

    Update: Kristine Heim, the SJMN reporter, responded with 2 examples:

    Good suggestion. Here are two examples for you.

    Subjecttomorrow you can be without bills d60f60360e20f60f60860160970040760e60960a60560 (from spam in my very own inbox)

    does CRM{12128E53-3B6F-4F0C-8802-925C93139EF1}MRC (from Promarketing's customer e-mail)

    Yes, these are obnoxious for a subject line.
     
    New book on gun control
    Gumma reports that John Lott has a new book titled The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong. His blurb says:
    In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth. With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns.
    He promises to post his raw data online.

    Lott has been getting some heat from bloggers (eg, see Slate's Noah) because he has used pseudonyms for online discussions. Evidence of dishonsty, they say. If he could lie about his name online, then he might have been lying when he said, "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." Then they compare him to Bellesiles, who was fired from his tenured professorship for faking data in his anti-gun book.

    The analogy is wacky. In the case of Bellesiles, the main thesis of his book was wrong, and nearly all of his supporting evidence was fraudulently manufactured. In the case of Lott, the "98 percent" figure is almost certainly in the ball park. It is hard to know exactly, because such incidents are not usually reported, and it is hard to get numbers on crimes being prevented. If not 98%, then what? As for using a pseudonym on the net, that's the norm.

     
    Big Sur hiking accident
    A hiker survived a serious fall on the Pine Ridge Trail, near Big Sur on the central coast of California. It is my favorite backpacking trail.

    Monday, Mar 10, 2003
     
    Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?
    Conventional wisdom is now that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs 65 myrs ago. They found the meteor crater. The extinction was the same time. It couldn't be just coincidence. Except that much of India was erupting in volcanoes at the same time also. So which is the coincidence?

    The obvious theory is that a meteor cause those volcanic eruptions. But geologists say that is impossible.

    Now here is where the science gets weird. The previous major extinctions were also accompanied by big meteor hits and huge volcanic activity. More coincidences?

    Now the NY Times reports that people are now taking seriously the idea that the meteors and volcanoes could be related. Most scientists still say it is impossible, but keep a watch on this. A coincidence like this has got to mean something.

    Today's NY Times science section also has articles on a couple of other continuing debates, whether humans interbred with Neanderthals, and whether the universe is spatially finite (like a torus).

     
    Illegal alien truck crash
    Andy sends this story about a stolen truck full of illegal aliens that crashed while resisting arrest. A "migrant-rights group" says that it is all the fault of the police for chasing a stolen truck!
     
    TV violence
    The psychology journal Developmental Psychology has a well-publicized article about how children watching violent TV shows leads to more agressive adult behavior. I am skeptical, but it claims to control for the obvious correlations.
     
    Oscar night
    I'll be skipping the Oscars again. I haven't watched in years, as the show is boring, annoying, and offensive. No doubt there will be some idiotic anti-war speeches this time.
     
    Calif tax on solar power
    Gov Gray Davis's power regulators bought electric power at the peak of the market, so we'll be paying artificially high prices for electric power for the next 10 years. Now he wants to tax people who have their own power generators, either from solar or otherwise.

    Add this to the reasons to recall Gray Davis.


    Sunday, Mar 09, 2003
     
    New copyright book
    Lee Hollaar has written a pretty good book "Legal Protection of Digital Information". It costs $155 for the paperback, but it is online free. The online version is more useful because it has links to laws, cases, and other supporting documents. Hollaar's perspective is a little different from the typical lawyer. He is not a lawyer, but he has special expertise in the subject and understands copyright and patent law as well as anyone. Certainly better than the judges writing opinions in the area.
     
    Calif Gov Gray Davis polls only 27%
    Andy writes:
    John and Joe complain about the civil lawsuits over the RI inferno, but those suits are not as bad as the criminal witchhunt. I don't hear them complaining about that. I guess that's not a Republican pocketbook concern!

    Good news is that Gov. Gray Davis' approval rating has dropped to an astounding 27% (per today's LA Times). I've never seen a rating so low! Bad news is that this tide of discontent will inevitably hit Bush hard too. Would McCain have a better chance of winning the presidency for Republicans in 2004?

    The internet is probably causing this collapse in respect for public officials. It is like the effect of the printing press on the Catholic Church. I sense a feeling of panic even by the Supreme Court. The internet just chews up their opinions and spits 'em out. When a Ninth Circuit judge like Reinhardt is changing his opinion after publication due to internet criticism (removing Bellesiles reference), it's clear we're entering a whole new era.

    The LA Times poll always showed that a narrow majority opposes the Davis recall effort. That is to be expected. The real question is how those people will vote, once the Davis recall is on the ballot.

    I don't think that anyone has been criminally charged in connection with the RI fire yet.

     
    NY Times gripes about conservative court
    The NY Times has a long essay griping about how conservatives now control most of the nation's federal appeals courts, especially the 4C (including Virginia). But I found the examples unconvincing. The biggest example was a woman who sued a small production shop for sexual harassment. It sounds to me like the mannequins there were being sexually harassed, but not the woman.

    Another case had to do with whether it is unconstitutional for a cop to abuse a suspect in a way that had no law enforcement purpose. The article is written in a way as to imply that it should be obvious to anyone but a right-wing nut that the abuse would be unconstitutional if there is no law enforcement purpose. But it really just the opposite. The Constitution forbids certain punishments and other actions that are meted out as part of govt policy towards criminals; but if some cop murders someone on his own authority, then the Constitution is silent. It is just an ordinary crime like any other murder.

    The article fails to find any conservative activism on the 4C that compares to liberal activism (like last week's Pledge ruling) that is common on the other circuits. Just biased liberal reporting from the NY Times.

     
    Bogus RI fire lawsuit
    John sends this story about lawyers looking for deep pockets to pay damage claims related to the RI nightclub fire. The deepest pocket appears to be the radio network that advertised the concert. Suing them is defended by a law prof named Carl T. Bogus, who also wrote a book titled Why Lawsuits are Good for America. Yes, that is his real name.

    Joe says that Anheuser Busch will be sued 98 times, because AB's logo was prominently displayed in the bar.

    You can get the latest news on bogus lawsuits at Overlawyered.com. That is bogus with a lowercase b.

    Liza responds:

    Maybe this is how we'll finally get tort reform - when the media start being bankrupted by bogus claims, they will want some protection.

    Saturday, Mar 08, 2003
     
    More RI scapegoats
    Andy writes:
    Teeny weeny flame causes an historic eatery to be shut down. Fire exit that led to a fenced-in lot is another HUGE problem, suddenly.

    Governor of Rhode Island is pointing the finger at everyone but his own regulatory codes, which was the real cause of the nightclub inferno. The witchhunt continues.

     
    Pep pills
    You can take stimulants like caffeine or amphetamines to increase alertness when you are low on sleep, but now there is another way to go. A modafinil pill (aka Provigil) lets you feel as peppy after six hours sleep as you would after nine. It is prescribed for narcolepsy. If it is as good as it sounds, then getting a prescription should be like getting a Viagra prescription.
     
    Pledge OK in Virginia
    John sends this WashPost article about a federal judge who says it is OK for the schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Some US Supreme Court decisions have said so as well. Only a couple of kooky Californa federal judges say otherwise.

    That article explains that the original 9C opinion was that the Pledge itself was unconstitutional, because the 1954 Congress resolution supporting the modified Pledge wording was an unconstitutional act for Congress. The latest 9C ruling is ambiguous on the point.

     
    Get college credit for being anti-Bush
    UPI says:
    The president of a California college is sending a letter to President Bush apologizing for an instructor who gave students extra credit for writing anti-war missives to the White House.

    Citrus College President Louis E. Zellers wrote that Professor Rosalyn Kahn "did abuse her authority" in assigning students in her Speech 106 class to write letters to Bush protesting the possible war with Iraq.

    "Students were clear in their understanding that they would only receive credit if they wrote 'protest' letters," Zellers said in a letter of thanks to FIRE -- the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- a Philadelphia-based campus watchdog group.

    Does anybody ever get college credit for supporting a Republican?
     
    Population decline
    Wattenberg describes the coming population decline. The world needs a total fertility rate of 2.1 to maintain a stable population. Europe's rate has dropped to 1.4, Japan to 1.3, and the Third World to 2.9. World population is expected to peak at 9B in 2050, and then decline. The USA rate is 2.1, and is only increasing population because it takes more immigrants than the rest of the world combined, and those immigrants are reproducing rapidly.
     
    Linux under legal cloud
    SCO, the current owner of Unix, has sued IBM for stealing Unix secrets and putting them in the open-source Linux. Apparently IBM's AIX includes confidential Unix source code under license from SCO, and IBM has a publicly announced policy of migrating code and features from AIX to Linux.

    I am not sure this lawsuit is significant. IBM could just buy SCO if SCO became a problem. For you legal buffs, the above site has the complete complaint against IBM, including the ATT-IBM license and lots of legal details. You can find rants from the open source community here. HP and Sun are not worried, because they have fully paid-up Unix licenses, and can ship Linux or other Unix clones without paying additional royalties.

    The popularity of Linux over other unix alternatives is partially because of the GNU culture, and partially because of IBM's endorsement. If Linux becomes tainted, remember that BSD unix is more free, more solid, and now maybe even cleaner legally.

    Meanwhile, SSL/TLS came out of a legal cloud, as Stambler lost a patent lawsuit against RSAS and Verisign.


    Friday, Mar 07, 2003
     
    War for oil
    Some anti-war activists are saying that Iraq war is all about oil, and that it is immoral to goto war to protect economic interests.

    Going to war to protect economic interests seems like a pretty good reason to me. Are these people also against jailing bank robbers? Our whole way of life depends on international trade, and that depends on American warships keeping shipping lanes open. You might think that those lanes are kept open by law, or by treaty, or by diplomacy; but ultimately any enforcement has to be by military power. If we renounced the use of force to protect economic interests, then it is hard to see how modern civilization would even be possible. Guns make it all possible.

    (I am not entirely convinced that there is an economic justification for an Iraq war. But if there is, that that is a big plus.)

