You know, it's a dumb show, and it's purportedly inspired people to do dumb things (although, as I've said, I think most of them are evolution at work), but even I don't believe that people on Jackass ran around shooting people and videotaping their reactions. Even they would have known that was one step too far.
I hope.
The idiots were lucky the police didn't shoot them out of hand.
@ 02:40 PM CST [Link]
The men in New York who were convicted because that priest didn't come forward have been freed.
The trial judge ripped the district attorneys a new one in his comments when he ordered the release: "The Bronx district attorney's office needs to take a good, hard look at this case,” U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin said from the bench. "I am convinced that they did not do it. I still haven't seen any semblance of a reason why Jesus Fornes would lie.” ... , "I can't understand why the district attorney's office is fighting this so hard. He was in prison, apparently convicted for a crime he didn't commit. I'm releasing him.” One might also add that he'd served 13 years of a 15 year sentence; surely the debt to society can be considered paid.
Notwithstanding, the Bronx district attorney's office plans to appeal to the US Court of Appeals. They can't stand the loss of the conviction on their records, I suppose.
The problem is, apparently, we like prosecutors to be a little too gonzo. The general concept of the public is that if you're arrested, you're guilty. It also helps when the people being arrested aren't very nice folk in the first place, and both of these defendants had had run-ins with the law before. Even so, I can't imagine any justification for continuing to pursue this case; surely the Bronx DA's office has better things to do with its time. Surely there are limits to the prosecution that will be tolerated.
@ 01:32 PM CST [Link]
Bush's stances threaten to recast the United States - the home of a generation that fought worldwide fascism, endured the Cold War, and boasted that it would bear any burden in the cause of global freedom - as a nation now more attuned to its own economic interests.
Threaten to? Wasn't that pretty much a core of the Shrubbery's campaign? US first, to hell with the rest of the world? (Except, of course, for those parts of it that let us ship manufacturing jobs overseas to be done in low-wage sweatshops. Those parts we like. Or at least the people who pull Bush II's strings like them.)
Unlike Prof. McManus, I don't imagine there would generally be "outrage" within the country over Shrub's positions; we've always been pretty isolationist. Mostly, we threw ourselves into internationalism the last 50 or so years because we were so surprised by WWII -- the concept that the US could actually be attacked left a lasting mark. Now that the rest of the world is more or less either loosely aligned with us or militarily incapable of any sort of conventional attack, we can withdraw behind our two-ocean shield and sail on in supreme indifference.
Until the next time, that is.
Congress isn't doing anything to temper his positions because they either don't know what to do, or because they don't want to. As it stands, the Democrats have no real reason to try to hold him in too much; the more he sends himself out on the wings, the more ammunition he gives them in upcoming elections. (The fact that his positions are detrimental both domestically and internationally being largely irrelevant to these considerations, of course.) The Republicans know this, to be sure, but are at something of a loss as to how to deal; if they try to publically rein him in, they're afraid they'll be considered disloyal (and we've all seen how well the Shrub handles those he feels are disloyal -- remember how thoroughly he drove Jeffords out?), and he's probably ignoring private attempts. (I would imagine there have been some.)
(And now we're sniping back and forth with Canada. I understand the international debate, but the sniping on defense is just silly. I mean, can we get a grip? What do we plan to do if Canada decides that they just don't want to spend that much on defense? Somehow, I don't see us saying, "Oh, Alaska, you're on your own; we're withdrawing the North American defense perimeter to the northern Continental US border." Canada could pretty much decide to zero out their defense spending -- except that NATO as a whole would take a dim view of that -- and it wouldn't much change anything we do.)
@ 01:04 PM CST [Link]
Bush II Fraudulency and the Salvation Army must be so pleased.
I will admit to being baffled as to how employing only "persons who adhere to a behavioral code consistent with its religious mission" does not constitute prima facie religious requirements; the only thing lacking is a requirement that they attend services.
