10.31.05
Posted in General at 10:34 pm by Clay
Now this, this was what I was expecting.
My first impression on the Samuel Alito nomination was that I was surprised that I had heard the name before, which means that it was on some of the lists of possible picks. I don’t think that sort of thing has happened in quite awhile.
My second impression was that this was evidently the pick to placate the ultra-conservatives, and thus the interesting part about this nomination is whether or not the Democrats will attempt to filibuster the nomination, and if so, will the nuclear option come out?
Beyond that, I don’t know enough about him to say whether or not I like him as a pick. Yeah, he’s quite obviously more qualified than Miers, which is a good start. Beyond that, though, he’s called “Scalito” for a reason, and I’d imagine he follows Scalia’s conservative word-twisting, legislating from the bench view of the constitution.
Not that I think there’s much of a chance of there being another Roberts-like candidate, where his(or possibly even her; I can’t believe Miers was the most qualified female conservative.) words and actions seemed to show an actual want to follow the constitution and precedent, rather than choosing a point in history for the starting point to ignoring precedence, or somehow believing that international law is part of the constitution.
Hopefully the rest of the justices can survive until a more moderate president can get into office.
Permalink
Posted in General at 12:14 am by Clay
From “Debunking The Top Five Skin Care Myths” that appeared in the Dane County Zone of the Shopper Stopper extra:
One good choice is Purpose Gentle Cleansing Wash, which has been clinically shown to have the same gentleness and mildness as water.
So, a soap-free cleanser that’s as gentle and mild as water? It must BE water, then.
Permalink
10.22.05
Posted in Copyright/Trademark/Patent Law at 8:34 am by Clay
I enjoyed a recent Post at Wendy’s Blog: Legal Tags.
It mentioned how, just recently, the house overwhelmingly passed a law stating that gun manufacturers cannot be sued “to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits by crime victims”(Words quoted from the New York Times, off of Wendy’s Blog).
Yet even Bittorrent, with a huge amount of legal uses, has to have some amount of worry over getting sued by the RIAA or MPAA for inducing copyright infringement — quite possibly just because Bram Cohen might have been foolish enough to write something down about condoning piracy.
Let me point out, though, that I probably would have voted for the bill that passed the house; I don’t want tool manufacturers to get sued for using their tools in an inappropriate way. Heck, I’m inherently biased for any sort of law that would reduce the amount of instances where it’s possible to sue, just because lawsuits ruin people and companies, oftentimes when those people and companies did nothing wrong.
But, come now, let’s be fair and let the tool makers create tools, and not just protect the right to create killing machines.
Permalink
10.19.05
Posted in Copyright/Trademark/Patent Law at 6:35 pm by Clay
I’d imagine that most of you have heard of Google Print. For those who don’t read excessive amounts of news like I do, it’s a search engine, but for books.
Which is clearly theft.
Yes, I say that facetiously.
Copyright law should not be a tool for big corporations to use to stifle innovation. Copyright law should be a tool to stop other people from profiting from their labor. Google is pointing to books, saying, “Hey, you wanted to know how many times Robert Jordan has written, ‘smoothed her dress’? We can do that.” It’s a service that previously did not exist, will obviously not exist without someone like Google doing it the way Google is doing it(I say obviously, because Google is being sued over this. If they’re being sued, there’s no way they could possibly get every book publisher into the program.). Now, are people going to read books less because of how Google is doing things? No, it’s insanely difficult to use as an e-reading program, as it doesn’t give you entire books to look through — it just gives you some amount of pages. So, what’s the harm? That people will discover old books that are out of print, and publishers won’t be able to make money off of it? Really, is there a reasonable argument out there that says, “Because of Google Print, a certain type of user will no longer buy the book that she would have purchased.”?
Even if the publishing companies are right(and I don’t think they are), and Google’s usage of their works is a violation of copyright law(which still would not be theft), I don’t see how this will harm anyone. Heck, the only argument I can think of is that people will find books in the long tail of published unknowns, and they’ll read those books, rather than something by John Grisham.
So, please, publishing companies, save your breath and get to work on figuring out how to deliver ebooks that are actually tolerable to read. And no, it does not count if I have to stay on a certain website, click occasionally to avoid being logged out, and go through a EULA after every tenth page.
Permalink
10.17.05
Posted in General at 12:52 am by Clay
The evident passing of the Iraqi constitution got me wondering: What would our constitution look like if we were to write one today?
