From the hilariously funny department, with a codicil from the guild of the very short:
Flea, over at One Good Thing describes Every Little Girl Is a Princess, Story #2, or, The Worst Thing My Mother Ever Did.
The codicil: I am over a foot too tall -- my god, almost a foot and a half! -- for Splashville. I'm so pleased. No, I'm not kidding.
sporadically produced odds, ends, and essaylets on any number of topics from programming to politics, paramecia to puff pastries.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act
That's H.R. 1528 over at http://thomas.loc.gov/. Big Brass Blog has a discussion of it.
(These offenses all seem to be about dealing/manufacturing drugs in the presence of children.)
Um. I'm not sure this is constitutional. I mean, really. First, making a crime of failing to report certain types of drug offenses overrides a state's right to define crimes in their community, which is generally violative of that state's sovereignty. Dealing with criminals is state's business, and then, second, there's the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I. Infringing on the State.
There's a two prong test under the 10th Amendment that applies here:
1. does the federal action (in this case creating the federal crime described above) commandeer state government?;
2. does the federal action shift political accountability between fed and state, so that citizens don't know who to hold responsible for legislation or action of which they disapprove?
Naturally (hey, this is law school), you could argue it both ways.
1. You could argue, no, this does not commandeer state government. It's citizens who are being required to report these drug offenses, and the federal government is in fact allowed to tell citizens what to do, within reason, and use federal resources to enforce federal law. (I know you were all worried.)
But, I think the rebuttal to that is quite a bit stronger. State resources will be used enforcing this law, this behavior, because this law will be all tangled up with state drug statutes and their enforcement. How can you disconnect them? Citizens will ring up state cops if they're following the law (or, more to the point, they'll fail to ring up state cops when they're violating this law). State law enforcement officials will be arresting and booking violators, state courts will be using up their time adjudicating these cases. State resources, in short, will be commandeered to enforce this statute.
2. Anytime you have a federal law possibly infringing on the state's power, you can always argue, "hey, it's a federal law, anyone paying attention in court will know it's a federal statute being enforced, so there's no confusion of accountability between fed and state -- how could there be (and this is where you point) it says 'federal' right there!".
Again, here I think the rebuttal is stronger. It's not about whether a statute has the word "fed" stamped on it in red ink. Who will be seen to enforce it? How do you distinguish the time and money used enforcing this federal directive from other activities of the state? What, do you hire some clerk to manage a spreadsheet listing how much $$ the state courts spend prosecuting this crime? Doing so would just take more time and suck up more resources on the state's part in trying to distinguish between what enforcement of this federal statute costs the state -- for which the ire of citizens should be rightly directed at the federal government, and what was actually the state's own missteps, whatever they may be, for which it should be held responsible by those same citizens. That's what accountability is all about. What wankers do we citizens vote out of office today? State? Or federal? Who do we complain to, the governor, or our U.S. Senator? If we don't know who to go after, political accountability has been destroyed.
II. Mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I'm not going to focus on the impact such guidelines may have on incarceration in state prison for federal crimes, because I don't actually know how that works yet.
But. You could argue that mandatory sentencing guidelines remove decision-making from the jury and the judge and put them in the hands of the legislature that passed the statute in question, thus denying a defendant's due process. Essentially, the decision of their punishment was made before they even showed up, or contemplated a crime. If the jury doesn't make this decision, has a defendant really gotten their jury trial? Or were they tried by the legislature on the day the statute was passed?
`SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).
(These offenses all seem to be about dealing/manufacturing drugs in the presence of children.)
Um. I'm not sure this is constitutional. I mean, really. First, making a crime of failing to report certain types of drug offenses overrides a state's right to define crimes in their community, which is generally violative of that state's sovereignty. Dealing with criminals is state's business, and then, second, there's the mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I. Infringing on the State.
There's a two prong test under the 10th Amendment that applies here:
1. does the federal action (in this case creating the federal crime described above) commandeer state government?;
2. does the federal action shift political accountability between fed and state, so that citizens don't know who to hold responsible for legislation or action of which they disapprove?
Naturally (hey, this is law school), you could argue it both ways.
1. You could argue, no, this does not commandeer state government. It's citizens who are being required to report these drug offenses, and the federal government is in fact allowed to tell citizens what to do, within reason, and use federal resources to enforce federal law. (I know you were all worried.)
But, I think the rebuttal to that is quite a bit stronger. State resources will be used enforcing this law, this behavior, because this law will be all tangled up with state drug statutes and their enforcement. How can you disconnect them? Citizens will ring up state cops if they're following the law (or, more to the point, they'll fail to ring up state cops when they're violating this law). State law enforcement officials will be arresting and booking violators, state courts will be using up their time adjudicating these cases. State resources, in short, will be commandeered to enforce this statute.
