SEC's Pitt Seeks Probe of Webster Appointment: Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt asked Thursday for an internal investigation of William Webster's selection to head an accounting oversight board after the disclosure that Mr. Pitt concealed information about Mr. Webster. [...] Ms. Harlan confirmed the request for the investigation in the wake of a revelation that Mr. Pitt had failed to tell other commission members -- in advance of last Friday's SEC vote -- that Mr. Webster had headed an auditing committee of a company facing fraud charges. Mr. Webster's approval to lead the accounting-oversight board, created by Congress this summer in part to reassure investors spooked by corporate accounting scandals, was approved in a 3-2 party-line vote by the SEC.

(NY Times, registration required) Audit Overseer Cited Problems in Previous Post: ....."I told them that people are making accusations," Mr. Webster said of his conversation with Mr. Pitt before he was appointed last Friday. "I said if this is a problem, then maybe we shouldn't go forward. I raised it because I didn't want it to become an issue." Mr. Webster said he was assured by Mr. Pitt that the staff of the commission had looked into the issue and that it would not pose a problem. Mr. Pitt had urged Mr. Webster to take the job. But U.S. Technologies' former outside accounting firm, other members of the audit committee, company executives, and investors and their lawyers who say they were defrauded say they were never called by anyone at the commission about Mr. Webster's candidacy for the new oversight board. Last Monday, three days after Mr. Webster was appointed, he called Mr. Pitt again to say he had heard over the weekend from another former director that a government investigation had recently begun to examine possible fraud by the chief executive of the company, Mr. Webster said. Lawyers involved in the case say the inquiry, by federal investigators in Manhattan, is actually examining whether Mr. Earls, who recruited Mr. Webster, used the company to violate criminal fraud laws. Mr. Webster is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Pitt did not tell the other commissioners about the Monday conversation either, S.E.C. officials said.

Leaving aside the issue of Mr Webster's actual competence, the one thing that is clear is that if you wish to instill confidence in an accounting oversight board, perhaps the one thing you would not do is to install someone who had been affiliated with a company quite recently accused of accounting fraud, however innocent that person may or may not be. If nothing else, they would be tainted by association -- as, in fact, Mr Webster seems to have been, given all this furore in the face of repeated statements by investigators that he is not a target of the investigation.

That said, one wonders precisely why he's not a target of the investigation. However tactfully the NY Times chooses to put it, what appears to have happened is that BDO Seidman accountants reported to the audit committee of US Technologies that there were serious accounting problems. Said committee, of which Mr Webster was head, responded by hiring a "more experienced chief financial officer" and dismissing BDO Seidman as their auditor, ostensibly because they were concerned about timeliness and the size of the bills. True as that may or may not be, it's the sort of thing that one would think would raise enough of a flag that you would investigate specifically to make sure that they weren't shopping for an Arthur Andersen to make their books look better.

Apart from THAT ... why on earth isn't the rest of the SEC calling for an investigtion of Mr Pitt? The chairman of the commission concealed material information from the commission before the confirmation. He concealed material information that arose after the confirmation. Apart from the ethical issues, the man has to be dumb as dirt. Congress has not been entirely thrilled with him. The SEC members themselves were none too thrilled with him. The press has been snooping around him for weeks, precisely because nobody likes him. He then commits what any sensible person would see as both egregious and unnecessary actions that further call into question his ability and desire to conduct fair oversight of the business industry. Clearly, if nothing else, the man is not enough of a political animal to survive in that position -- he hasn't got the sense god gave a goose -- and he should be removed for his own sake as well as ours.

Posted by iain at 12:14 PM

 

Arthur Anderson LLC may be nearly dead as a corporate entity -- apparently, the shell continues because the entity needs to exist to settle lawsuits -- but its stench continues to linger.

Arizona grand jury indicts 5 from BFA: Five former Baptist Foundation of America directors yesterday were told they would face multiple charges each of fraud, racketeering and theft. [...] BFA's bankruptcy, the largest by a nonprofit in U.S. history, cost about 11,000 mostly elderly investors nearly $590 million. Investors recovered $217 million from a settlement with BFA's accounting firm Arthur Andersen and $21 million from a settlement from the foundation's law firm Jennings, Strouss & Salmon. Investors are also receiving funds from the liquidation of the foundation's real estate assets.

Posted by iain at 10:38 AM

 

The Ultimate Reality TV (washingtonpost.com): Fox News is asking the United Nations for permission to send reporters and camera crews along if U.N. weapons inspectors return to Iraq. "This is a serious proposal," Senior Vice President John Moody told U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in a letter sent Friday. Having broadcast crews along "would make it easier for U.N. inspectors to do their work and would underscore the credibility of the U.N. mission in Iraq. . . . Viewers could decide for themselves if the inspectors are being allowed to do their jobs."

Oh, dear god.

On the one hand, actually watching weapons inspections wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, although I can't imagine that it would be terribly gripping television most of the time.

On the other hand, watching highly edited footage -- and it would have to be to fit into a half-hour or hour timeslot -- slanted to show either the best or worst of what was going on would serve nobody's purpose but Fox. I can't imagine that it would improve anyone's credibility on anything.

There is also pretty much no possible way it could aid Iraq. Either it shows that there's no bite behind the bark -- which, to be sure, Saddam has been saying, but which he might not like to have illustrated quite so graphically -- or it would show that there IS bite, in which case they wouldn't be allowed to film things anyway. (Which, to be sure, would be a story in itself.)

In any event, I can't imagine the UN allowing any such thing. This has been enough of a circus as it is.

Posted by iain at 12:32 PM

 

Media Relations: real sports / October 28, 2002: What on earth is HBO doing with Esera Tuaolo's story, and why are they doing it this way?

Aside from HBO, now that the information is out and about, other outlets are happily doing their own in depth articles.