@ 02:27 PM CST [Link]
So. Maryland voters have decided to put their new gay-rights law on the 2002 ballot. First, this means that it won't take effect until January 2003, at best, and probably not at all. Second, it means that it will become a campaign issue in the governor's race, which means that Marylanders will have the lovely spectacle of seeing which Republican can gaybash with the best of 'em, and which Democrat can nimbly dance around the topic and avoid saying a single word that will alienate moderate to conservative Democrats. (And let's not forget the possibility that, if there be a conservative Democrat in the campaign, he may just try a little verbal bashing just to see how it flies. I expect it would fly very well.)
Supposedly, 60 percent of Maryland voters polled say that they support the law, but let's not kid ourselves; everyone lies about that sort of thing. Nobody wants to be seen as a bigot, or even slightly bigoted, so depending on how the question was phrased, they may have felt cornered into saying that they supported it when their real opinion may have been that they didn't know or didn't like it. A similar referendum defeating a gay rights law in Maine passed -- twice -- even though polling data showed 2-1 support for their law. It's not possible to tell how many people in Maryland are truly supportive. (And if anyone actually believes the polling data, it will certainly fall; for some reason, belief in actual support seems to compromise fundraising and turnout.)
The sophistication, sophistry, and bizarre alliances of the opposition are truly remarkable to see. I mean, Catholics, the Christian Coalition, Orthodox Jews and Muslims? I realize that they're working on that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, but this is truly absurd. For the most part, the Christian Coalition would be happy to see laws saying "Muslims are evil and must be destroyed, or at least expelled," and I'm not sure they're much more lenient about Catholics and I'm certain that they're not about Jews. Yet we're so dangerous that clearly, animosity must be put aside for the greater good. (Well, if nothing else, we've found a way to bring Jews and Muslims together!)
It will be interesting -- in a "may you live in interesting times" sort of way -- to see what happens. I hope the law survives; if it does, maybe it would be a mark of some sort of progress. Maybe it would say that people at large (in Maryland, anyway) really do think that everyone should have the same rights to live their lives peacefully.
@ 01:13 PM CST [Link]
So apparently, the draft had its benefits. People used to see being in the military as a literal duty -- something you had no choice about -- rather than just as another employment option. Now that it is seen as an employment option, people want to quit, just as they would with a normal job. Only, of course, the military isn't a normal job, and quitting really isn't an option.
@ 12:22 PM CST [Link]
"You can hear the patter of little footsteps."
Since when were the footsteps of ATWT (well, you can't keep typing that lump over and over) ever "little"?
In any event, it does seem to indicate that Amazon does have an idea that its future ... well, isn't. Not as an independent company, in any event. On the other hand, as a distribution arm/model for ATWT products -- favoring their publishing wing, for example, and perhaps reduced prices and preferrential distribution on video/audio products from the Warner Brothers and Turner divisions -- Amazon could actually last. (Although what they'd do with their agreements with Borders would be fascinating to see.)
Frankly, once Amazon's stock went into freefall and they signed their agreement to take over the Borders website, I always thought that Borders would end up owning Amazon. Just goes to show, never make assumptions ...
@ 12:15 PM CST [Link]
Miss Cleo! No! Say it isn't so! Consumer fraud! Oh, how could you? I thought your three free minutes were really free! And ... and you only called and billed the people who never requested it because, being a psychic, you knew that they needed your service, right? That's the reason, isn't it?
OK, I am at a loss as to why you would be billing the dead, though. I mean, even if you were charging them because they were appearing in your visions -- and I don't recall you ever claiming to be a medium -- wouldn't this be more in the nature of a free service? Perhaps some sort of exchange between professionals? I mean, whatever would they pay you with? Ectoplasmic funds?
Oh, Miss Cleo ... I am so so disappointed in you ...
@ 12:06 PM CST [Link]
You know, at first I was shocked to hear that North Carolina was going to ban executing the mentally retarded. I hadn't heard much about this, and it seemed an odd thing for North Carolina to do. (Not as odd as it would have been for Virginia or Texas or Oklahoma, granted -- although, give them their due, the Texas Lege did try, and it was the governor who decided that killing the retarded was just fine and dandy! But I digress.)