     
    Banned books
    I found this ALA list of banned books. These are books in schools or libraries that drew complaints for various reasons, such as offensive language or unsuitability to the age group. I wondered why the Bible was not on the list. It that because no one ever objects to the Bible? Or that schools and libraries have already removed all their bibles? The Koran was not on the list either.

    The page does say that they get objections to materials promoting a religious viewpoint, but I didn't see any religious books on the lists.


    Thursday, Mar 06, 2003
     
    Euro patents
    The European Union seems to have finally decided to have EU patents that will be good for all of Europe. With declines in the US Patent Office and improvements to the european system, I think it now makes sense for the US and Europe to respect each others patents. Every other country in the world should just abolish its patent office, and pass a law respecting US and Euro patents.
     
    Estrada memos
    John responds to Andy:
    As I predicted, the Dems just won in filibustering the Estrada nomination. Bush/Gonzales were wrong in pushing Estrada first, who is not even known to be pro-life. The Dems won with their issue that Bush withheld relevant memos written by Estrada. Let's hope this deters Bush from picking a Souter for the Supreme Court.
    Surely you don't support the Democrats' demand for those memos? It is purely a means of delaying and defeating the nomination. Such memos have never been disclosed for any other nominee. All living former Solicitors General (four Democrats and three Republicans) have opposed releasing the memos. All of Estrada's superiors - the people who received and reviewed the memos - gave Estrada the highest possible commendation.

    Andy is right that the battle over Estrada is a practice exercise for the mother of all battles over the next Supreme Court vacancy. But he has it backwards when he says he hopes the failure (so far) to get Estrada confirmed deters Bush from picking a Souter for the Supreme Court.

    In fact, Bush is more likely to pick a Souter if he can't even get an Estrada on the Court of Appeals. That is why we have to win Estrada - to make it possible for Bush to pick a better choice for the Supreme Court.

    Remind me again, why is it so crucial to support Bush? Bruce just put it best Bush is combination of Jimmy Carter's piety and Lyndon Johnson's arrogance.
    Bush is the president. He won fair and square. There is no reasonable alternative before 2008. Deal with it.
    John and Liza perpetuate the liberal myth that Jefferson and Madison were great conservative thinkers. They weren't. Hamilton was head and shoulders above them. His Farewell Address for Washington is much better than anything Jefferson and Madison wrote. Hamilton's Federalist Papers were more frequent and better also.
    It is impossible to continue this discussion when Andy will not present facts, evidence or rational argument to support his conclusory assertions.
    Jefferson and Madison were hostile to religion, and not representative of the country then or now. The book Liza describes is probably Jefferson's wacky effort to rewrite the Gospels, 1800 after the fact. Madison pushed a wall of separation between church and state that liberals like to cite. As to the Constitution, Madison's ideas were mostly rejected and he missed the boat on the bicameral legislature. Neither Jefferson nor Madison were conservative presidents.
    Nonsense. TJ and JM were not in any way hostile to religion. They were respectful of religion in all their public statements and actions. TJ's famous collection of excerpts from the Gospels was not an "effort to rewrite" them, but to study them. The "wall of separation" was conceived for the purpose of protecting churches, not inhibiting them. You cannot find any statement or action of TJ or JM that indicates hostility to religion or that supports the kind of anti-religious secularism that is common today in public schools and the media.

    The Constitution was a collaborative effort. Of course JM did not write it by himself and some of his proposals were rejected, but he was the most active participant in those deliberations and, along with Hamilton, the most vigorous exponent of the final product. I don't know what you mean by saying he missed the boat on the bicameral legislature. JM is generally credited with primary responsibility for adoption of the "Virginia plan" whereby one house represents the states and the other house represents the people.

    I support the Demos' demand. We the taxpayers paid Estrada to write those memos. They are not confidential and ought to be public anyway. A FOIA request should get them. In Estrada's case, they are the best evidence of his competence and suitability for the court.

    The former Solicitor General opposition is all the more reason to release them. DoJ types was prosecutors to be promoted to judgeships without any scrutiny. Estrada is a Souter stealth candidate. No one knows where he stands on anything.

    John responds:

    Evidently Roger doesn't want Estrada to be confirmed or, at best, is indifferent to his fate. I think that is a big mistake.

    What Roger proposes is to reopen Estrada's qualifications and fitness for the court, hold new hearings, and take new evidence - a process that would consume months. That would be like asking U.S. soldiers now assembling in the Persian Gulf to question why they are there.

    It would be as if some 2nd Lieutenant asked Gen. Tommy Franks, "Tell me once again, sir, why are we here? Why do we have to disarm Saddam Hussein? Won't that destabilize the Middle East, inflame the Muslim world and create more recruits for al Qaeda? Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden, anyway?"

    There was plenty of time when Democrats controlled the Senate to review the people Bush nominated in May of 2001. That time is long passed. The only thing left to do is vote. Any Senator who feels he doesn't have enough information is free to vote against the nominee.

    All pending nominations should be brought to a floor voted in the Senate before the end of June, when a Supreme Court vacancy is expected.

    Yes, I am ambivalent about Estrada. The hearings have told us essentially nothing about his competence or philosophy.

    Andy responds:

    I agree with Roger that the government should release legal memos written by judicial nominees. Bush simply overplayed his secrecy-in-government shtick. Conservatives should be outraged that Bush/Gonzales tried and failed to confirm a nominee based on Souter-like tactics.

    Re Founders, John wrote, "TJ and JM were not in any way hostile to religion. They were respectful of religion in all their public statements and actions. TJ's famous collection of excerpts from the Gospels was not an "effort to rewrite" them, but to study them. The "wall of separation" was conceived for the purpose of protecting churches, not inhibiting them. You cannot find any statement or action of TJ or JM that indicates hostility to religion or that supports the kind of anti-religious secularism that is common today in public schools and the media."

    Jefferson and Madison were the secularists of their day. Jefferson thought he could do a better job with the Gospels than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did. Jefferson was not particularly conservative as president; neither was Madison. Madison gave us the dreadful "wall of separation."

    But politics aside, an objective observer must conclude that Hamilton was far more productive and insightful in his writings than Jefferson or Madison were. Did either Jefferson or Madison write anything notable by themselves? Madison was outdone by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers; Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was a group effort (featuring grammatical errors in key places, like "all men are created equal" and "unalienable rights," though some blame Adams for the latter error). Neither had anything remotely approaching Hamilton's brilliant Farewell Address.

    John is right in noting that Madison proposed two chambers of Congress, but the numbers in each chamber were in proportion to population. My objection was inartfully worded. I should have said that Madison missed the boat on the equal representation of the states, the linchpin of the Constitution and our history.

    Also, note that Hamilton fought well in the Revolutionary War, and gave his life in stopping the demonic Burr. Jefferson ran with Burr on his ticket! Madison did not fight in the War.

    John responds:
    So Andy sides with Chuck Schumer, who leads this unprecedented filibuster because he is convinced that Estrada would be a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. Shame on you!

    Secularist? That's just empty name calling. Read the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that is not a secularist document. You do support that law, don't you?

    There was nothing wrong with the "wall of separation" metaphor as Jefferson (not Madison) originally expressed it, or for 150 years thereafter. Its meaning was reinvented by Justice Hugo Black, beginning in the 1947 Everson case. It is grossly unfair to attribute Black's views to Jefferson or Madison.

    Andy keeps repeating the same assertions, but never supports them with evidence or argument. Madison's Federalist papers are just as important as Hamilton's. There are no grammatical errors in the Declaration of Independence.

    It is not true that Hamilton wrote Washington's Farewell Address all by himself. In addition to Hamilton, Madison and Washington made major contributions to that document, which went through many drafts as it was passed back and forth among those three men.

    I agree that Hamilton's writings are important and historic, but they lack the timeless elegance and eloquence of Jefferson's Declaration.

    Like so many provisions of the Constitution, that [state representation issue] was the product of compromise between conflicting interests in a legislative assembly. To say that Madison "missed the boat" merely because he didn't design the whole Constitution all by himself is completely absurd. Neither Madison nor Hamilton got their way entirely, but both supported the result.

    The "demonic Burr" also "fought well in the Revolutionary War." We didn't really have political tickets until after the 12th Amendment was passed in 1804. The Jefferson-Burr race in 1800 wasn't much of a ticket Burr conspired with the opposing party to deprive Jefferson of victory in the Electoral College, throwing the election into the House.

    Jefferson distrusted Burr even more than JFK distrusted LBJ. Jefferson dropped Burr when he ran for re-election in 1804, the year Burr shot Hamilton. In 1807, Jefferson had Burr arrested and charged with treason. The trial was conducted by Chief Justice Marshall, a political opponent of Jefferson who issued rulings favorable to Burr, resulting in Burr's acquittal.

    I wouldn't mind seeing a real debate on whether a Hispanic Clarence Thomas would be good or bad. I don't think Schumer could hold his own in such a debate.

    Andy responds to John:

    John replied, "So Andy sides with Chuck Schumer, who leads this unprecedented filibuster because he is convinced that Estrada would be a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. Shame on you!"

    There's nothing to suggest that Estrada would be a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. Chuck Schumer is wrong about many things.

    I'm opposed to the Souter stealth nomination strategy. Conservatives should be criticizing it so that it doesn't happen again.

    John wrote, "Secularist? That's just empty name calling. Read the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that is not a secularist document. You do support that law, don't you?"

    Certainly not as Jefferson originally wrote it. He attempted, as all opponents of religion do, to impose his own peculiar view of the world. You can see the original draft [here]. He tried to legislate his hostility to faith and free will, for example.

    John wrote, "There was nothing wrong with the 'wall of separation' metaphor as Jefferson (not Madison) originally expressed it, or for 150 years thereafter."

    The metaphor (which I think was Madison's) is inherently hostile to religion.

    John wrote, "Andy keeps repeating the same assertions, but never supports them with evidence or argument. Madison's Federalist papers are just as important as Hamilton's. There are no grammatical errors in the Declaration of Independence."