2. Anytime you have a federal law possibly infringing on the state's power, you can always argue, "hey, it's a federal law, anyone paying attention in court will know it's a federal statute being enforced, so there's no confusion of accountability between fed and state -- how could there be (and this is where you point) it says 'federal' right there!".
Again, here I think the rebuttal is stronger. It's not about whether a statute has the word "fed" stamped on it in red ink. Who will be seen to enforce it? How do you distinguish the time and money used enforcing this federal directive from other activities of the state? What, do you hire some clerk to manage a spreadsheet listing how much $$ the state courts spend prosecuting this crime? Doing so would just take more time and suck up more resources on the state's part in trying to distinguish between what enforcement of this federal statute costs the state -- for which the ire of citizens should be rightly directed at the federal government, and what was actually the state's own missteps, whatever they may be, for which it should be held responsible by those same citizens. That's what accountability is all about. What wankers do we citizens vote out of office today? State? Or federal? Who do we complain to, the governor, or our U.S. Senator? If we don't know who to go after, political accountability has been destroyed.
II. Mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I'm not going to focus on the impact such guidelines may have on incarceration in state prison for federal crimes, because I don't actually know how that works yet.
But. You could argue that mandatory sentencing guidelines remove decision-making from the jury and the judge and put them in the hands of the legislature that passed the statute in question, thus denying a defendant's due process. Essentially, the decision of their punishment was made before they even showed up, or contemplated a crime. If the jury doesn't make this decision, has a defendant really gotten their jury trial? Or were they tried by the legislature on the day the statute was passed?
Monday, May 30, 2005
Mainstream Media Notices the Lies?
Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse. [Emphasis added.]
It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.
Raises Fist to Sky
Curse you, Ty! Curse you for making me cry!
You should go read this issue of Peridot Books. Each story is good in its own way. Ty Drago's story "An Hour on The Marble" is really good, and really relevant.
You should go read this issue of Peridot Books. Each story is good in its own way. Ty Drago's story "An Hour on The Marble" is really good, and really relevant.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Change is Inevitable
Listen to My Wife
The author talks about about how the people primarily trying to address this issue are women, and warns that if men don't get involved, the solutions will be women's, too. (Which, is not necessarily a bad thing, but I get his point: you could wind up with solutions that work for women and not men, or, more likely in my opinion, wind up with solutions that don't work because half the population isn't a part of it.)
And when it comes to fixing this problem,
In a world where most people are struggling, the search for "balance" in high-powered jobs has to be counted a luxury. Still, there is something telling (if not downright dysfunctional) when a society's most talented people feel they have to sacrifice the meaningful relationships every human craves as the price of exercising their talent.
The author talks about about how the people primarily trying to address this issue are women, and warns that if men don't get involved, the solutions will be women's, too. (Which, is not necessarily a bad thing, but I get his point: you could wind up with solutions that work for women and not men, or, more likely in my opinion, wind up with solutions that don't work because half the population isn't a part of it.)
Today talented people live in fear of sounding anything less than 24/7. Tell your boss you have to deal with a drinking problem and you'll be fine; say you want more time with your family and you're on the endangered species list. As a result, my wife says, we're being led by a class of people who made choices (because there was no alternative) that are alien to what most of us want.
And when it comes to fixing this problem,
Skeptics should recall that everyone once "knew" that a weekend or a minimum wage would spell economic ruin, too.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
WriterGirl Rears Her OverSized Head
Novel status report: 50 pages, as of yesterday. Right on schedule. I didn't write on Thursday, but I got some good thinking done, which enabled me to write 13 pages yesterday in about 6 hours. Today, it's find a book on life in a medieval city, and maybe read a little on viruses, plagues, and history, because God knows I can't just write a simple romance, which was the plan: Girl meets boy. Girl marries boy. Girl maybe falls in love with boy.
Noooooooo, I have to put politics, and a siege, and maybe some epidemiology in there, too. Damn it!
Basically, I have two more weeks to write fiction, and then I have to put my Lawyer Hat back on. That's why I'm running so fast and trying to average 10 pages a day.
It's fun. Writing is work, even the kind of writing where all you do is "make shit up".
Noooooooo, I have to put politics, and a siege, and maybe some epidemiology in there, too. Damn it!
Basically, I have two more weeks to write fiction, and then I have to put my Lawyer Hat back on. That's why I'm running so fast and trying to average 10 pages a day.
It's fun. Writing is work, even the kind of writing where all you do is "make shit up".
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Autism, Mercury, and Fish
The Age of Autism: Mercury and the Amish
Mercury Contamination of Fish
Mercury Fast Facts
Consumer Reports asks, Is the government too lax in advice on tuna consumption?