(Outsports) No More Hiding: There's a riveting scene on HBO's "Real Sports" when former NFL player Esera Tuaolo nearly breaks down. Tuaolo, a 6-3, 300-pounder who could bench press a house, has to compose himself as he recounts the nasty anti-gay epithets and jokes he heard in various locker rooms in his nine-year career. "Faggot … queer … fudge-packer … There's a joke and it's about anthropologists going to this tribe and it's about them having intercourse, so they …," Tuaolo says, his voice trailing off as he looks away, fighting tears.

(NY Times, registration required) Toughest Play for Veteran of N.F.L. Trench Warfare: ..... Tuaolo, who retired after the 1999 season with Carolina, his fifth team, is only the third former N.F.L. player to declare his homosexuality. Ten years ago, Roy Simmons of the Giants came out, most publicly on the "Donahue" television show, but then dropped out of sight. It has been 27 years since Dave Kopay, a ferocious running back and blocker for the Washington Redskins and the San Francisco 49ers, shocked SportsWorld with his declaration.
"The world has certainly improved for gay people since then, but not so much in sports and certainly not in the N.F.L., which has never been sensitive," Kopay said. "They never came out with strong statements against Reggie White or Jeremy Shockey for their homophobic remarks. And they seem happy to pretend that I don't exist."

And people are running with the information in all sorts of different directions:

Admission strikes fear into players: They are scared to death, these tough guys who make up the National Football League. They are scared to death by what former player Esera Tuaolo said and they’re petrified by the fact that, with his saying it, the door opened just a little more to realization that he wasn’t, and isn’t, the only one. [...] Never mind if a player was caught using steroids or is charged with beating his wife or fathers four children by three different women. Those foibles are all forgiven and understandable and simple human nature. But if a player is gay? Forget it. There is nowhere for him to hide. [...] But here’s the thing that no one in the NFL wants to think about. There are 32 teams and 53 players on each roster. That’s nearly 1,700 players. Does anyone really believe there isn’t another homosexual player on a roster? Do players honestly believe that someone else in the locker room, in the next stall, sitting next to them having their ankles taped or, God forbid, in the shower might not be gay? Rumors have swirled around marquee players for years including, most recently, Joe Montana, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders and Jeff Garcia. This season, New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza had to hold a surreal press conference saying he wasn’t gay.

'Superstar' says Tuaolo wasn't only gridiron gay: ..... "We had others and I'm not going to name anyone. There was one in my early career with the St. Louis Cardinals and one later with the Vikings," said Superstar. "I don't care. It's your business. Stay away from me. After he left the Vikings a lot of people knew that he had told a lot of us." Since then Superstar has run into Tuaolo at the State Fair. "I went up and said 'Hi' to him. He's as good a person as you'll ever meet."

Somehow, I have the vague feeling that no man in professional organized team sports would be able to manage this minefield. Not last year, and not in 2002.

But I digress.

Posted by iain at 12:55 AM

 

Md., Va., Federal Prosecutors Weigh First Trial Site (washingtonpost.com): Prosecutors from Maryland, Virginia and the federal government were maneuvering yesterday for the first chance to try the sniper shootings case, with a high-level debate centering upon which venue has the best chance of carrying out the death penalty.
Montgomery County, which was the site of six of the 13 attacks, ordinarily would be the starting point for what's likely to be a complex and time-consuming series of court cases, say current and former prosecutors. But in Virginia, site of five sniper shootings, officials were pushing to take the lead in the overall prosecution by contrasting their experience in death penalty cases with that of Maryland, which has a historic reluctance to carry out executions and a moratorium on them imposed by outgoing Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D). [...] "There ought to be two determining factors above all others," said former Justice Department official George Terwilliger III. "Where is the strongest case with the best evidence? And which is the jurisdiction that can most expeditiously go through a death penalty trial where it has the best chance of being upheld?" [...] Malvo's status as a juvenile further complicated the picture; among the jurisdictions considering charges, only Virginia executes juveniles.

There is something unseemly about jurisdictions arguing about the best place to charge someone so that they can get around to killin' him before he's actually had a single trial.

To be sure, at the moment, there seems to be little doubt that Muhammad and Malvo were, at the least, involved in the killings. And, assuming that the evidence to support this case exists, opposed to the death penalty as it is carried out in this country as I am ... I cannot say that I will shed a particular tear if these people are executed for these crimes.

That said ... it does seem like we ought to let them actually have a trial before we decide where to execute them. It's not going to be remotely fair, and it's probably going to be breathakingly speedy so as to make sure that nobody in the area has forgotten the terror they felt at wondering if they'd be next. But they ought to at least make the token effort of pretending it's going to be a fair trial.

(That said, I make you a prediction: since Virginia's willingness to execute is so welll known, both Muhammad and Malvo will be tried on Virginia capital charges. After all, Virginia is the only one of the competing jurisdictions which can execute Malvo; why not go for the package deal?)

Posted by iain at 12:08 AM

 

ABCNEWS.com : Abortion Group Blasts N.M. Candidate: The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Santa Fe said fliers it circulated highlighting the gubernatorial candidates' records on abortion were not meant as a political endorsement. The fliers, published by Right to Life of New Mexico and sent to the archdiocese's 92 parishes for distribution, criticize Democrat Bill Richardson for his voting record on abortion rights while portraying Republican John Sanchez as supportive of an anti-abortion position. [...] The fliers detail Richardson's record from 1984-1997 as a New Mexico congressman and state: "Richardson's record shows a lack of respect for human life. As governor, he would not serve the people of New Mexico on the life issues any better than he did as a congressman."

I believe the proper response to this statement is : Yeah. Right. Sure. Whatever you say.

Let's face facts: it's just a wee bit disingenuous to issue flyers saying, "This man is antiabortion, therefore he is good, while this man is proabortion and therefore he is bad bad bad bad BAD!" and not have it construed as a political endorsement. In fact, it's pretty much impossible that it not be effectively a political endorsement.

The reason, of course, that the Church is backing away and saying that, no, they really didn't mean it that way, is because of a law that forbids nonprofit organizations from engaging in political advocacy. Or, to be more precise, engaging in political advocacy constitutes an automatic revocation of said organization's nonprofit status, and all holdings and income are immediately and ever after subject to corporate taxation rates.