    Hamilton authored more Federalist Papers than Madison. Madison's goofy attack on factions in Federalist No. 10 is baseless. Liberals love to cite Madison and Jefferson because much of what they stood for was liberal.

    John wrote, "We didn't really have political tickets until after the 12th Amendment was passed in 1804. The Jefferson-Burr race in 1800 wasn't much of a ticket Burr conspired with the opposing party to deprive Jefferson of victory in the Electoral College, throwing the election into the House."

    Political parties began early in the Washington Administration. They were in full bloom by 1800.

    John wrote, "Jefferson distrusted Burr even more than JFK distrusted LBJ."

    Well, that isn't very comforting! JFK should be held accountable for picking LBJ, and Jefferson for running with Burr.

    All we know about Estrada is that he got good grades in college, he's friends with a right-wing columnist, and he got good recommendations from his DoJ supervisors. That's not enough.

    John responds to Andy:

    If the Dems succeed in blocking Estrada and the 13 other Court of Appeals nominees who were nominated over a year ago, until we have a Supreme Court vacancy, Bush will be forced to nominate a weaker, more Souter-like candidate for the Supreme Court. I am amazed and disappointed that Roger and Andy can't see that.
    Certainly not as Jefferson originally wrote it. He attempted, as all opponents of religion do, to impose his own peculiar view of the world. You can see the original draft at http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/religi.htm . He tried to legislate his hostility to faith and free will, for example.
    Well, there you have it Andy admits he opposes religious tolerance and freedom, a cornerstone of the American way of life. But he still doesn't explain his position, except to make baseless assertions that Jefferson was an opponent of religion who wanted to imposed his own peculiar view on the world, which is complete nonsense.

    As for Jefferson's original draft, apparently several phrases from Jefferson's preamble were struck out before the bill was passed, but I can't see that the deleted phrases make any substantive difference. Andy still won't say precisely what he objects to.

    The metaphor (which I think was Madison's) is inherently hostile to religion.
    Another assertion without evidence or argument. Clearly the metaphor was intended to protect religious practice, and did so for 150 years until Justice Hugo Black. Why don't you spend your time attacking Black instead of Jefferson?
    Hamilton authored more Federalist Papers than Madison. Madison's goofy attack on factions in Federalist No. 10 is baseless. Liberals love to cite Madison and Jefferson because much of what they stood for was liberal.
    More baseless assertions. Madison was one of 3 authors and he wrote approximately 1/3rd of the papers. Madison's discussion of factions, far from being goofy or baseless, is an absolute cornerstone of our entire structure of government. Andy persistently tries to pigeonhole various Framers as liberal or conservative, terms which Andy never defines and the Framers never used.
    John wrote, "Jefferson distrusted Burr even more than JFK distrusted LBJ." Well, that isn't very comforting! JFK should be held accountable for picking LBJ, and Jefferson for running with Burr.
    And Reagan for picking Bush? Before Carter-Mondale, the VP had no role in governing the country and his sole role was to hold a lottery ticket redeemable in the event of the president's death. VPs were selected solely for political purposes. Of all Jefferson's good and bad qualities, to impugn him by reason of his arm's-length association with his first VP, Aaron Burr, whom Jefferson later prosecuted for treason, seems exceedingly weak.
    Andy responds:
    John wrote, "If the Dems succeed in blocking Estrada and the 13 other Court of Appeals nominees who were nominated over a year ago, until we have a Supreme Court vacancy, Bush will be forced to nominate a weaker, more Souter-like candidate for the Supreme Court. I am amazed and disappointed that Roger and Andy can't see that."

    It was the Bush/Gonzales stealth strategy that led to the Estrada debacle. The only moral here is the same as in the Souter fiasco don't go the stealth route. The filibuster only succeeded because the Dems could make the Republicans look like they were hiding something. If Bush does picker a Souter-like candidate for the Supreme Court, then he renders himself unelectable in 2004.

    John wrote," Well, there you have it Andy admits he opposes religious tolerance and freedom, a cornerstone of the American way of life."

    John's conclusion is a non sequitur. I said nothing of the kind.

    John wrote, "As for Jefferson's original draft, apparently several phrases from Jefferson's preamble were struck out before the bill was passed, but I can't see that the deleted phrases make any substantive difference. Andy still won't say precisely what he objects to."

    The stricken language makes enormous difference -- which was why it had to be deleted. Jefferson wanted the legislature to deny free will and deny the role of faith. Jefferson's view was the opposite of Hamilton, who wrote in the Farewell Address that religion and morality are the foundation of government.

    John wrote, "Clearly the metaphor [wall of separation] was intended to protect religious practice ..."

    Not clear at all. Madison and Jefferson wanted religion out of government. Period. They were wrong.

    John wrote, "Madison's discussion of factions, far from being goofy or baseless, is an absolute cornerstone of our entire structure of government."

    You really have to show your work there. Third parties are factions; abolitionists constituted a faction; single issue groups like pro-lifers are factions; religious movements are factions. Factions are essential and good. To oppose factions, as Madison did, is to oppose principles in politics.

    John wrote, "Of all Jefferson's good and bad qualities, to impugn him by reason of his arm's-length association with his first VP, Aaron Burr, whom Jefferson later prosecuted for treason, seems exceedingly weak."

    1807 is a bit late in the game. Hamilton should not have had to shoulder the entire burden of stopping Burr in 1804.

    My sources say that Jefferson and Burr were political enemies. What do you think Jefferson should have done -- challenge Burr to a duel?

    The stealth strategy is justified by the notion that the best judge is someone who is smart, as evidenced by resume credentials, and unbiased, as evidenced by a lack of public opinions. The strategy is foolish and contradictory. Smart people tend to have opinions. Not very much intelligence is really required to be a judge. Judges make rulings based on their own personal political views. That's why these judicial nominations are controversial. So shouldn't we know what those political views are, insofar as they relate to potential decisions?

    John responds to Andy:

    It was the Bush/Gonzales stealth strategy that led to the Estrada debacle. The only moral here is the same as in the Souter fiasco don't go the stealth route. The filibuster only succeeded because the Dems could make the Republicans look like they were hiding something. If Bush does picker a Souter-like candidate for the Supreme Court, then he renders himself unelectable in 2004.
    But Estrada was named to the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. You have to start somewhere! He can't develop the necessary record until he gets on the court and starts judging cases. If he had been given a fair hearing and confirmed promptly, we would already have a 1-2-year track record and paper trail to know whether or not he is fit for the Supreme Court. Following your advice, we will never know.
    The stricken language makes enormous difference -- which was why it had to be deleted. Jefferson wanted the legislature to deny free will and deny the role of faith. Jefferson's view was the opposite of Hamilton, who wrote in the Farewell Address that religion and morality are the foundation of government.
    The phrases Andy objects to were deleted with Jefferson's and Madison's approval. It was the amended bill which Madison got passed in the Virginia legislature, and which Jefferson engraved on his tombstone as his proudest achievement. Andy still has not stated whether he unreservedly supports that revised bill - the bill that actually passed. Contrary to Andy, the Farewell Address does not say that religion and morality are the foundation of government. It says that good government depends on respect for religion and morality among the people, giving as an example the fact that courts of justice rely upon witnesses who attach a sense of religious obligation to the oaths they swear. The distinction is subtle, but essential. There is no evidence that Madison or Jefferson disagreed with this.
    John wrote, "Clearly the metaphor [wall of separation] was intended to protect religious practice ..." Not clear at all. Madison and Jefferson wanted religion out of government. Period. They were wrong.
    No, they only wanted the government not to privilege or subsidize one Christian denomination over another. They never objected to nondenominational prayer in public institutions. There is no evidence Madison or Jefferson would have supported the modern concept of religion-free government which originated with Justice Hugo Black. Despite a bitter, 20-year political rivalry between the party of Jefferson and Madison versus the Federalist party of Hamilton and Adams, I know of no evidence of any disagreement between the two parties on this issue. They all agreed on religious toleration, which was passed in every state soon after it was passed in Virginia.
    John wrote, "Madison's discussion of factions, far from being goofy or baseless, is an absolute cornerstone of our entire structure of government." You really have to show your work there. Third parties are factions; abolitionists constituted a faction; single issue groups like pro-lifers are factions; religious movements are factions. Factions are essential and good. To oppose factions, as Madison did, is to oppose principles in politics.
    By factions Madison meant economic interests. Ideological factions were unknown then. Madison did not oppose factions; he simply recognized that they are inevitable.

    The challenge of preventing a small but cohesive and determined faction from gaining control of the machinery of government, and using that machinery to oppress the large majority whose interests are more diffuse, is one of Madison's brilliant contributions to political thought. It is a problem that is still with us today.

    John wrote, "Of all Jefferson's good and bad qualities, to impugn him by reason of his arm's-length association with his first VP, Aaron Burr, whom Jefferson later prosecuted for treason, seems exceedingly weak." 1807 is a bit late in the game. Hamilton should not have had to shoulder the entire burden of stopping Burr in 1804.
    As Roger says, perhaps Jefferson should have challenged Burr to a duel!
    Andy responds:
    Madison's Federalist No. 10 is here.

    He's more concerned about religious factions than economic ones. He clearly says that "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

    He shows a tempered view of religion "If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control." And later, "A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source."

    On Estrada, John said, "But Estrada ... can't develop the necessary record until he gets on the court and starts judging cases. If he had been given a fair hearing and confirmed promptly, we would already have a 1-2-year track record and paper trail to know whether or not he is fit for the Supreme Court."

    That's the Souter nomination approach, and it must be abandoned by conservatives. Thomas was not the Souter approach; Thomas was a longtime favorite of Reagan, ran the EEOC, was quoted as criticizing Roe, and had other conservative credentials. 1-2 years on the DC Circuit wouldn't tell us anything about what someone will do on the Supreme Court.

    As to Washington's Farewell Address, John reading is biased. Here is the relevant passage, showing that Hamilton's view is the antithesis of Jefferson/Madison's hostility to religion:

    "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened…."