Which, of course, made me think of the EU’s *ahem* attempt. Hundreds of pages of pure legalese, guaranteed to never be read by anyone.
Frankly, if we ever do it again, I’ll lobby for having a constitution that a twelve-year-old could theoretically read, even if she wouldn’t understand it.
Permalink
10.07.05
Posted in General at 12:00 am by Clay
I read on Google News about how Rove is evidently going to testify again about the CIA leak, and it got me wondering:
Does anyone actually know what Robert Novak’s involvement is, aside from being the one who actually told the world Valerie Plame’s name?
I haven’t heard about him testifying before any grand jury or prosecutor, and the only other thing I recall about him is that he swore and stormed off-stage when he realized he was going to have to answer some questions about the topic.
Permalink
10.05.05
Posted in Wall Street Journal Opinion at 1:05 pm by Clay
If you’re a long-time reader, you’ll notice how I often disagree with the Wall Street Journal’s editorials. Today they had one that truly got it right.
It’s about states’ rights. The court is hearing oral arguments today for Gonzales v. Oregon, which comes down to whether the national government’s power to regulate, bar, or restrict drugs allows them to basically neuter Oregon’s assisted-suicide law.
The issue:
So some on the left have suddenly discovered, after years of promoting unlimited national power, that federalism has its uses after all. Meanwhile, some social conservatives are ignoring their federalism principles in order to enforce from Washington a policy outcome that they favor (preventing the legalization of assisted suicide).
But federalism is not a left-right issue, or at least it shouldn’t be. It’s a question of freedom and good governance.
Later on in the opinion piece they state that they “have never been proponents of physician-assisted suicide as a matter of public policy.”
The Wall Street Journal definitely got it right — if you’re pro-states’ rights, then you have to have an instance or two when something happens that you would prefer to not have happen. The same argument applies to local control.
So, here’s a test for all of you readers out there: Think of an issue, such as states’ rights, local control, or freedom of speech. Take the issue(s) that you’re in favor of, and find an example where something happened that you’d prefer not to have happen, yet you fully support its happening. If you can’t do something like the Wall Street Journal did, then your reasoning is not because of that issue, and you really should stop acting like it is.
Permalink
10.04.05
Posted in General at 1:05 pm by Clay
I have to admit — I was surprised by Bush’s pick of Roberts. He chose a guy with nearly no bad or objectionable traits who also had a decent amount of experience. Yes, he hadn’t been an appeals court judge for terribly long, but given the president’s want to appoint someone who is young enough to serve on the court for 15-20 years it seemed reasonable.
So, personally, I liked the pick of Roberts. If he actually decides cases on the bench the way he says he will(in my words, that he’ll faithfully interpret the constitution but respect long-held precedences.), I may actually like how he does things on the bench. This is saying a lot, as I believe that all nine of the previous set of judges enjoyed legislating from the bench. Yes, including Scalia and Thomas, who often have wonderfully twisted decisions to make it seem as though the constitution supports their obviously preferred position.
That brings me to Miers. While I’m surprised that neither of Bush’s picks were (evidently) right-wing nut-jobs, it’s entirely unsurprising that Bush would pick someone out of loyalty.
Throughout his administration, he has shown that loyalty matters a whole lot more to him than competence, and that nothing bad will happen to you on his watch if you’re loyal to him.
While that might be wonderful for close-knit friendships, it’s entirely despicable when running a country. I want the country to improve, not Bush’s friends to get everything they’ve ever wanted.
Because of that, I have to say that I currently disapprove of the Miers’ nomination.
I believe in loyalty to country, not loyalty to incompetents, or loyalty to yes-men. Or, heck, personal loyalty in any situation where it overrides what’s right.
Permalink
10.03.05
Posted in General at 1:24 pm by site admin
Let me start off by saying that if any of you don’t already read Leonard Pitts yet, you really should start. I don’t always agree with him, but his arguments are always well-reasoned.
I’d have to name him an honorary Moderate Wacko, if I gave out such awards.
On to the topic.
He wrote an excellent column that talked about the Intelligent Design “debate”.
Go and read the article, but I just have to quote one paragraph, as it’s a wonderful example of how people should be treating evolution:
I believe in God. I believe God is the sovereign author of creation. But that is a matter of faith, not science. Faith, as it says in the book of Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen. Science, by contrast, is founded upon observable phenomena. They are diametric opposites, but both see the same goal: to help man and woman comprehend their lives and their world. To help them find answers.
Permalink