Needless to say, the Church would rather not pay taxes.

An interesting bit down near the bottom of the article: On Wednesday, Washington, D.C.-based Catholics for a Free Choice released a report that the group said shows 66 percent of Catholic voters support legal abortion. Overall, the study shows Catholic voters are more likely to stand with other Americans than with the Vatican, the group said.

It would be fascinating to see such a survey carried out by a truly nonpartisan organization. (Somehow, I just doubt that Catholics for a Free Choice is neutral on this issue.) Frankly, I suspect that the conclusion itself is correct, although probably a gread deal more nuanced than that stark statement. One of the things often noted about this country is that religion tends to take a back seat to Americanism on certain single point issues with certain people.

Posted by iain at 05:11 PM

 

A Crime-Weary France Plans a Crackdown: Squatters who occupy private land will face prison terms. "Passive soliciting" by prostitutes will become a crime. Beggars and Gypsies will be banned from using pressure tactics and working in groups. [...] The bill, which is expected to be approved by Parliament, will expand police powers to search vehicles, frisk individuals and take DNA samples of many more suspects. Mr. Sarkozy, who has already increased police powers as part of his crackdown, today reiterated his intention to help curb rural crime by reorganizing the police and giving them more money.
     [...] Some of the new restrictions could be far-reaching. The utterance of a threatening expletive to a policeman or a government official could bring a $30,000 fine and a two-year jail sentence; a death threat could cost $75,000. A woman whose dress or attitude gives the impression that she is soliciting money for sex can face a fine of $3,800 or six months in jail. Clients of prostitutes who have a "vulnerability" (who suffer from illness, a psychological disorder or a disability, for example) will face three years in prison and a $45,000 fine.

They're actually going to be determining who is a prostitute by their clothing.

Well, that ought to make things fun in France. Just imagine what it will be like in some of the more conservative areas controlled by the National Front: "You are wearing a skirt that is two centimetres above your knee. You are clearly a prostitute. And you, young man. You're walking with this woman who not only has a prostitutionally short skirt, but she also has a congenital defect of the leg. You are clearly soliciting from a prostitute with a 'vulnerability'. To jail with both of you!"

I'd also like to see how you manage arresting someone for "passive solicitation" when, under these laws, prostitution itself is not a crime. If you look like you're thinking of exchanging money for sex, you're a criminal who must go to jail, but if you actually exchange money for sex, that's OK.

And even in the US, where we can find unique and disturbing rationalizations for almost anything ... even we would not likely try to find some sort of equivalence between attacks on public safety personnel and gang rapes on teenage girls and THESE crimes. And frankly given these and the other crimes that they report, I'm at a loss as to how these penalties are supposed to deter said assaults, or assassination attempts against public officials, or a boy murdering his former girlfriend.

(Side note. The Venerable Beeb seems to be slipping a bit in its editorial controls on its website. Note these two articles: from October 23, France approves tough crime bill and from October 21, French Left indignant over crime bill. They're nearly word for word the same article, with the paragraphs slightly rearranged. Tsk. At the very least, you'd think that the later article would report in somewhat greater detail the content of the bill that was passed.)

Posted by iain at 12:02 PM

 

Controversy Greets Early Voting: Early voters were met Monday at the Jefferson County Courthouse by poll watchers from the Republican Party of Arkansas who demanded identification and challenged voter ballots. The Democrats' "Team Arkansas" had barely concluded its early vote rally across the street from the Courthouse when the trouble began. Under the watchers' eyes, both voters and county officials received what they called unexpected - and unnecessary - scrutiny of the election process. Trey Ashcraft, chairman of the Jefferson County Election Commission, said it was obvious the Republicans' actions were targeting African-Americans.
     In a press release, Michael Cook, executive director for the Democratic Party of Arkansas, criticized Sen. Tim Hutchinson and the Republican Party for intimidating and harassing African-American voters in Jefferson County and for giving the poll watchers notarized credentials he said were apparently forged. [...] During Monday's voting, poll watchers were seen asking voters to either produce identification or risk having their ballots challenged. "A voter does not have to show an ID as long as it's noted on the ballot," Secretary of State Sharon Priest said. "They (poll watchers) can challenge a ballot, but they cannot ask for an ID or even talk to the voters."

Ah, yes. The voting season has begun, and it's clearly going to be a spectacularly nasty one.

Officials in the clerk's office said several would-be voters became so frustrated and offended by the process that they left without casting a vote.

That was probably the point, I expect.

What I would seriously like to know is why on earth the state allowed poll watchers who didn't know their responsibilities to be appointed. And how on earth do you wind up with only Republican poll watchers in a heavily Democratic district; that's the sort of thing that could only possibly lead to trouble. You'd think that for any given area, you'd have maybe a Republican, a Democrat and some species of independent or minor party poll watcher, just to avoid this sort of mess.

Posted by iain at 11:39 AM

 

Bush urges ban on "morphed" porn: "The House passed a bill which makes it illegal for child pornographers to disseminate obscene, computer-generated images of children," Bush said. "It's an important piece of legislation. The Senate needs to act soon. The Senate needs to get moving and join the House in providing our prosecutors with the tools necessary to help shut down this obscenity, this crime." Bush warned that: "Every day, millions of children log on to the Internet, and every day we learn more about the evil of the world that has crept into it. In a single year, one in four children between the ages of 10 and 17 is voluntarily--involuntarily exposed to pornography. That's one in four children."
    In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 413 to 8 for a bill that would outlaw computer-generated sexually explicit images of anyone under 18 years old, even if no actual minor was involved. The Senate is considering a similar bill but has not voted on it.

One would think that Congress would decide that perhaps this is not the path to pursue, since the courts explicitly overruled this part of their child protection law. The courts also declined to give a roadmap as to what Congress can do to make it work, indicating that any such ban on pornography that doesn't involve actual people is not something that can be banned under the constitution.