     
    Drug the crazies
    Liza writes:
    Yeah, and just in this morning's Post there was an article about a schizophrenic man who had paranoid delusions that various government agencies were out to get him. He killed his girlfriend during one of his delusions. I have no idea whether Sell truly is dangerous, but he has done plenty to tick off the judges, including spitting on a female magistrate, intimidating a witness, and allegedly paying someone to murder an FBI agent. I know not all of that is at issue in the Supreme Court case, but the guy isn't exactly a choir boy. People who obstruct the justice system are usually dealt with harshly. The female magistrate is an intelligent, sensible, older woman whom I used know when she worked as an associate in my firm. She is not a wacko. None of you Sell advocates has explained how to comply with the justice system's need to eventually try a person who is accused of a felony but is currently incompetent to stand trial. To say that there is no need ever to try him is not a viable solution. It may well be debatable whether Sell is incompetent (since he has done well on the competency tests) and whether he should be allowed out on bail. But there still has to be a way to ensure that he stands trial eventually.
    Are you referring to this story about a killer who was found not guilty for reasons of insanity 10 years ago, and is now being let out?

    If Sell is a killer, then he deserves whatever he gets. But I base my opinion on the judge's order that Sell be drugged. That order was based solely a dubious psychiatric evaluation and on accusations that he overbilled dental insurance. For that, he is to be doped up with experimental anti-psychotic drugs that are not even FDA-approved.

    Now Liza suggests that the real reason for the drugging is that Sell disrespected a judge. If so, that is even worse! That means that a judge is ordering the drugging of a nonviolent defendant because of personal animosities on the part of the judge, and covering it up by lying in the official order. No matter how you slice it, these St. Louis magistrates seem corrupt in their abuse of power, and much worse than what Sell is accused of.

    John responds:

    Perhaps Sell should be charged and punished for contempt of court for spitting on the magistrate, but that is entirely separate from the Medicaid fraud allegation for which he has been imprisoned the last 5 years. It is shocking and unacceptable that the court would use the spitting incident to affect the disposition of the Medicaid charges.

    I agree with Roger that the judge presiding over the Sell case is evidently not impartial and should be removed from the case. The judge's anger at Sell may be understandable, but it has nevertheless corrupted the process. Yesterday Liza lectured us about the administration of justice; surely it is equally important for the court to maintain impartiality at all times, both in fact and in appearance.

    Liza responds:
    I am not suggesting that the real reason for the drugging is that Sell "disrespected" a judge. But his actions tend to confirm judicial conclusions that he is incompetent to stand trial and/or is a threat to the orderly administration of justice.

    John asserts in a separate e-mail that the magistrate who was spat upon is unfairly using that incident to affect her handling of the Medicaid fraud charges. What is the evidence of that? The current posture of the case is that the everyone involved other than Sell himself thinks that Sell is incompetent to stand trial. The prosecution wants to get the trial over with, using drugs if needed to render Sell competent. No one has ever reached the merits of the case. I don't know whether the magistrate is the judge who would preside over the fraud trial. Moreover, the lower-court decision about drugging was upheld by the court of appeals, so this is not a case of one judge running amok based on personal prejudice.

    Liza, the trial judge, and appellate judges all mention the spitting incident, and then claim that it has nothing to do with the drugging order. So why do they all keep mentioning it? The only reason I can see is that judges like to stick up for each other, and like to punish anyone who disses a judge.

    Sure, it is not just one judge run amok. It is one judge, one magistrate judge, a 2-1 appellate majority, at least one federal prosecutor, two federal shrinks, a prison warden, and probably a few others. Then there are those who tried to use Sell's case to derail the Ashcroft nomination. It is enough to give someone paranoid delusions of the persecutory type.

    If this happened in China, we'd all agree that would be a human rights violation. If Sell is crazy, then he shouldn't be treated like a criminal. If he's not crazy, then he shouldn't be drugged.

     
    RI fire investigation
    John sends R.I. Club Fire Puts Heat on Inspectors and Tour Manager Pyro Documents Destroyed. I think some of these people are lying to try to avoid jail. We'll soon see.

    Dividing blame between the band and the nightclub may be like dividing blame when someone going the wrong way on a one-way street hits a drunk driver. Both are sufficiently at fault to get plenty of blame.

     
    Boycott Delta
    Liza sends this Boycott Delta site about Delta airlines doing credit checks on passengers. She also says San Jose Airport has been identified as one of the 3 airports where Delta will require background checks on its passengers.
     
    Copyright clause not like 2A
    John sent this article drawing an analogy between the 2 constitutional provisions with a prefatory clause -- the copyright clause and the gun amendment (2A). The US SC ignored the prefatory clause in the Eldred copyright case, so it might ignore it in the 2A.

    I don't buy it. The provisions are not similar at all. One describes a power of Congress, and the other a right of the people. In the copyright clause, the preface is not just stating the purpose, it is stating the power that is the essence of the matter ("The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress ..."). In the 2A, the preface is just stating a fact that helps explain the gun rights that people have and that are stated in the rest of the 2A.

    The article says:

    those who challenged the 1998 law relied heavily on its prefatory clause - "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
    But that's not even true. Lessig and the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence about the promotion of progress, and took the peculiar (and self-defeating) position that the prefatory clause does not bind Congress.
     
    Is Sell crazy?
    Joe writes:
    Is there anybody who knows Sell who doesn't think he's crazy?
    John responds:
    Lots of crazy people are walking around, driving, working, supporting themselves, voting. We don't lock them up.

    Where is the evidence that Sell is a danger to himself or others?

    The court did not claim that Sell was a danger to anyone. The forced drugging theory was based purely on making him competent for trial. Presumably he could go off the drugs at the end of the trial. Not sure if he has to stay drugged for the appeal.

    I agree with John that a lot of the population is crazy, and that is not reason enough to lock them up or drug them.

    The whole Sell case is a farce. if the magistrate judge were really concerned about Sell being able to competently direct his defense, then he'd check to see if Sell's lawyer is current doing what Sell wants. Currently Sell's lawyer is acting contrary to Sell's wishes, according to the St. Louis paper. So I can only conclude that the judge and lawyers want Sell drugged for their own purposes.

    George writes:

    The state should force crazy people to take their medication, whether they are on trial or not. Those people are suffering from a chemical brain imbalance, and they are not thinking clearly enough to realize that they need the drugs. I personally know someone who says his life was saved by Prozac. It is a miracle drug.
    The evidence that prozac and similar drugs are helpful is actually very weak. Here is an American Psychological Association analysis of the benefits, based on the data that was submitted to the FDA by the drugmakers. The researchers had to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the FDA data. They found that the effect of the drugs was only marginally better than that of placebos. And that is according to the drugmakers' own studies. Your friend on prozac might be doing just as well on placebos. There just aren't any convincing studies that prozac is any better.
     
    Scapegoats and France
    John responds:
    [Andy's "scapegoat culture" post] is a lot of pontificating, but I still have no idea where you stand on the dog case I presented. How about answering the question?

    I agree that the neocon-orchestrated frenzy of France-bashing has gotten way out of hand. The quotes Roger posted are cheap shots and most of them are not funny anyway.

    With regard to the pending crusade against Iraq, I doubt there is any place for gratitude on the part of either France or the U.S. Every country must pursue its own interests. France and Russia, which are threatening to veto a new U.N. resolution, are the two countries with the largest financial stake in the current Iraqi regime. So be it.

    [Andy's Hamilton post] is a mish-mash of ill-founded prejudices. Every sentence above is either patently absurd or relies on questionable assumptions. How can one even attempt to reply to such bare assertions made without any factual evidence or rational analysis.

    Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were all world-class geniuses. They were all essential and critical to the founding of our nation and to what we call conservatism. Andy takes armchair pontificating to a ridiculous extreme when he claims that Hamilton was brighter, more productive, or more conservative than the others. It is complete nonsense.

    Equally far-fetched is the claim that Jefferson and Madison had "non-conservative views of religion." The best evidence of Jefferson's and Madison's views of religion is the Virginia statute of religious freedom which they drafted and which their leadership got passed. Within a decade, similar laws were passed in all the other colonies/states. Surely you are not suggesting that anything in that law is inconsistent with modern American conservativism. That law, the precursor of the First Amendment, is a bulwark of our freedom.

    Those guys led a revolution. That makes them radicals, not conservatives.

    Liza writes:

    I agree with John. I note that Jefferson and Madison (as well as Washington) came from Virginia, which Andy recently pooh-poohed as a source of intellectual leadership in the revolutionary period. As to Jefferson's views on religion, I have a copy of a book he put together for the specific purpose of compiling the moral teachings of Jesus. He thought it important to assemble Jesus's moral statements in the Gospels in one slim, easy-to-use volume. So Jefferson was hardly anti-Christian.
    Andy responds:
    As I predicted, the Dems just won in filibustering the Estrada nomination. Bush/Gonzales were wrong in pushing Estrada first, who is not even known to be pro-life. The Dems won with their issue that Bush withheld relevant memos written by Estrada. Let's hope this deters Bush from picking a Souter for the Supreme Court.

    Remind me again, why is it so crucial to support Bush? Bruce just put it best Bush is combination of Jimmy Carter's piety and Lyndon Johnson's arrogance.

    John and Liza perpetuate the liberal myth that Jefferson and Madison were great conservative thinkers. They weren't. Hamilton was head and shoulders above them. His Farewell Address for Washington is much better than anything Jefferson and Madison wrote. Hamilton's Federalist Papers were more frequent and better also.

    Jefferson and Madison were hostile to religion, and not representative of the country then or now. The book Liza describes is probably Jefferson's wacky effort to rewrite the Gospels, 1800 after the fact. Madison pushed a wall of separation between church and state that liberals like to cite. As to the Constitution, Madison's ideas were mostly rejected and he missed the boat on the bicameral legislature. Neither Jefferson nor Madison were conservative presidents.

    There is still no vote on Estrada. Today, Bush complained about a possible filibuster. I agree with the Democrats that Bush should reveal Estrada's memos (that the taxpayers paid him to write), and that Estrada should answer questions about his legal philosophies. I want to know where he stands on antitrust law. He would sit on the DC Circuit where unorthodox legal personal philosophies of the judge derailed the Microsoft case. What would Estrada have done? If Estrada is unable to articulate a legal philosophy about such matters, then he is unfit for the court.