FDA Mercury Fish Warnings to Get 5 Times Stricter, Says Spokesperson: Physicians and Advocates Applaud New Standard To Reduce Mercury Exposure
I'm curious as to whether we'll see a rise of autism in different types of communities, not necessarily geographic ones but perhaps class-based, due to the rising levels of mercury in certain fish. I used to eat canned tuna almost daily - it's my cheapest source of animal protein - but not anymore. Will other people on limited incomes make the same decision I made? Will folks who eat swordfish at swanky restaurants even realize their danger?
"Environmental mercury is horrible...people with autism are the canaries in the coal mine."
Mercury Contamination of Fish
Mercury Fast Facts
Consumer Reports asks, Is the government too lax in advice on tuna consumption?
FDA Mercury Fish Warnings to Get 5 Times Stricter, Says Spokesperson: Physicians and Advocates Applaud New Standard To Reduce Mercury Exposure
Last July, FDA's food safety committee recommended that the agency publicize a scientific rational for continuing to use its action level, resume fish testing, add other high mercury fish to its "do not consume" list and warn pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of canned tuna, one of the most consumed fish in the U.S.
I'm curious as to whether we'll see a rise of autism in different types of communities, not necessarily geographic ones but perhaps class-based, due to the rising levels of mercury in certain fish. I used to eat canned tuna almost daily - it's my cheapest source of animal protein - but not anymore. Will other people on limited incomes make the same decision I made? Will folks who eat swordfish at swanky restaurants even realize their danger?
Blatantly Unconstitutional Assault on Religious Education
A judge in Indiana has ordered divorced parents, who are both Wiccan, not to teach their son their religion, as part of their divorce decree.
Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Is this unConstitutional? You bet your bippy it is.
First, this is religious discrimination, against the family's practice of their faith, by the state's judiciary (which means it's a state "action"), which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Where's the compelling state interest that's being served by a narrowly tailored means?
The fact that the judge did this at all is highly questionable. The religious upbringing of the child was not in question - both parents are of the same faith. There was no religious dispute as part of the divorce decree. So, what, the possiblity of little Junior coming home one day and asking why his classmates go to Christmas Mass is supposed to be a big deal? The awareness of other faiths is somehow so damaging to this kid's psyche as to represent a compelling interest for the state? Well, howdy-do, let's just bundle those kids up in bubblewrap and put them on a shelf their whole lives.
Second, this is the state interfering with the parental rights regarding the upbringing of a child, which violates their substantive due process right to privacy.
What was this judge thinking? That's what I'd know.
Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Is this unConstitutional? You bet your bippy it is.
First, this is religious discrimination, against the family's practice of their faith, by the state's judiciary (which means it's a state "action"), which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Where's the compelling state interest that's being served by a narrowly tailored means?
The fact that the judge did this at all is highly questionable. The religious upbringing of the child was not in question - both parents are of the same faith. There was no religious dispute as part of the divorce decree. So, what, the possiblity of little Junior coming home one day and asking why his classmates go to Christmas Mass is supposed to be a big deal? The awareness of other faiths is somehow so damaging to this kid's psyche as to represent a compelling interest for the state? Well, howdy-do, let's just bundle those kids up in bubblewrap and put them on a shelf their whole lives.
Second, this is the state interfering with the parental rights regarding the upbringing of a child, which violates their substantive due process right to privacy.
What was this judge thinking? That's what I'd know.
Biggest Disappointment in Human Rights Arena? U.S.
Amnesty International urged Washington to shut down the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay
American treatment of prisoners assailed Conduct weakens rights around world, group says.
And what are they doing at GTMO right now? Building death chambers. Oh, Jesus must be very proud of us. Very proud.
In its annual report, Amnesty accused governments around the world of abandoning human rights protections, but it stressed the biggest disappointments in the human rights arena was with the United States.
American treatment of prisoners assailed Conduct weakens rights around world, group says.
The group's annual report, "The State of the World's Human Rights,'' provides a harshly worded critique of U.S. conduct toward its prisoners alongside accounts of oppression in China and genocide in Sudan, saying the U. S. behavior "grants a license to others to commit abuse with impunity and audacity.''
And what are they doing at GTMO right now? Building death chambers. Oh, Jesus must be very proud of us. Very proud.
It's All Just Marketing
Audio of George Bush admitting to spreading propaganda
"If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about — third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
National River Clean-Up Day (May 21)
Kim writes about her experience this year at Cinnamon Swirl.
There's nothing stopping any of us from letting any day be a River Clean-up Day. There are plenty of volunteer groups that clean along highways and waterways. Call your local Jaycees, or Boy Scouts, or whatever. Your kids can get community service points for participating, and we all get a cleaner environment. It's a win-win.