(I dare say that when Bush accidentally said that one in four is "voluntarily" exposed to pornography, he was vastly understating the case. Frankly, I'd imagine that probably three in four actively seeks it out at least once. But that's neither here nor there.)

I will admit, the law enforcement argument is most irritating. For some reason, government sems to persist in the concept that it's our responsibility to make law enforcement's job easier for them. Granted, it isn't our responsibility to make it any more difficult, but it certainly isn't the responsibility of the public to give them the ability to police our thoughts. Law enforcement is required to have evidence to support its cases, and to be able to prove those cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bush's rhetoric in this is also incredibly misleading. He's stating more or less that sll pornography that children are exposed to is child pornography, and it's apparently all on the internet. At least, that would seem to be the logical inference of his statement about one in four children being exposed to pornography on the internet, since that figure has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Posted by iain at 12:26 AM

 

The Blue Wall of Terror by Jess Wisloski: "When [Donovan Jackson] happened we got a lot of calls from mainly media, and people were asking us, 'Well isn't it the case that mostly police brutality had gone away, and are you shocked?' " says Kathryn Lee, an organizer at the [October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression, and the Criminalization of a Generation] national offices in New York City. "And we had to say, 'Well actually, unfortunately, it did not,' because we'd been tracking it all along." [...] Lee explains that incidents of police brutality -- shootings, fatal beatings, suffocation, and in one Chicago case the alleged pushing of a suspect off an elevated train platform -- have actually gone up in the last year. The coalition reports that, nationwide, at least 140 cases of excessive force or misconduct causing death have been reported, 33 of which were in the New York/New Jersey area. Many of these are under investigation, though even that route has long proven a dead end for many families.
     [...] Then there’s the problem of media coverage. "There is clampdown," says Lee, who argues that a lot of cases have just not been reported. She cites the story of 25-year-old Gonzalo Martinez, an American-born Californian raised by Argentinian parents, who was shot 34 times by officers in Los Angeles. Lee's is a sentiment shared by activists coast-to-coast, who refer to a media "blackout" or "whitewashing" of stories that cast police in anything other than the limelight.
     [...] The October 22nd Coalition's mantra is "Wear black—fight back."

Well ... the group certainly seems to have a point about the "whitewashing", anyway. Take, for example, the Tribune's story about the protest. (Normally registration would be required to see it, but for reasons thatwill become obvious, that won't be necessary now.)

7 protesters arrested at a downtown rally: CHICAGO -- Seven people were arrested during a downtown rally against police brutality Tuesday after they blocked traffic near Federal Plaza, police said. The six men and one woman, ages 18 to 50, were warned "numerous times" to move from the intersection of Jackson Boulevard and State Street before they were arrested and charged with mob action at 1:35 p.m., said Chicago police spokesman Robert Cargie. Several of the arrested protesters sat in the road, he said. About 300 people marched in the protest, said Isaac Csandl, a member of the steering committee organizing the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation.

That's it. That's the entire story. No background on the group, no reporting of the names of the arrested (although if they know their ages, they should certainly know their names), no reporting of what happened to them, no real information about the content of the protest or about the group itself.

Mind, the coalition does itself no favors with that unspeakably strained moniker. It's so long and pretentious that it encourages people to dismiss them out of hand. Their "mantra" doesn't help any, either. A pity, since their cause is very real.

Their PSA campaign seems a bit ... misguided, but that may not be their fault. I'm not talking about the content of the ads themselves, since I haven't seen them ... which is precisely the problem. As far as I can determine from the website, they seem to be airing only on BET. Frankly, most blacks in this country do not particularly need persuading that police brutality is a problem. Placing ads on BET (or Telemundo -- and even if the coalition had Spanish language ads, Telemundo probably wouldn't air them now that it's an NBC subsidiary) is somewhat preaching to the choir. However, trying to get the ads onto a network affiliate would be ... painful, to say the least. Imagine, if you will, an ad that talks about police brutality, citing various New York cases ... airing during ABC's NYPD Blue. Or during NBC's Third Watch or Law and Order franchise or Boomtown. Or CBS' Robbery Homicide Division or CSI shows. All of which depend on the goodwill of various police departments and divisions for continued access, the ability to use certain logos, the ability to get certain permits ... the conflict of interest is quite stark.

And, of course, cases like this which do get more media coverage don't help their cause:

N. Sider tells court of beating by police .... Waits admitted to being upset because a Belmont District officer who refused to let him make a right turn at the intersection of Irving Park and Ashland when traffic was heavy because of a Chicago Cubs baseball game. Waits said the officer shouted obscenities at him prompting Waits to return to the intersection later with a water bottle. The next day police officers arrived at his home to arrest him, Waits said. Waits, who is gay, said that he was taunted by police and later beaten while he was in custody at the Belmont district station. Police officer Daniel Durst slapped him in the face more than 20 times and kicked him in the groin, Waits testified in the civil jury trial which began Tuesday before Judge William Hibler. Waits has also named Sgt. Michael Prusank in the suit, which seeks unspecified damages.

You know ... the police are supposed to be patient with the public. I understand that. And the Chicago police are notorious for their mistreatment of gays.

However.

Given that said mistreatment IS notorious, wouldn't you think once or twice about going to a policeman and shouting abuse at him and squirting him with water? Frankly, if I were on the jury, I would be a tad conflicted. On the one hand, no, the police shouldn't have abused him. On the other hand, he's clearly mentally deficient. Should the police be held responsible for being provoked by someone who is clearly an absolute and utter idiot? ... Hmm. A puzzlement.

Posted by iain at 11:46 AM

 

Cox Newspapers | News Service: For 169 years, it's been a crime in Georgia for anyone to have sex out of wedlock. But an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer on Tuesday asked the Georgia Supreme Court to toss the government "out of the bedroom" by throwing out the state's fornication law. "Hundreds of thousands of Georgians, even those in long-term relationships, are criminals, criminals under this law, even if they engage in these private acts in their own house," ACLU lawyer Gerry Weber said in arguments before the court. [...] The challenge is being brought by a teenager described in court papers as J.M. A year ago, he was prosecuted as a 16-year-old juvenile after found having sex with his girlfriend in her Fayette County home. Although the girl, identified by court records as J.D., placed a stool against her bedroom door, her mother caught them in the act at about 3 a.m.