    The Jefferson Bible was an attempt to separate the ethical teachings of Jesus from the religious dogma. Nothing anti-religious about that. The wall of separation protects religious freedom.

     
    Interstate wine sales legal?
    John sends this story about Ken Starr being hired to get the courts to forbid states from certain wine sales regulations. John says: "I disagree with Starr's position. The 21st Amendment gives states the power to regulate the sale of wine."

    Wednesday, Mar 05, 2003
     
    Jefferson v. Hamilton
    Andy writes:
    Conservatives like to idolize Jefferson and Madison, but they were not particularly conservative or competent presidents. Both had non-conservative views of religion, which are often used against conservatives today. Moreover, Madison's role in authoring the Constitution is exaggerated, as is Jefferson's insight for the Declaration of Independence.

    Alexander Hamilton was brighter and more productive than both of them. His Farewell Address, which he wrote for Washington, is more conservative and outshines anything Jefferson and Madison did. Hamilton was also far more important than Jefferson and Madison in arguing for ratification of the Constitution.

     
    C. T. Sell
    Liza writes:
    I read in the Post-Dispatch this week that Sell's lawyer considers Sell incompetent to stand trial. Sell disputes this, but nobody else involved in the case takes him seriously on this point.

    As for John's traffic misdemeanor analogy, I presume that in cases of minor offenses there could be a plea bargain to minimize detention.

    I don't know enough about the history of Sell's case to know why he isn't out on bond pending trial.

    Yes, the St. Louis paper said:
    Sell continues to plead for a trial. He argues that he is competent to stand trial. Sell has passed a course and got a perfect score on a test to determine whether he is competent to stand trial, prison records show. Yet, Sell's own lawyer, Short, along with Dreeben continue to argue that Sell is mentally unfit for trial.
    Saying that there could be a plea bargain is begging the question. All plea bargains are based on expectations about what is likely to happen at trial. Unless you figure out what a trial might do, then there can be no reasonable plea bargain.

    Sell's bond was revoked because he was accused of intimidating a witness by pointing his finger.

    The problem here is that there is a vindictive and abusive magistrate judge. Sell has even been sold out by his own lawyer, as his lawyer refuses to carry out Sell's wishes.

     
    Dogs v. Pyro
    John sends this story about a dog mauling a second-grader at a school playground, and writes:
    "It was an accident," he said.

    Under the rules Andy has adopted for the Rhode Island nightclub fire, who should or should not be civilly or criminally responsible for this, and why?

    Liza says:
    Andy, if I were you I'd be a little nervous about what your dog might do if it escaped.

    For those of you who haven't visited Andy, he has a dangerous dog chained in his backyard.

    Andy responds:
    John describes someone's pit bull trespassing a school playground and severely injuring a student. He asks "Under the rules Andy has adopted for the Rhode Island nightclub fire, who should or should not be civilly or criminally responsible for this, and why?"

    The situations are not analogous. If the student had been attending a pit bull convention, and this happened, then an analogy could be drawn.

    I generally oppose the scapegoat culture bred by our media. That someone is injured does not automatically mean someone else should go to jail. Wall Street has been greatly harmed by the notion that if a public company plummets in value, then someone should go to jail.

    Roger's site piles on ridicule of France concerning issues of war. But how many of those mocking France realize that it is the main reason for our own independence? Maybe the French should be ridiculing us for lack of gratitude.

    The reality is that Islam has taken over France as its most devout religion. It's unlikely France will ever support any invasion of another Islamic country. Will Islam eventually capture England too?

    Dog law is strict liability. The dog owner is responsible, regardless of intent.

    No, I don't think that France is the main reason for our independence. We would have gotten indendepence with or without France's help. France has been thru 5 republics since then.

     
    US Supreme Court
    The US Supreme Court has been in the news with some flawed laws: Megan's Law, 3 Strikes, Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). I usually side with the free speech advocates who are attacking the CIPA, but I can't agree with the lower court decision. The CIPA says that libraries must use internet porn filtering if they accept federal money for the computers. The lower court said that it is unconstitutional for the libraries to use filtering. How can filtering be unconstitutional? It is almost impossible to manage a network without doing some filtering. On my personal computer, I have filters set up for spam, ads, pop-ups, worm attacks, etc. They are useful. Millions of people do Google searches with a porn filter turned on (voluntarily). The people who are fighting CIPA are like the people who argue that telemarketers and spammers have a free speech right to waste my time. Filtering is a good thing, and libraries should be allowed to use it.

    Update: Even Dalia Lithwick, the idiotic Slate legal columnist, has a hard time siding with her ACLU friends. She mocks Ted Olson for saying that filtering enhances free speech, but in the end she almost agrees with it.

     
    French quotes
    Bob sends these:
    "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

    "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." --Norman Schwartzkopf

    "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." ---- Marge Simpson

    "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure" ---Jacques Chirac, President of France "As far as France is concerned, you're right." ---Rush Limbaugh,

    "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." --- Regis Philbin

    "The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know." --- P.J O'Rourke (1989)

    "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." ---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

    "You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people." --Conan O'Brien

    "I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" ---Jay Leno

    "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." --David Letterman

    How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? One. He holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.

    Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.

     
    ACLU invades privacy
    John sends this story about the ACLU making some email gaffes. It just paid a $10k fine for some related privacy violations.

    Tuesday, Mar 04, 2003
     
    Andy on Sell
    Andy writes:
    Now the conservatives on the Supreme Court are trying to duck the Sell case on jurisdictional grounds. It's 50/50 whether the pro-Sell coalition of 4 liberals plus Kennedy can hold it together to win. The coalition has an outside shot of attracting Thomas in case it loses Kennedy or Breyer.

    It's amazing to me how unsympathetic the St. Louis community is to Dr. Sell. Even if Sell wins before the Supreme Court, the legal strategy of his St. Louis attorney may lead to permanent confinement at a prison hospital. That's a brutal punishment for someone who seems intelligent and sane to many who know or have corresponded with him.

    Liza wrote, "The length of Sell's pre-trial detention relative to his maximum possible sentence is really not relevant. Detention can't be used to avoid trial."

    John used to say the same thing, until I asked him "why not?" The State has no interest in trying someone who has already been punished more than his maximum sentence.

    Re inferno, John writes, "OK, so you are retracting your support for bankrupting the town, the manufacturer and the dealer of the soundproofing material?"

    I never supported such bankruptcy. I was only observing the obvious, while noting that many of the finger-pointers will be sued for stating their connection.

    John writes, "Of course, the band did not intend to burn down the club, but they did intend to start the fire. That was an inherently dangerous activity for which the law imposes a duty of care - a duty the band clearly breached. There is no requirement for 'clear statutory notice.'"

    Well, if we're going to apply tort concepts of "duty" here, then John should include how the participants "assumed the risk" under standard tort principles.

    The reality is that pyrotechnics has been proven to be safe in hundreds or thousands of performances. It was the highly flammable fire-proofing that caused the RI inferno, and culprit is the copyrighted regulations that caused everyone (including fire inspectors) to miss it. The blame is in the law, not the people acting with lawful intentions.

    I thought that the Sell article in the St. Louis paper was more favorable to Sell than the articles I saw elsewhere. So I don't know why Andy thinks the St. Louis community is unsympathetic to Sell. Maybe just a couple of St. Louis judges who appear to have some sort of personal grudge against Sell.

    All you know is that Scalia is interested in ducking the issue. I don't think that will happen. Scalia is not going to get a majority to say that Sell has to be drugged before he can complain about it.

    The state does sometimes try someone who is already serving a life sentence. Why does it have an interest in doing that? My guess is that it doesn't bother, in most cases.

    Sell has a right to a speedy trial. If the feds imprison him longer than his maximum sentence while awaiting trial, then I say that they've blown their chance to punish him properly. The more compelling argument is that the feds should really have an extremely strong reason for forcibly drugging a defendant. Even if the feds have some interest in convicting him of a crime for which no additional punishment is possible, then that interest is surely not enough to justify forced drugging.

    Andy responds:

    Roger wrote, "I thought that the Sell article in the St. Louis paper was more favorable to Sell than the articles I saw elsewhere. So I don't know why Andy thinks the St. Louis community is unsympathetic to Sell. Maybe justa couple of St. Louis judges who appear to have some sort of personal grudge against Sell."

    There is one reporter on the Post-Dispatch who has written good stories about Sell. But that is hardly indicative of the community sentiment. Sell has been locked up and brutally treated in a prison hospital without a trial for over 5 years, yet essentially no support or outrage by the St. Louis bourgeois or elite.

    Roger wrote, "All you know is that Scalia is interested in ducking the issue. ..."

    Not true. Rehnquist and O'Connor requested supplemental briefing on jurisdiction, I think. Breyer asked questions suggesting he wants to duck the issue too. My guess is that Sell needs the 3 other liberals, plus Kennedy and Thomas to win. But Rehnquist and Scalia are going to pull them hard.

    Liza is unsympathetic to Sell. Does she represent the St. Louis bourgeois/elite?

    Gumma writes: "Linda Greenhouse thinks the SC will duck deciding on jurisdiction."

    Liza responds:

    Many legal rules seem harsh until you consider the negative consequences for the judicial system of a contrary rule.

    When there is enough evidence to try someone, there has to be a way to make that person stand trial - or else remain in detention until the trial occurs. If the person is not competent to stand trial, he must be detained until he is competent. The judicial system cannot tolerate a situation where someone avoids trial and conviction merely by sitting in jail for the length of his maximum possible sentence. Orderly administration of justice demands that if the person is guilty, a conviction appear on his record. Otherwise the guilty will emerge eventually with a clean criminal record.

    Other legal rules are similarly harsh but generally necessary, e.g., ignorance of the law is no excuse, no estoppel of government by its agents, etc.