There's nothing stopping any of us from letting any day be a River Clean-up Day. There are plenty of volunteer groups that clean along highways and waterways. Call your local Jaycees, or Boy Scouts, or whatever. Your kids can get community service points for participating, and we all get a cleaner environment. It's a win-win.
Fascinating Remarks on "Open Relationships"
by Bitch. Ph.D. (When I graduate law school, I'm tempted to change the name of my blog to Bitch, J.D.)
One of Dr. B's friends or colleagues asked "what is it you are getting out of this boy that you are not getting from Mr. B.?"
"The truth," she answers, "...[I]s that it is impossible for one person to be 'everything' to someone else. Impossible and, I think, cruel: setting the other person (and, incidentally, yourself) up to fail. In part, this is the answer to the 'why open marriage?' question in a nutshell: because I think it is loving to deal with your fear in order not to limit the other person's growth."
I this is remarkable, and, am, thus, remarking upon it. We expect, culturally, as Americans, our spouse to be our be-all and end-all.
Why?
I think it's connected to the increased mobility of Americans and the subsequent partial demise of multi-generational households and neighborhood support networks for the raising of children, in conjunction with a rise in the expectation of "romantic love" as the basis for a good marriage.
I've written about this before, though I can't of course find the damn entry right now, but the American ideal of marriage is a loving husband and wife and their children, and no one else, and that puts a real strain on the relationship because of the expectations placed on that husband and wife. They have no one but each other, yet we're a deeply social species, and I think we simply need more than just one person to connect with. To depend on. To love and be loved by.
One of Dr. B's friends or colleagues asked "what is it you are getting out of this boy that you are not getting from Mr. B.?"
"The truth," she answers, "...[I]s that it is impossible for one person to be 'everything' to someone else. Impossible and, I think, cruel: setting the other person (and, incidentally, yourself) up to fail. In part, this is the answer to the 'why open marriage?' question in a nutshell: because I think it is loving to deal with your fear in order not to limit the other person's growth."
I this is remarkable, and, am, thus, remarking upon it. We expect, culturally, as Americans, our spouse to be our be-all and end-all.
Why?
I think it's connected to the increased mobility of Americans and the subsequent partial demise of multi-generational households and neighborhood support networks for the raising of children, in conjunction with a rise in the expectation of "romantic love" as the basis for a good marriage.
I've written about this before, though I can't of course find the damn entry right now, but the American ideal of marriage is a loving husband and wife and their children, and no one else, and that puts a real strain on the relationship because of the expectations placed on that husband and wife. They have no one but each other, yet we're a deeply social species, and I think we simply need more than just one person to connect with. To depend on. To love and be loved by.
Worldwide Knit in Public Day - June 11
Knit in Public Day. Do it by yourself, or with a group.
Monday, May 23, 2005
GTMO Not Scary Enough, Must Build Gas Chamber!
Camp Delta death chamber plan
I am quite possibly at a complete loss for a response to this.
No, no, wait, I feel a rant coming...
Can America be any more wasteful? I mean, really. We are so god damned MARRIED to our technology that we have to build a special room just to kill people with, just in case these military tribunals come up guilty and the verdict is a sentence of death. Did you catch that? In case. So they're not working from scratch.
My god. Whatever happened to the firing squad? Whatever happened to lining up a bunch of guys and having them shoot a man to death? It's a skill all of our military personnel study to acquire in basic training. So, what, is it deemed too traumatic for the guys doing the firing, to kill a defenseless chap who has been imprisoned by US forces for however many years now for possibly no reason whatsoever, as if that is dramatically different from killing a defenseless chap on the street of Bagdhad who has been imprisoned in his own country by US forces for however many years now for possibly no reason whatsoever?
Maybe, if we - that's the American "we" - don't have the cojones to look a man in the face when we kill, maybe we're in the wrong damned business and shouldn't be killing them at all.
I am quite possibly at a complete loss for a response to this.
No, no, wait, I feel a rant coming...
Can America be any more wasteful? I mean, really. We are so god damned MARRIED to our technology that we have to build a special room just to kill people with, just in case these military tribunals come up guilty and the verdict is a sentence of death. Did you catch that? In case. So they're not working from scratch.
My god. Whatever happened to the firing squad? Whatever happened to lining up a bunch of guys and having them shoot a man to death? It's a skill all of our military personnel study to acquire in basic training. So, what, is it deemed too traumatic for the guys doing the firing, to kill a defenseless chap who has been imprisoned by US forces for however many years now for possibly no reason whatsoever, as if that is dramatically different from killing a defenseless chap on the street of Bagdhad who has been imprisoned in his own country by US forces for however many years now for possibly no reason whatsoever?
Maybe, if we - that's the American "we" - don't have the cojones to look a man in the face when we kill, maybe we're in the wrong damned business and shouldn't be killing them at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)