Judging from the questions asked by the justices, this case is very likely to turn on the fact that they seem to feel that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for the boy when he was in the girl's bedroom. Despite the fact that he had been invited. Despite the fact that he was known to the girl's parents. Despite the fact that they are both legally old enough to have consensual sex under Georgia law ... as long as they're married. (You do wonder that Georgia didn't notice that inherent contradiction in the law. You can have sex without parental consent before you're old enough to marry without parental consent. Just a wee problem there.)

Frankly, this case reads very much as though the girl's probation officer had it in for her (she was on probation for a previous offense). Otherwise, there's no practical reason why she would have been prosecuted for activity which would not otherwise have been illegal. And what sane person in Georgia would expect that consensual sex between unmarried adults was illegal? Given the number of unmarried adults cohabiting in that state, they clearly don't go out of their way to let people know that such acts are illegal.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I honestly don't see how the Georgia Supreme Court could throw out that state's sodomy law and then leave this one intact when it was finally challenged. Surely if the right to have oral sex is a measure of privacy, the right to have sex at all ought to be included.

Frankly, given the peculiar age of the law, it seems more oriented to making certain that common law marriage wasn't recognized in that state.

Posted by iain at 03:55 PM

 

Black Hall of Fame plans honor for Clinton: Bill Clinton, once famously described by author Toni Morrison as "our first black president," is being inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame as an honorary member. The former president will be the first non-black recognized in the hall's 10-year history. He is expected to attend the Saturday night event.

I have absolutely no comment. No. None. Whatsoever.

Although ... wouldn't you think that the presidents who actually signed most of the early civil rights legislation (with, for that matter, the certain knowledge that it would cost them politically more than they could pay) ... wouldn't you think that they would deserve that signal honor as much as Clinton? To be sure, LBJ would be problematic, at best, what with Vietnam being a substantial portion of his legacy ... but nonetheless, he did actually sign much of the legislation, knowing that it would lose the Solid South for the Democratic Party for decades to come. (And surely Vietnam is no more problematic than the second president ever to undergo the impeachment process.)

Posted by iain at 03:36 PM

 

Moore Testifies on Commandments: The chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court says he installed a 5,300-pound monument to the Ten Commandments in the state Judicial Building because he was concerned about the nation's moral decline. Chief Justice Roy Moore testified for a second day Thursday in the trial of a federal lawsuit seeking to remove the monument he had installed in the building's rotunda in the middle of the night. "The basic issue is whether we will still be able to acknowledge God under the First Amendment, or whether we will not be able to acknowledge God," Moore said.

You know, I'd think that the basic issue was whether or not the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court actually knows the law of the land. It does strike me that perhaps having a chief justice who knowingly flaunts the law in that manner ought to be grounds for impeachment or dismissal or whatever it is that a state does with a justice that refuses to enforce and obey the law.

Somehow, though, I just don't expect that to happen.

I vaguely hope this gets up to the Supreme Court, just so we can watch Ashcroft file an amicus brief on the side of Moore and get slapped silly by the Court. Even THIS Court isn't terribly tolerant of this type of flagrant and knowing violation.

Posted by iain at 11:45 PM

 

Conviction in Fla. murder overturned: A judge Thursday threw out the convictions of two boys found guilty in the slaying of their father, who was bludgeoned with a baseball as he slept. Circuit Judge Frank Bell ordered prosecutors and defense attorneys to try to resolve the case. He said he would order a new trial for Alex and Derek King, ages 13 and 14, if the talks failed. ALEX WAS 12 and Derek 13 on Nov. 26 when their father was killed and his house set on fire in nearby Cantonment. The brothers were facing prison terms of 20 years to life under state sentencing guidelines because they were tried as adults rather than juveniles. They were convicted of arson and second-degree murder without a weapon. [...] Jury forewoman Lynne Schwarz said at a courthouse rally for the boys before the hearing that she never thought the jury’s verdict would result in prison time for the boys. “We always thought that there was going to be some kind of rehabilitation, that the boys were going to be taken somewhere where they could have a new life and learn to be productive citizens,” said Schwarz, 52. “We never thought that these boys committed the crime. Never.”

I freely admit, I'm astonished by almost, but not quite, every possible aspect of this case.

I am surprised, but not astonished, that a 12- and 13-year-old might conspire to murder their father, and might even carry it out.

I am astonished that Florida allows people to be tried as adults for crimes committed when they were 12.

I wish I could be astonished that the jurors from the children's case were kept in the dark about the related Chavis case. Anything for a conviction, I suppose. That said, I don't see how it could have helped them to know that he'd been found not guilty; it would have increased the pressure in both directions -- after all, someone killed the man, and it does seem that somehow, those three people were involved, one way or another.

And I would truly like to know what sort of instructions the jurors in the boys' case got, what sort of delusions they were having. Why on earth would they find the boys guilty if they didn't think they were guilty? How is it not a dereliction of duty for them to find the boys guilty when they apparently didn't think that they were? What on earth were they thinking? And even getting through all that, these jurors knew -- were probably instructed on this repeatedly -- that the boys were being tried as adults on a capital crime. Why on earth wouldn't they see a prison sentence even as a possibility? (I assume that the possibility of a death sentence was rejected by the prosecution before the trial started; I would imagine that most juries would be reluctant in the extreme to send a 12-year-old to Ol' Sparky. [And, yes, I know that Florida decided in the recent past to stop using Ol' Sparky.])

I do wonder on what grounds the judge threw out the conviction. The AP Wire story doesn't say, and nobody else seems to have anything other than that story, in various stages of completeness.

It also doesn't say whether or not the judge rejecting the sentence was the original trial judge. I think it must be, since it's a circuit court judge and not an appeals level judge, but in that case, why did he let the case go to the jury in this state?