Then you look closer, and you realize that this law is considerably less than it appears. The prosecution must agree to an evaluation hearing before you can go anywhere, and you must prove your mental deficiency with "clear and convincing evidence." The problem is that the second requirement drags the first in its wake. Prosecutors will never agree to an evaluation hearing for a defendant unless the evidence is so immediately apparent and overwhelming that not doing so would constitute prosecutorial misconduct. (And people that profoundly retarded seldom commit crimes at all, knowingly or otherwise.) Technically, there's another avenue of appeal -- they can ask the jurors to declare them retarded if they meet the standards but the prosecutor refuses -- but again, jurors are unlikely to be unanimous in that regard. There's also a hole a mile wide in this law; what if someone becomes mentally retarded after age 18 due to damage caused by disease or accident? They have no avenue to use this law; by definition, regardless of their current IQ, because it was caused post-adulthood, they cannot be mentally retarded.
About the only real use this law has is to allow the Supreme Court to note for their upcoming case that, yes, general consensus seems to be moving toward sparing the mentally retarded. (And I'm not entirely sure that 18 states will do it for them, but we'll see.) Of course, I suspect the Supremes will sidestep the core issue -- what defines mental retardation? What standards should the states use? -- and they'll allow the states to set their own standards without issuing guidelines. (Which virtually guarantees that they'll be seeing such cases again, but that's another issue.)
The Baltimore Sun (which is having a flurry of interesting articles these days) also has a general analysis of what's happening with the death penalty in this country. Apparently the fall report of the Illinois Commission on the Death Penalty is seen as crucial to the future of the death penalty in this country. I can't imagine that they'll go on record for outright abolition -- it would be nice, but improbable. Quite honestly, if the commission does recommend abolition, I would expect the legislature to laugh long and loud, and then say, "Well ... no."
@ 11:21 AM CST [Link]
An interesting article from TIME that actually analyzes profiling generally, where it came from, how it was warped into what it is today (it seems that the country actually may have Chicago to thank for that), with particular discussion of Cincinnati and its particularly disastrous mix. Given the lack of trust and information within Cincinnati's police department itself, it's no wonder that the city is having such problems. And it's not just Cincinnati dealing with profiling accusations and the resultant "de-policing"; it's happening in other cities, such as Seattle as well.
There's a bill pending before Congress, the End Racial Profiling Act of 2001. Conservatives object to the act -- it's not entirely clear from the articles on what grounds, aside from the studies that state that minorities commit more misdemeanors and felonies per capita than do whites.
Side Note 1: The political problem for conservatives is, even if that's true -- and given the confluence of racial and class and economic issues in this country, it's not beyond the bounds of reason, up to a point -- the conservatives will shoot themselves in the foot by pursuing this option. They're trying to persuade affluent blacks (the middle and low income people being completely lost to them) and Hispanics and Asians of all income levels that they're now kinder, gentler, more accepting of minorities. And then, when a bill comes along which would say, at its core, that police must treat minorities and whites equally when it comes to traffic stops and arrests, they object. How can conservatives make any argument against the bill and still persuade moneyed people of color that really, the Republican Party is the best place for them?
Side Note 2, and completely off topic: the Seattle police seem to have purely lost their minds. They made themselves a copper pig (named "Copper", natch) for Seattle's Pigs on Parade public art project. What could they possibly ever have been thinking? OK, fine, they couldn't have known that they were going to have a little riot and a few Issues to deal with when it was commissioned. And fine, it shows that they have something of a sense of humor about themselves.
But ... a pig?
@ 01:23 PM CST [Link]
My my my. It IS expensive to become an ambassador, isn't it?
I have this vague nebulous feeling that you can tell which ones are career foreign service people going to places they've actually, you know, heard of and maybe know a little something about, and the ones that aren't. A few people donated nothing whatsoever!
A very very few.
People who didn't contribute tend to be headed to low-prestige and/or high maintenance posts, or places with reasonable chances of someone lobbing sometihng explosive at you. Places like Belize or Yemen. Russia is probably low on the contributions and prestige list because nobody sane wants to be there these days, including many of the Russians themselves. Israel, these days, would be an utterly thankless position, as would Congo. (Either one, but especially the DPRC.) Nearly every single person with a $0 by their name is a career diplomat who can be presumed to actually have a clue or two. Conversely, nobody who gave a noticeable sum seems to have much direct experience in the field; then again, if you're out making money, when would you have time to actually learn to be a diplomat of that sort?