    It is not that I am unsympathetic to Sell. But apparently he really is mentally ill. His lawyer and his mother both think so. Admittedly, there are other indications that he is sane, such as his test scores and his behavior in certain interviews, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to his mother and his lawyer, plus the prosecution. Drugs are currently the best available treatment for the mentally ill. I am uncomfortable with allowing the government to forcibly drug anyone, but it seems to be the only alternative to indefinite incarceration. I don't know, but it is entirely possible his family thinks taking the drugs would be the best thing he could do.

    Whether the government should be able to force the drugs on him in lieu of indefinite detention is an interesting question. But if he won't voluntarily take the steps necessary to become competent to stand trial, he had better be willing to endure indefinite detention. Release is not an option.

    John responds:
    I am surprised at Liza's uncritical acceptance of the notion that Dr. Sell is not competent to stand trial. What is the basis for that assumption?

    I thought Dr. Sell was eager to go to trial. Did his former lawyer actually plead - contrary to his client's wishes, instructions, and best interests - that Sell was incompetent to stand trial? If so, that would have been 4 or 5 years ago. How can Liza think that Dr. Sell would still be bound by such a damaging concession?

    It is no answer to say that his former lawyer and his mother think he is mentally ill. The term mental illness, if it means anything, does not necessarily preclude competence to stand trial, any more than it precludes competence to make a will or competence to drive a car.

    How many people out there driving to work every day are mentally ill? Suppose one of them has a fender-bender and is cited for a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 30 days to 1 year in county jail. Does Liza really think the administration of justice requires that he be confined for the rest of his life in the Springfield mental prison on the theory that he is incompetent to stand trial on the evidence against him?

    If not, what's the difference with Dr. Sell? I don't see it.

    I reject the claim that Sell's lawyer believes that Sell is crazy or unfit for trial. We don't know that. All we know is that his lawyer has adopted mental illness as a legal strategy.

    I also question whether anyone has ever been made competent for trial by taking anti-psychotic drugs. The evidence for the effectiveness of those drugs is very weak.

    The obvious thing to do is to just let Sell go, because he has already been punished enough, his crimes were minor, and the feds failed to give him a speedy trial. But let's look at the contrary rule, as Liza suggests. That would mean the feds would maintain a Soviet-style gulag for political dissidents. Political dissidents would be rounded up on petty charges, held without trial, declared mentally unfit, and forcibly given psychotropic drugs. Remember, Sell's only mental illness is that he belongs to a fringe political group and he is paranoid that the feds are out to get him.

     
    Avoiding patent infringement
    A discussion in misc.int-property concerned whether the principals of a start-up company can be found personally liable for the company's patent infringement. Lee found this:
    The cases are legion holding corporate officers and directors personally liable for "participating in, inducing, and approving acts of patent infringement" by a corporation. Federal Circuit Chief Judge Markey, writing in _Fromson v. Citiplate_, 886 F.2d 1300, 1304, 12 USPQ2d 1299, 1303 (1989).
    No one could find any of these cases. Here is a later one, where the same court found no personal liability. This 1996 Fed. Cir. case says that it is a matter of piercing the corporate veil. The CEO (who was also the principal shareholder) of the corporation avoided liability.
    In Manville Sales the court stated that "to be personally liable for Paramount's infringement under section 271(a), there must be evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil." Id. at 552, 16 USPQ2d at 1593. ... In sum, unless the corporate structure is a sham, as is not here asserted, personal liability for inducement to infringe is not automatic but must be supported by personal culpability. The district court did not find bad faith or fraud or culpable intent on the part of Mr. Holden. The court erred in imposing liability although the corporate veil was not pierced. The ruling that Mr. Holden is personally liable for Custom's infringement is reversed. Hoover v. Custom Metalcraft & Holden, 1996
    The consensus seems to be that if an entrepreneur wants to go into business making and marketing his potentially patent-infringing product idea, he needs to:
  • Keep his mouth shut about patent infringement.
  • Realize that his lay opinions about infringement are probably wrong.
  • Get a competent opinion that his product does not infringe.
  • Incorporate.
  • Make sure the corporation is fully funded.
  • Get insurance covering infringement (expensive, but in this case well the cost.
  • When notified of infringement concerning a patent that you knew nothing about take appropriate action in response. Don't "let the lawyers work it out".

    Anne wants to know if a retailer has any liability for selling a product that is later found to be patent-infringing. The answer is yes, but the manufacturer is responsible for paying any damages. The retailer should be able to get an indemnification from the supplier.

  •  
    No DMCA repeal
    The big computer companies do not want to repeal the obnoxious and anti-consumer aspects of the DMCA. See BSA press release.
     
    Sendmail bug
    The popular unix mailer Sendmail has a buffer-overflow bug, C-Net says. A piece of email passing thru a server could conceivably take over the server. Maybe it is time to retire that monster. The manual for using it is 1000 pages long, and all it does is send and receive email.
     
    Feminist Fantasies
    Here is a review of Feminist Fantasies.
     
    Medical malpractice or statistical malpractice
    A NY Times op-ed gives various statistics that purport to show that the medical malpractice problem is really a failure of state medical boards to discipline physicians. Eg, Pennsylvania has a high rate of physicians with several malpractice payments. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of PA physicians are incompetent. Maybe state law makes it easier to sue physicians there. Maybe insurance practice is to settle claims with payments more often. Maybe the state has more HMOs or does riskier procedures. There could be a lot of explanations.

    More importantly, maybe most malpractice payments are not for malpractice at all, but for honest mistakes being made by competent physicians. Everyone makes mistakes. No matter how strict the state medical boards are, 50% of the physicians will make an above average number of mistakes.

    I do agree that the malpractice payment info should be public, but the public should also understand that a payment by an insurance company is not proof of incompetence.


    Monday, Mar 03, 2003
     
    RI inferno
    John responds to Andy:
    Liza's response to (John re RI inferno) is correct. Prosser says nothing about crime, which does require mens rea. We shouldn't be jailing people for accidents, unless there is clear statutory notice (like drunk driving). Pyrotechnic entertainment has been used successfully hundreds, or thousands, of times without anyone complaining or passing any laws against it. That's probably why the audience was at the nightclub! Case closed. People should be speaking out against this RI witchhunt, and focus their ire on the politicians and regulatory scheme.
    OK, so you are retracting your support for bankrupting the town, the manufacturer and the dealer of the soundproofing material?

    Never mind the difference between civil and criminal liability. That is a red herring. The question is who is most responsible? I say the person who intentionally started the fire - the band.

    Of course, the band did not intend to burn down the club, but they did intend to start the fire. That was an inherently dangerous activity for which the law imposes a duty of care - a duty the band clearly breached. There is no requirement for "clear statutory notice."

    I don't think that Andy ever favored bankrupting the city. I think that he was just lamenting that fact that a lot of big lawsuits against all the deep pockets will be the likely outcome.

    The band did not intend to start any fire -- they just wanted some pyrotechnics. I don't agree that the band is any more liable. Lining the ceiling with exposed flammable styrofoam seems inherently dangerous to me. Sooner or later, that was probably going to burn, whether anyone used pyrotechnics or not.

    The band was just trying to put on a show. The nightclub was trying to save money. I agree with Andy that we should not be jailing people for accidents. Accidents happen.

     
    Forced drugging of Tom Sell
    The St. Louis paper reports on today's US Supreme Court hearing on the forced drugging of C.T. Sell. It says:
    Justice Antonin Scalia hammered away at Sell's lawyer, Barry A. Short, over whether Sell's case would cause a dilemma for the courts: The federal prosecutors can't bring Sell to trial because of his mental condition. And, Sell refuses to take the medicine, so he's not fit for trial. "I'm truly concerned to the extent that this … could disrupt trials," Scalia said. "It's just a crazy situation. What can be done about it?" ...

    By ordering that the government has the right to forcibly medicate defendants such as Sell, [Deputy Solicitor General Michael R.] Dreeben said, it will "maintain social order and peace."

    Dreeben said: "It is the government's position that any felony is serious enough" to warrant forcibly medicating defendants.

    Scary stuff. The feds have a problem with trying defendants who are unfit for trial, regardless of today's case. The question is whether the prosecutors' problem can be slight reduced by forced drugging. The drugging will only make the defendants fit for trial in some cases, if any.

    Some facts favoring Sell are that (1) his alleged crime is just insurance overbilling, not a violent crime, (2) he has already served more than his maximum sentence, and (3) his alleged mental problem is paranoia that the feds are out to get him, and it appears that the feds really are out to get him.

    The St. Louis paper says:

    Sell, 53, has been in a federal prison hospital for more than five years awaiting his trial. Prison psychiatrists insist Sell is too mentally ill, suffering from a delusional disorder of the prosecutorial type. Sell has said repeatedly that he already knows, as a doctor, that the drugs will alter his brain and he is terrified of that prospect.

    Sell had worked for decades as a dentist when in 1997 federal agents raided his Town and Country dental office and charged him with Medicaid and insurance fraud.

    After Sell posted bond and was freed, federal prosecutors charged Sell with attempting to kill a witness by pointing his finger at her while he was out on bond. Later, the government added a charge that Sell offered less than $300 for someone to kill an FBI agent.

    Sell often told a story about how he was called to active duty in the Army Reserves to Waco just days before the Branch Davidian compound burned while under siege by the federal government. Prison doctors use that story to prove that Sell is delusional.

    Yet, Sell's job for the army as a major is to identify human remains through dental records. And, government records show that Sell was called to active duty to Texas days before the Branch Davidian compound went up in flames.

    A year ago, a federal court gave prosecutors the right to forcibly medicate Sell with any drug that the prison doctors see fit, even experimental ones. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed up that decision. Then Sell appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Prosecutors concede that the government has tried no other treatment to make Sell fit for trial.

    Instead, officials at the federal prison hospital in Springfield, Mo., admit that prison guards have subjected Sell to solitary confinement, sprayed him with scalding water and chained him to a concrete slab for 19 hours in a row – all things that Sell's lawyer argues have made his condition worse.

    Sell continues to plead for a trial. He argues that he is competent to stand trial. Sell has passed a course and got a perfect score on a test to determine whether he is competent to stand trial, prison records show.