Apparently, there may be questions about prosecutorial ethics in this case. Although, given that Chavis was found not guilty, it does seem that the prosecutors can now reasonably say, "Well, he was found not guilty, so our theory is that the kids did it." However, saying both originally was problematic. (Also, regarding Toobin's comment that, "... prosecutors have a different obligation. You only bring a case if you truly believe that person is guilty", I would like to say: HA! Prosecutors bring cases they think they can prove and win; guilt or innocence is entirely beside the point. By the same token, guilt or innocence isn't relevant to defense attorneys; their responsibility within the system is to try to instill enough reasonable doubt in the jury so as to prevent conviction.)

Posted by iain at 05:17 PM

 

Wanded for being nonwhite | csmonitor.com: 'Call it as you see it," one of my editors says to me as we exchange stories of travel hassles. So let me do so in national print: Racial profiling is rampant in airports.
     "Random computer-determined searches," I'm told. "Your ticket has been randomly flagged," they insist. "We're searching every eighth person," I hear.
     Call it what you will. But I literally can't remember the last time I made it on to an airplane without being quietly pulled aside and asked to open all my bags.

Nothing to say about this that I haven't said already. I just thought it bore some repeating.

Posted by iain at 12:21 PM

 

Apparently, the serial sniper killings in DC are bringing out the loons on both sides, and not only in DC.

CNN Inside Politics: October 15, 2002, transcript

MORAN: I think that the answer is undeterminative. It may very well be that it's because of the easy accessibility of guns that this guy was able to, but if you're really determined, you can get a gun.
     I'm a co-sponsor of a bill Rob Andrews from New Jersey has sponsored that would keep a national database of the thumbprint of every weapon -- when it's shot, it puts a unique thumbprint on the bullet. That would probably have helped us apprehend him by now.
     Of course, again, it's speculation. It's not foolproof --
     WOODRUFF: This is the so-called -- this is the so-called ballistic fingerprinting that Ari Fleischer at the White House said the administration is opposed to.
     MORAN: They're opposed to it because the National Rifle Association is opposed to it, but I don't know what they fear for. Why do they want to protect people who would be shooting other people?
     It seems to me a reasonable thing to do. The assault weapon ban that -- it's been generally opposed by many people in the White House. It's going to come up for renewal. I would hope it would get added impetus when we see what could happen with the easy availability of guns. Of course, again, it's speculation. This person who has been able to kill every person that he has shot at with one bullet is obviously a skilled marksman. And I'm glad the defense department is getting involved because it's very difficult, even if you've got natural talent, to become skilled in anything. The military is the only place where you're really paid to practice your marksmanship. Even local law enforcement doesn't have much opportunity.

You know ... I don't like either Shrub's administration or the NRA -- in fact, I think I could say that I have a studied distaste for the Shrub's administration, and cordially loathe and despise the NRA -- and even I wouldn't go so far as to say that the administration or the NRA wants to protect murderers. And what any of this has to do with the assault weapons ban, I'm sure I don't know.

Meanwhile, on the right...

Heed the rants of gun nuts before you vote: The gun nuts have forgotten to take their medication again. Usually, I wouldn't call them gun nuts. It's impolite in the first place, and in the second place, they all own guns--which come to think of it, probably ought to be the first place. [...] I wouldn't want the gun nuts to feel that I had unfairly portrayed their views, so I will quote the items in their entirety. Here's the first:
    "Of course, most of you have heard about the sniper killings in Maryland this week. And, as expected, the gun grabbers are blaming law-abiding firearm owners for the carnage. Squawks include demands that centerfire rifles be placed under Class III jurisdiction," states the Roundup.
    "Far be it from us to advance conspiracy theories, but the timing of this sniper activity is unsettling,'' the newsletter continues. "Maryland has one of the hottest governor's races in the country, certainly hotter than that in Illinois. The central theme of the Maryland race is gun control. Things heat up. There is this off the wall series of sniper killings. Murder made to order for the antigunners. Hmmm, weren't there some other high-profile mass gun killings at strangely convenient times?"

So apparently, the Illinois State Rifle Association feels that your rabid left-winger is running around killing people to advocate gun control positions.

Just a bit counter-intuitive, our little group, isn't it? (The second bit of lunacy that the columnist talks about isn't related to the sniper, but is, nonetheless, quite impressive in its own right. Apparently, in a rather snippy article about the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, the ISRA says, "Of course, we'll hear how the little angel wanted to be a doctor. Question, how come all these dead kids wanted to be doctors? Obviously, wanting to be a doctor is the problem, not guns." Apparently, the ISRA is a tad blind to the fact that blaming children for their own deaths at the hands of others -- however facetiously -- is, perhaps, not your best public relations tactic.)

For inspired lunacy on unrelated topics, however, I commend you to the ISRA website at http://www.isra.org/ -- and no, I'm not linking, since the ISRA referrer logs can do quite nicely without me, thanks. The current newsframe about traffic accident beatings in Chicago is ... puzzling, to say the least. Take, for example, their idea that a concealed-carry law have prevented these deaths. First, it assumes that these men would have had weapons -- apparently, once concealed-carry is legal, everyone will be armed to the teeth. Second, it assumes that the mob would have cared. Let's just follow this situation through, shall we? Let's shall.

The two men in the van has just hit, and maybe killed, two women sitting unaware on their own doorstep. The mob is perfectly well aware that the people in the van have a deadly weapon -- he was driving it -- and still come after them. The people in said vehicle are dazed and disoriented -- accidents will do that to you. Most people would assume that someone coming up to them after a traffic accident are trying to help them, if they think about it at all. By the time they're both clear-headed and able to realize that no, these people really don't want to help, it's usually a tad late. And yet they're supposed to realize that they should just get out that weapon and start shooting. (We will not consider the fact that you can only shoot so many people -- tsk, that pesky assault weapons ban -- and that the mob is angry at you for killing someone in the first place, so killing more of them when you can't get away may not actually be your best and brightest move.)