Just to eyeball it, looks like the going price for an ambassadorship is around $75,000-$100,000. Although I do just wonder how that guy managed to sneak in for Australia. Not only did he pay a grand total of only $4,000 in contributions, but he actually gave half of that to the Democrats ... Oh, I see. He was with Bush II during the whole Texas Rangers thing. He gets by with a little help from his friends.
And what the hell is going on in Mauritius that would make it worth more than half a million? I mean, yes, it's reportedly quite a lovely place, but half a mil worth of lovely?
@ 12:19 PM CST [Link]
Love thy neighbor. Unless, of course, they're different, and then you can hound them until they commit suicide.
According to Tempest's journal, found under her bed after the suicide, her classmates often crowded around her chanting "Jesus loves you," along with other comments that ridiculed her Wiccan beliefs.
It would be nice if there was some sort of easy answer. Something that would magically make people understand the whole "live and let live" concept. You can institute sensitivity training, of course -- and hey! it's even been shown to work -- but I'm sure that the parents of these lovely children would object to them being taught such things. And, after all, these lovely children had to have gotten their attitudes from somewhere, didn't they? Somewhere they had to learn that it was all right to go after people like that, and then the lesson was reinforced by the teachers and administrators who knew and did nothing.
@ 11:52 AM CST [Link]
Oh, goodie! The FBI is creating little fed hit squads to go after them hackers and copyright violators! I'm sure that will put one hell of a dent in most of the copying that goes on, aren't you? They'll be able to disband the SPA, because they won't need their independent police force; the software manufacturers can just use ours!
The Register is surprised but relieved that Ashcroft didn't trot out the "evil pedophiles online" defense; I suspect he didn't purely because he knew it wouldn't make him any friends with that lot; they already know better than to believe that rhetoric. (That said, if he felt that his speech would get any play outside the geekerati, you can bet that he'd have been trumpeting the "lets get the online perverts!" tune loud and clear.)
And purely as a side note ... Ashcroft concerned about software that violates civil liberties. Um. Yeah. Sure. Right. Whatever you say, Mr Atty General.
In the meantime, European media companies are pressing their governments to slap fees and fines on any piece of equipment that could conceivably be used to facilitate copyright violations or to benefit from the results thereof. Including PCs. They're pressing manufacturers to include digital protections that the consumers don't want for a variety of reasons, not including the ability to make illegal copies. They don't even like the concept that you can make legal private copies.
I suppose at some point, this copyright mess will be worked out. I would expect, frankly, that first the companies will sneak in digital protections that someone will discover only when they're trying to do something normally considered legal, and it doesn't work.
@ 11:40 AM CST [Link]
Woo-hoo! Net use doesn't increase depression, after all. I'm so thrilled. Now I can just be depressed on my own!
@ 11:24 AM CST [Link]
So at some point in the distant future, we're probably going to have a Supreme Court case, determining whether or not Congress meant to allow class action suits over advertising by fax. (NY Times, registration required.) And then the case will go back to the trial level to have the damages recalculated, because $12 million for illegal faxing is just obnoxious.
So, we should see the end of this in ... what, 2010?
@ 06:40 PM CST [Link]
OK, let's get one thing straight (or, actually, two things). MTV's Real World had nothing to do with gentrification attacking Wicker Park -- that debate long predates this year -- and it'll have nothing to do with bringing more gentrification to Wicker Park, since, after all, they'll be gone by the end of the summer. Of all the things that you can rail at ViamountBS for, the gentrification of Chicago would not be one. (Also, if you're going to protest to draw attention to something, make sure that your message is clear, so that outlets realize what you're protesting for.)
@ 06:32 PM CST [Link]
So the question is, if/when Amazon staggers to its bitter end, will the remnants become part of The AOL-Time-Warner-Turner publishing group? (I'm sure there's at least one book publisher in there somewhere; Time-Life Books, if nothing else.)