    The NY Times account of today's argument says:
    Mr. Dreeben said that medication had the proven ability to restore mentally ill defendants "to a point of rationality where they can decide what they want to do with their life."
    Sell's irrationality is his anti-govt paranoia. So the feds have drugs that can eliminate anti-govt paranoia? And that is a good thing?

    Scalia says Sell can only appeal after the fact:

    Under the ordinary rules of appellate procedure, pre-trial orders lack finality and are not appealable. So shouldn't Dr. Sell be required to proceed to trial and to challenge any unwanted medication after the fact, Justice Antonin Scalia wanted to know.
    Here is the AP story. It says:
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked if the government can require children to be vaccinated against smallpox. Justice Anthony Kennedy evoked an image of defendants and witnesses being injected before a trial with drugs that control their behavior. If the government can medicate the dentist, why not a person charged with a traffic violation, Justice Stephen Breyer asked.
    Here is the Wash Post story, the docket info, and the feds' brief.

    Andy sends an update also:

    Here we go again liberal arguments alienate the conservative side of the Supreme Court and may lose a winnable case. This time it's in Sell v. U.S.

    Sell's legal brief argued for a new constitutional right to refuse medication. Meet Justice Scalia, who effectively said today that if Sell is sane enough to refuse treatment, then he's sane enough go on trial. Which means, logically, that if Sell is not sane enough to go to trial, then he is not sane enough to refuse treatment. So Sell immediately loses 3 votes on the Court, who will then exert a strong pull on Kennedy and O'Connor.

    Kennedy seemed to bite on what we saying -- that the government simply lacks authority to drug Sell. We'll see by June

    Real problem is that Sell is from the wrong town St. Louis. No other city in the U.S. has such an inhospitable climate for civil disobedients. What would the folks at the Country Club think?!

    Liza's response to (John re RI inferno) is correct. Prosser says nothing about crime, which does require mens rea. We shouldn't be jailing people for accidents, unless there is clear statutory notice (like drunk driving). Pyrotechnic entertainment has been used successfully hundreds, or thousands, of times without anyone complaining or passing any laws against it. That's probably why the audience was at the nightclub! Case closed. People should be speaking out against this RI witchhunt, and focus their ire on the politicians and regulatory scheme.

    Roger writes that every juror has the right to nullification, but omits a citation for that authority. In fact, the jurors who engaged in nullification to protect William Penn's religious freedom were themselves then prosecuted for it! Moreover, Roger misses the crucial issue of whether a defendant has the right to inform the jury of its power to nullify. In Maryland state court, yes; in many other states, no. What's the federal rule?

    I wrote "And how about this one Aaron Burr was Jonathan Edwards' grandson?!"

    John replied, "Why is that significant?"

    It illustrates how far the apple can fall from the tree, something Burr's supporters probably failed to appreciate.

    Yes, Penn's jurors were prosecuted. That was in 1670. Since then, only one other juror was prosecuted. That was a Colorado woman named Laura Kriho a few years ago. In spite of that, there is general agreement about the jury powers. Eg, the DC Circuit said, "[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge ..." (1972). There are more quotes here and here. The only dispute is about whether the jury should be fully informed of their rights and powers. What is unusual about Maryland is that the jurors are explicitly told:
    "Members of the Jury, this is a criminal case and under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Maryland in a criminal case the jury are the judges of the law as well as of the facts in the case. So that whatever I tell you about the law while it is intended to be helpful to you in reaching a just and proper verdict in the case, it is not binding upon you as members of the jury and you may accept or reject it. And you may apply the law as you apprehend it to be in the case."
    In 1895 (Sparf v U.S. 156 U.S. 51, 1895), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, the jury shouldn't be aware of it.

    The US Constitution 6A cites this right to a jury trial. If the OJ Simpson and Marion Barry jurors understood it, what excuse does anyone else have?

     
    RI inferno
    John responds to Andy:
    John essentially argues for strict liability in a criminal sense for the band in doing pyrotechnics in the club. He doesn't care about intent.
    What about the "intent" of the club owner, the manufacturer of the polyurethane soundproofing, the dealer who sold it, the city that licensed the club, and the fire official who inspected it? None of these people had any intent to cause a holocaust. All were less culpable than the band, yet you were ready to consign all these people to bankruptcy.
    Most crimes require mens rea (intent), and rightly so. Statutes can supplement that for activities like drunk driving, where notice exists but specific intent to harm is lacking. I'm not aware of any pyrotechnics statute, and I oppose ex post facto laws. Besides, pyrotechnics apparently is safe in the absence of highly flammable soundproofing.
    Check your Prosser. To ignite a large open flame inside a small, crowded nightclub with a low ceiling is inherently dangerous. Hence, the law properly imposes a special duty of care on the person doing it. You don't need a special "pyrotechnics statute." Mens does not require "specific intent to harm"; it just requires specific intent to do the act that caused the harm. Clearly, the band intended to ignite the pyro. It did not go off by accident.
    Liza responds to John:
    This discussion is getting confused as to criminal vs. tort liability. Criminal liability normally requires mens rea (criminal intent). Tort liability does not. Prosser's treatise concerns torts. Intent is not an element of the non-intentional torts, which include negligence and torts of strict liability. The RI inferno will surely lead to tort liability on the part of someone. Criminal liability is not obvious in this case.
    Yes, tort liability to someone, but whom? I don't see why the band is necessarily any more liable than the nightclub owner, the building contractor, or the fire inspector. None wanted a holocaust, but they may have all been irresponsible.
     
    Movie reviews
    Bob writes:
    Your blog got cut off at 25 Feb.

    Your mother questioned the wisdom of relying on movie reviewers for information on movies. The sources of movie information I can think of are reviewers, friends (amateur reviewers), trailers, advertisements, IMDB, other collaborative filters. I'll look into collaborative filters for movies, since this is the only source which seems better than reviewers.

    The blog software was set to show the last 30 posts. All of the posts are in the archives -- use the links on the left. I just increased it to 50.

    Movie reviews can certainly be unreliable.

     
    Involuntary psychotropic drugging
    John sends this NY Times article about the US Supreme Court hearing the issue of whether Charles T. Sell should be forcibly given psychiatric drugs while facing trial for Medicare overbilling. The article is by a psychiatrist who favors forced drugging.
    Although well-intended, these depictions of serious mental illness as a free expression of thought, and of pharmacotherapy as censorship, are grievously naïve.

    The freedom to remain straitjacketed by psychosis is no freedom. Psychiatrists say Mr. Sell has delusional disorder. ...

    The more general question is whether Mr. Sell really has a "right" to refuse. To say that he has that right presumes that he has the rational ability to weigh the pros and cons of being medicated. Not only do his actions call this assumption into question, but the fact is that half the people with illnesses like schizophrenia or mania do not even recognize that they are ill.

    Should the court side with Mr. Sell, the case will be applauded as a victory for patients' rights and civil liberties. But this simplistic view ignores the bigger question: is there not a duty to treat a person who is obviously suffering?

    A Christian Science Monitor article is more sympathetic to Sell:
    Some people see more fundamental issues in the case. "Government action that seeks to change a person's thinking, against his will, is deeply at odds with longstanding conceptions of constitutional liberty," says David Goldberg in a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance.
    I wonder whether Sell is even in control of the legal arguments being made in his behalf. I doubt that he approved his Supreme Court brief. Sell claims that he is sane, but his lawyer is telling the court that he is not. Shouldn't Sell have a lawyer that truly represents him?
     
    More on RI fire
    Andy writes:
    John essentially argues for strict liability in a criminal sense for the band in doing pyrotechnics in the club. He doesn't care about intent.

    Most crimes require mens rea (intent), and rightly so. Statutes can supplement that for activities like drunk driving, where notice exists but specific intent to harm is lacking. I'm not aware of any pyrotechnics statute, and I oppose ex post facto laws. Besides, pyrotechnics apparently is safe in the absence of highly flammable soundproofing.

    I'm fascinated by the history I'm reviewing. Did you know the trials of Peter Zenger (establishing freedom of the press) and William Penn (establishing freedom of religion) required jury nullification? That Maryland requires an instruction giving their juries this power to this day? And how about this one Aaron Burr was Jonathan Edwards' grandson?!

    Joe writes, "check out latest Discover magazine for a big article about a physicist who is trying to construct alternatives to GR based on a variable speed of light."

    I'd be happy to read it, if I can find it.

    GR has obstructed physics for 100 years. But it has been conferred a Nobel Prize (an astounding 85 years after it was proposed), so no establishment physicist is going to criticize it. Quote an example if you doubt this.

    The easiest way to see the bankruptcy of GR is the lack of anything productive resulting from it. Its adherents will claim GPS, the atom bomb, the solar system, and all sorts of wacky stuff. But if any of that were true, then a Nobel Prize would reflect it. It doesn't. In contrast, Quantum Mechanics has yielded numerous Nobel Prizes and countless marvelous predictions and devices.

    It is not the jury instruction that gives the MD jury the power. All juries have the power, and anyone who knows anything about jury trials understands that. MD is just a little more explicit about informing the jury of their power.

    I had to look up Jonathan Edwards. He was an obscure early American preacher.

    I don't know why Andy is fixated on using Nobel prizes to evaluate General Relativity (GR). You have to realize that GR was a breakthru in theoretical physics and astrophysics, but normally Nobel prizes are not given in either theoretical physics or astrophysics.

    Next, you have to realize that a number of prizes have been given which were directly or indirectly related to GR. Einstein got a prize in 1921 largely as a result of publicity about experimental verification of GR. Theoretical considerations involving relativity led to the prediction of anti-matter, but the prizes went to those who did the experimental work to find the positron and antiproton.

    The influence of GR on 20th century physics has been huge. I don't know why Andy wants to deny this. GR explains atom bombs, black holes, expansion of the universe, red-shifts, GPS, anti-matter, etc.


    Sunday, Mar 02, 2003
     
    Get rid of stupidity genes
    James Watson, of DNA fame, wants to improve human intelligence by using genetic technology, according to this story. Sensitive subject.
     