There's also this statement I find odd: "Mob beatings after traffic accidents are becoming very commonplace in Chicago..." You know ... as far as I can determine, there's been precisely ONE. I can't find any record of anything other than the August incident on the South Side. If I'm counting properly, all four of the deaths are related to that one incident. And yet it's becoming very commonplace. Who knew that ONE marked a trend?

I'm thinking that if I ever see a car in an accident with an ISRA bumper sticker ... I'm staying way far away from it. In fact, staying way far away from it would be a good idea in general.

Posted by iain at 11:01 AM

 

Giuliani Takes 'Zero Tolerance' Policy South of the Border: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani is taking the hard-nosed "Zero Tolerance" police policies that cleaned up crime-ridden New York to Mexico City, which has an exploding crime rate similar to that of pre-Giuliani New York. Giuliani's consulting firm the Giuliani Group, created after he left office, has been hired by a group of concerned Mexican citizens to bring his crime-fighting techniques to Mexico City, now suffering from an epidemic of serious crime. [...] Giuliani told reporters Thursday that he would recommend the same methods that drastically reduced New York City's crime rates, including what was called the "broken windows" method of punishing minor crimes such as breaking windows as a way to discourage lawlessness at its most basic levels, pinpointing potential lawbreakers before they could move on to more serious offenses. The policy also included such tactics as the use of crime statistics and mapping to locate problem areas.

Somehow, I don't believe that a policy of arresting all the nonwhite and poor people that you can find (as well as, you know, one or two criminals) is a policy that will precisely work in Mexico City. That is, after all, largely what "zero tolerance" worked out to; arresting and/or harrassing anyone who did not appear to be "an upright citizen", with the police free to use their own judgement about what constituted "upright".

Facetiousness aside, whatever you believe about the merits of Giuliani's New York policy, it rested on the backs of the NYPD ... and whatever else people believe about them, most don't feel that the department itself was corrupt from top to bottom. Most believed that the NYPD, as a whole, tried to to its job honestly ... if, periodically, with an excess of enthusiasm resulting in really spectacular lawsuits.

By contrast, the corruption in Mexico City's police department is well known and attested. It's very difficult to enforce a policy honestly when most of the people charged with enforcing it are not themselves honest, or believed to be so.

One also wonders how, precisely, a "get tough on crime" approach works to repair a devalued currency. After all, it's Mexico's financial state that's led to its kidnapping problems. The training offered by the FBI to the Mexico City police may actually be more effective in that regard. (Of course, given their reputation for corruption, it may merely make them more effective extortionists.)

It's also worth noting that many of the local politicians are not amused. (It's also worth noting that the alignment of those for and against Giuliani are almost precisely reversed to what you would expect, and what you would see here. The left, such as it is, is for his intervention, and the right is seriously discommoded at the prospect.)

Purely as a side note: according to a story on NPR today, apparently, in an effort to make their police more tourist friendly, Mexico City is having their police dress as gauchos -- cowboy boots and hats, and sometimes serapes and sombreros.

No, really.

No. REALLY.

Posted by iain at 10:29 PM

 

CityBeat: AIDS Kills People of Color (2002-10-10):... "He who conceals his disease cannot expect to be cured," says Gregory Andrews, reading an Ethiopian proverb from a poster on the wall at the Minority AIDS Prevention Alliance (MAPA) in Walnut Hills.
Andrews is the program coordinator for MAPA, an all-volunteer, non-profit organization formed in 1998. HIV/AIDS is six times more prevalent among African Americans than whites, according to the Ohio Department of Health. Andrews says the numbers are especially alarming in Hamilton, Butler and Clermont counties. [...] Straughn and Andrews say breaking down stereotypes is the key to stopping the disease, which has caused 7,563 deaths in Ohio, including 938 in Hamilton County. Perhaps the most pervasive stereotype is that AIDS is an issue that need concern only white homosexual men. "I think we have a fear among our black men that if I come forward and somebody knows I have HIV, then they'll think I'm gay," Straughn says.

Of course, the problem with that is, the majority of the men who contract AIDS in the black community contracted it by having sex with other men. However, since they don't think of themselves as gay, then they feel the message isn't for them. (And even if they did, many feel they couldn't admit it publicly.)

And most of the rest acquired the disease through IV drug abuse, and you don't talk about that either.

And then the women acquire the disease from the men who are lying to themselves and everyone else, and the cycle just goes on.

Posted by iain at 05:08 PM

 

Hey, Falwell got his own fatwa! Heaven knows, he's been working hard to get people to pronounce something like this upon him, and he's finally achieved success!

Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Falwell Enrages Shiite Clerics BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Shiite Muslim clerics in Lebanon and Iran have reacted with rage at the Rev. Jerry Falwell for calling Islam's prophet a terrorist and an envoy of Iran's supreme leader reportedly called for his death. Iranian cleric Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, addressing weekly Friday prayers in the northwestern town of Tabriz, said Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed,'' the Farsi-language daily Abrar reported Saturday.

Interestingly enough, they're distinguishing between Falwell and Christians at large, as he tries not to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims at large:"The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community,'' Shabestari, a representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted as saying.

I don't imagine he'll lose any sleep over it. I don't think he's got enough of a conscience to lose sleep over anything, really.

Posted by iain at 03:33 PM

 

The "news of the weird" concept seems to have struck medicine these days.

That Flaming Hair Could Mean Flaming Pain: People with natural red hair need about 20 percent more anesthesia than people with other hair colors, they told a meeting of anesthesiologists. The unexpected finding not only suggests that redheads are more sensitive to pain, but offers insights into how anesthesia works in people.

Well, that's odd. I wonder what the gene complex is doing that would make redheads more susceptible to pain?

And in the "you can do anything with tape as long as it's DUCT tape" category:

Duct Tape Can Get Rid of Warts: Study: According to the findings of a small study in children, applying plain old duct tape to the common wart (scientifically known as Verruca vulgaris) appears to be superior to traditional cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen.