And what the hell is a "pro-forma net loss"? We have to say that we lost money, but really we didn't? How can that be?
@ 06:06 PM CST [Link]
OK, I will admit, this is certainly a new approach to marketing an operating system. (Media Player required, of course; this is Microsoft. Weirdly, although the page is in German and the menu in the ad is in German, the closing lines are in English.)
Granted that sex sells, but why would you use it this way? What is it trying to say? At a guess, that it's got good security, I suppose, but ... a bra? Wouldn't a chastity belt make more sense?
@ 05:55 PM CST [Link]
Death penalty foes long have suspected that innocents are scattered among the 725 people executed since the Supreme Court revived capital punishment 25 years ago. And some of them are looking to DNA to prove it. New DNA tests of old samples of blood or semen could demonstrate, once and for all, whether an executed man was innocent or guilty. "DNA has the ability to reach back to the grave," says Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington. So far, there has been "no definitive proof of a fatal error [in a capital case], but there are some cases out there where it is possible it could be proven." At the top of his group's list of "doubtful" executions is the case of Coleman, who was executed in 1992 for the murder of Wanda McCoy. Perhaps not surprisingly, state authorities are none too eager to cooperate in the effort to reopen the case. Last month, Virginia officials went to court to block any new tests of the semen samples that helped convict Coleman.
The Virginia Supreme Court will certainly not allow the testing to proceed, and I can't see that there are technically any federal grounds that a federal court would be able to use; the case is literally as moot as it could possibly get.
The funny part is how desperate Virginia is to destroy any remaining evidence in the case; they've requested the return of evidence from a lab in California so that it can be destroyed. Given that a more sophisticated test available shortly after the initial trial might have helped prove Coleman's innocence or guilt, I should think that they would want everything hidden away or destroyed, yes. (I do wonder what the state judge meant about the processes "being so different". Aside from the method of execution, Virginia's death penalty process hasn't seen significant change in the past decade. Even if it had, surely in the interests of "justice", the state would want to know with as much certainty as possible that it was convicting the guilty.)
@ 05:42 PM CST [Link]
Pity that California's parole board can't overrule their governor, instead of the other way around. It might produce decent results.
Gray Davis does illustrate everything wrong with the "law and order" approach to punishment. The approach judges crimes, and not people. It takes everything and fits it into neat little slots without making allowances. California's particular version allows the governor to substitute his judgement for the parole board's, for no particular reason. (I would imagine that arouns 1986, 1987, there was a notorious case or two where the parole board released someone, the governor objected but was powerless, and the person committed another heinous crime; otherwise, the change in the laws makes little sense.) And at this point, with 18 criminals granted release by the board over the governor's objection (he has no jurisdiction over lower level crimes) and only one back in jail, it would seem that California's parole board is perhaps a better judge of people than is their governor.
@ 05:31 PM CST [Link]
All right, this is getting ridiculous. This administration is becoming positively expert at appearing in its worst light, and it's only six months old. What on earth will they do when something really serious comes up?
Granted that GAO may or may not have the authority to ask for the records. If there's no wrongdoing or collusion of some sort, why on earth not provide them? (I thought all records of government task forces were technically public records, in any event.) And what in heaven's name does providing opinions and input into a policy process have to do with petitioning government? And since when has it been possible to make an anonymous petition to government for policy change? If Cheney's going to defend himself using high-falutin' rhetoric, he should at least get the damn rhetoric right.
@ 04:51 PM CST [Link]
OK. I can, with reservations, support the idea that you can write a feature length parody and critique of a novel. (The reservations being purely that I've never read either one, and don't currently plan to do so.) I will admit, however, that Miss Randall is putting me off EVER reading her book. Going to the Mitchell House to promote her book is simply obnoxiousness for its own sake. That would be true even if everyone had been on their best behavior and nary a cross word had been spoken through her talk, and that does not seem to be what happened. (That said ... what was the House director thinking? Being open to debate and being willing to present both sides is wonderful, but she had to know that her own staff would be highly resentful of such a talk.)
@ 04:21 PM CST [Link]
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!