    Recycling is bad
    Some Swedes say that recycling is bad for the environment.
     
    Sen. Feinstein wants to violate gun laws
    John sends Friday and Saturday SF stories about how Sen. Feinstein and other Democrats want Ashcroft to violate federal law and Clinton administration regulations in order to spy on gun owners.

    Saturday, Mar 01, 2003
     
    More on the RI fire
    Joe writes:
    I haven't followed this too closely, but are we talking about using polyurethane indoors without covering it with fire-rated drywall? A building owner or inspector is a complete idiot if he doesn't know that any sort of insulation of this type must be covered with taped, fire-rated sheetrock. This is about as basic as it gets. Any insurance company safety inspector would know this as well.
    Andy writes:
    Joe, the flammable polyurethane was the soundproofing. I don't see how it could be covered with fire-resistant drywall.

    There were 97 young people cut down in the prime of their life through negligence. The town, which inspected and approved the club, will surely be bankrupted. I would expect the manufacturer to be bankrupted also. The dealer who mouthed off in the press in piling blame on the club owner will probably get sued also. The only thing that will save the insurance companies will be the limits on their policies.

    John writes:
    I don't understand Andy's eagerness to bankrupt anyone who was tangentially involved in this disaster. What is the justice in that? What is the legal basis?

    To sue the dealer or manufacturer of the soundproofing material - a fine product with many legal uses - is like suing the gun dealer or manufacturer when somebody misuses a firearm. Why should the rest of us be deprived of the benefits of that material just because idiot misused it?

    Why would you condone bankrupting the town? Who do you think pays for the town - the same families who suffered death or injury in the fire! Such a lawsuit would merely enrich an attorney at the expense of the same people who were injured in the tragedy.

    So what if the club was recently inspected by some city employee? Inspectors do not guarantee that anything is fireproof. Inspectors do not assume liability on behalf the of the city. If an inspection made the city legally liable for damages, the building owner wouldn't have to carry fire insurance; he could simply sue the city in the event of a fire.

    In his eagerness to enrich the trial bar, Andy overlooks the fault of the patrons. At any public gathering place, the first thing everyone should do is take a moment to check out the location of the exits. The patrons failed to take that elementary precaution. As a result, when the fire started, they failed to head for the nearest exit. That is the main reason why so many of them were burned.

    You cannot avoid the conclusion that the patrons' own negligence contributed to the tragedy. As we all learned from Prosser, contributory negligence was a bar to any tort recovery until a wave of activist judicial legislation swept the nation about 40 years ago.

    The only person who is clearly liable for damages is the person who started the fire without proper authorization.

    Joe writes:
    John is right on the money, as usual. I don't know much about this particular sound insulation, but fiberglass sound batting is often used in buildings to suppress sound. We have it some of our buildings. It is designed to be covered with drywall.
    Andy writes:
    John's email constructs a strawman that I somehow want to bankrupt the town, manufacturer of polyurethane, dealer, etc. No one here supports the trial attorneys in ruining entire industries based on politicized science, least of all me.

    But I don't buy into the witchhunt against the club owners and performing band either. My comment was that the piling on of blame against these hapless scapegoats is only going to cause the finger-pointers to be sued themselves.

    John blames the victims by saying that they should have known where the exits were, and found them quicker. But they only had 30 seconds!

    John concludes, "The only person who is clearly liable for damages is the person who started the fire without proper authorization."

    This begs for elaboration. Does John refer to the single band member who launched the pyrotechnics? Or does John refer to the club owners, who would be the ones to apply for "proper authorization"?

    The real failure here is obviously in the regulation. Had the regulation been clear and widely available, no one would have allowed such flammable material to remain in the club for over 2 years.

    Joe writes:
    What is the big mystery here? A landlord stupidly put flammable foam where it should't have been. Any fire inspector or insurance inspector would know this.

    Twenty years ago, my dad insulated the roof of our warehouse with this stuff, and left it exposed. The first time the insurance inspector came through, he told us to take it down because it was highly flammable and put off dangerous vapors. The property owner is going to get creamed for creating a dangerous situation, and if he approved the use of fireworks, he's going to get creamed some more.

    John responds to Andy:
    I mean the band as a (presumably corporate) entity. A band employee must have purchased the pyro and brought it to the club. The band must have rehearsed using it.

    A band spokesman claims the club owner verbally authorized use of pyro. However, the club owner says his written contract with the band does not mention pyro, althouth it specifies the precise color of M&M's to be furnished to band members.

    I believe the band should bear the ultimate responsibility for obtaining approval for use of fire.

    The real failure here is obviously in the regulation. Had the regulation been clear and widely available, no one would have allowed such flammable material to remain in the club for over 2 years.
    That may be true, but the most glaring act of criminal negligence was to start a fire in a small, crowded room with a low ceiling.
    Andy writes:
    Joe cites a foam dealer who pointed his finger of blame at the club owner, and concluded "What is the big mystery here? A landlord stupidly put flammable foam where it should't have been. Any fire inspector or insurance inspector would know this. ..."

    But the fire inspector didn't know this, and apparently repeatedly approved the club over a 2.5 year period. Can you really expect a club owner to know more about fire regulations than the fire department itself?

    The reason no one realized the hazard is because the applicable regulations are copyrighted, and thereby withheld from the general public. To this day no one can cite anything in the publicly available regulations that prohibits what the owners did.

    I wrote, John blames the victims by saying that they should have known where the exits were, and found them quicker. But they only had 30 seconds!

    John replied, "Blaming the victim? How about assuming personal responsibility for your own reckless behavior?"

    What is so reckless about going to a nightclub? No one could remotely anticipate the danger given the lack of information.

    John wrote, "I believe the band should bear the ultimate responsibility for obtaining approval for use of fire. ... [T]he most glaring act of criminal negligence was to start a fire in a small, crowded room with a low ceiling."

    But the victims presumably packed the nightclub to see such entertainment. Moreover, they could have left at the first sign of the pyro even if they didn't know beforehand.

    There should not be strict liability for this form of entertainment. No, the real crime here is the secrecy about the regulations in furtherance of misguided copyright interests.

    John writes:
    I agree with your point about the harm of copyrighting building codes so they are not widely available to the public. But that does not get the band off the hook.

    Starting a fire in a small, crowded room with a low ceiling is an inherently dangerous, criminally reckless act. You don't have to know about building codes or polyurethane to know that.

    If fire is a part of the band's performance, it is their responsiblity to insure that fire safety is observed, and to get the written approval of the club owner and the local fire inspector.

    As for the patrons' culpability, it is a fact that most would have escaped injury if they had gone to the nearest exit instead of stampeding the front door. Just as we rehearse emergency procedures every time we board a plane, we should notice the exits every time we enter a crowded venue.

    It is also reckless and irresponsible for a nightclub owner to put in a flammable ceiling that violates fire codes.
     
    Cell-phone rights
    Sen. Schumer wants a cell-phone users bill of rights. His list is not what I expected. I want:
  • Right to use cell-phone while driving.
  • Right to real-time billing info.
  • Right to be billed under the least expensive advertised billing plan.
  •  
    Copyright prosecution
    John send this story about the Norwegian "DVD Jon" going back to court. and this one about Lexmark getting an injunction against competing ink cartridge makers. They are both example of copyright enforcement going too far.
     
    Language translator problems
    Andy sends this:
    STUDY BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS MAKE ABOUT 31 MISTAKES PER VISIT

    Even professional interpreters aren't fail-safe when it comes to communicating between patients and clinicians, a recent study found.

    Study researchers analyzed transcripts from 13 doctor-patient visits involving Spanish-English interpreters--about half of whom were employed by the hospital. The other half included untrained family members, friends, or other people at the hospital. They found that the interpreters made an average of 31 mistakes per visit. Nineteen of those mistakes could have had a negative impact on the patient, according to Reuters. The visits all occurred in a Massachusetts hospital's urban outpatient clinic.

    Though non-professional interpreters were more likely to make serious mistakes than professional interpreters, researchers still found that more than half the professional interpreters' errors could have caused harm.

    Medical insurers should cover the cost of an interpreter because errors increase medical bills, Dr. Glenn Flores of the Milwaukee-based Medical College and Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, the lead author, told Reuters. He cited a case in which one misinterpreted word in the emergency room ended in a court award of $71 million to the patient.

    The study was published in the January 2003 issue of Pediatrics.

     
    Microsoft perjury
    Lawmeme says:
    In May, under oath at the antitrust hearing Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft, stated that disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort. Now in February, Microsoft signed a pact with Chinese officials to reveal the Windows operating system source code. Bill Gates even hinted that China will be privy to all, not just part, of the source code its government wished to inspect.Either Jim Allchin lied under oath, to prevent code revelation being any part of the settlement, OR the Microsoft corporation is behaving traitorously, by exposing national security issues to foreign governments.
    As someone responded:
    Microsoft was caught lying under oath during the antitrust case, when they presented the obviously doctored video of a browser download. Fabricated evidence.

    They threw the judge out, not the lawyer.

    John also sends this story about it.
     
    Ashcroft defends gun rights
    Calif AG Lockyer is apparently violating federal law by misusing gun databases and invading the privacy of gun owners. His spokesman says:
    "We understood it as a potential criminal action," said Randy Rossi, firearms chief for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, "and our response back to them was we understand what you are saying and we think public safety is paramount and you take whatever step is necessary."
    In other words, he is violating the law, he is committing criminal acts, and he knows it, but he does it anyway because he disagrees with the law. That is a lousy attitude for an AG.

    Lockyer is the same guy who just tried to get a federal appeals removed from death penalty cases because he visited a death row prison! More judges should get out and see the consequences of what they do.

     
    Nutty SF politics
    San Francisco's latest nutty controversy relates to a minor incident in which a couple of rookie off-duty cops got into a fist-fight with a couple of others after leaving a bar late one night several months ago. The SF news media kept this story in the news, and now the SF police chief and his top assistants have been indicted for the cover-up. I think that the police chief is black -- not sure about the others.