You know ... not that I'm not in favor of low-cost medical treatment, when it's effective ... but you wonder what made this occur to the researchers. What would make them say, "You know, cryotherapy is awfully painful and difficult for children. We need an alternative ... I know! Let's try some duct tape!" I mean, duct tape is not quite what you would expect to occur to a doctor as a first option for treatment. Sure, some kid somewhere probably got a wart pulled out by duct tape accidentally ... but this needs repeated applications. What would make them think, "Hey, this one thing worked once; let's do it a LOT and see what happens!" Especially since you're not generally supposed to apply duct tape to people; I'm fairly sure that the manufacturer would say that this was contraindicated, by the fact that if your skin is a bit dry, getting it off will be hella painful.

Especially if you're a redhead.

Posted by iain at 10:34 PM

 

Judge rules Arab-American taken off plane can sue United Airlines: A judge has cleared the way for a discrimination lawsuit by an Arab-American who was removed from a United Airlines flight three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled that although airlines need to remove passengers who pose a security threat, that duty "does not grant them a license to discriminate.'' The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of Assem Bayaa, an Irvine auditor who was removed from a New York-bound United flight in Los Angeles on Dec. 23.
     Bayaa said security told him he was removed because the crew wasn't comfortable having him aboard.

Dr. Bob Rajcoomar, a 54-year old Florida doctor of Indian descent and former U.S. Army major, recently took a flight with his wife from Atlanta to Philadelphia, during which air marshals subdued and restrained an "unruly" passenger. The marshals brought the passenger, who had been sitting in economy class, to first class, where Dr. Rajcoomar and his wife were seated. Then one of the air marshals brandished a gun and told all passengers not to leave their seats until the plane landed. (News reports indicate that the whole event had a Rambo-like feeling.)
    When the plane landed, the unruly passenger was taken off the flight. So was Dr. Rajcoomar, who was yanked from his seat, handcuffed and thrown into jail. The marshals did not tell his wife what was happening; she wandered around the airport for hours, not knowing what had become of her husband. Later reports from the Department of Transportation Security -- the agency that supervises marshals -- said that Dr. Rajcoomar was jailed because he had "watched the event too closely" or "observed the event too closely." But it seems hardly surprising that he -- and indeed, any other passenger -- would have paid close attention to what was occurring. After all, their lives seemed to be in danger. [...] Why was Dr. Rajcoomar treated this way? Sadly, the answer appears to be racial profiling, pure and simple. Dr. Rajcoomar believes this to be the case -- and so does the ACLU, which is representing him. Worse, Dr. Rajcoomar's case is not an isolated incident. Since September 11, numerous cases have been filed against major airlines after pilots and other airline personnel have forced passengers with darker complexions and "foreign-sounding" names to disembark, or refused them entry to a plane. [...] A marshal also is empowered to make warrantless arrests. The only requirement for such an arrest to be legal is the marshal's reasonable belief that the arrestee is committing, or has committed, a federal felony offense, including an offense against the United States. What constitutes "reasonable belief"? That is root of the present controversy. Apparently at least two air marshals believe that a non-white passenger must be committing a crime if he closely observes another passenger's air rage and subsequent arrest.

It will be interesting to see what happens with these cases. Frankly, I fully expect, once they reach the Supreme Court (and at least one of them will, I think), that the cases will be dismissed, and the airlines' post-September 11 behavior validated. It's not that the cases aren't justified, but ... well, given the court's recent record on various civil liberties (excepting freedom of speech, for which they have a curious affection), I fully expect that they will determine that such circumstances allow and sometimes require racial discrimination. They won't be so blunt, of course -- although Stevens might be, in his dissent (I'm guessing a 5-4 or 6-3 decision) -- but that will be the ultimate outcome of the decision. As long as nobody is harmed beyond little things like being detained with career criminals, interrogated because law enforcement believes all nonwhite flyers are terrorists, then the Court will decide that such discrimination is entirely justified.

Cynical? Moi? How could you say such a thing?

Posted by iain at 03:32 PM

 

CBS News | Falwell Brands Mohammed A 'Terrorist' | October 8, 2002 17:44:46...... American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby. "It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel's only safety belt right now," says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That's the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them. [....] Falwell believes most Muslims want to live in peace but, he says, the lines have been drawn. Christians and Jews are on one side, Muslims on the other and, he says, those lines were drawn more than a thousand years ago.
     “You wrote an approving piece recently about a book called ‘Unveiling Islam,’” Simon said to Falwell. “And you — the authors of that book wrote, ‘The Muslim who commits acts of violence in jihad does so with the approval of Mohammed.’ Do you believe that?
     “I do,” Falwell answered. “I think Mohammed was a terrorist. He - I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and – and - non-Muslims, that he was a - a violent man, a man of war.” [...] “And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.”

You know, if I weren't so appalled, I would be very impressed. In one interview, Falwell managed to insult American Jews, state that the continued existence of Israel depends on American Evangelical Christians, of all people (historically, evangelical Christians have not had what you would call high opinions of Jews), and declared Mohammed a terrorist. It's hard to imagine what you could do as an encore after that.

How about causing a riot in a foreign land?

Falwell's remarks spark deadly riot: At least five people were killed in Hindu-Muslim rioting and police gunfire in western India yesterday. The violence erupted during a general strike to protest remarks by a U.S. religious leader who called the founder of Islam a "terrorist." Forty-seven others were injured. The rioters attacked each other with knives and stones during the one-day strike called to protest Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments about the prophet Mohammed on CBS television earlier this month.

According to another article, the toll of dead in two days of rioting is now nine.

The man seems to be stunningly unaware of the fact that his words have consequences, judging from the fact that he does seem to keep apologizing for them. To be sure, there's no way he could have foreseen riots in other countries, but he has to have known that saying that in public would have set off something.

That said ... I will admit to being puzzled. Why on earth would people in India call a general strike to protest Falwell's remarks? What good was that supposed to do? What was it supposed to accomplish?

In any event, now that people have died, ostensibly due to what he said, Falwell has issued what he is pleased to call "a statement of reconciliation":

I sincerely apologize that certain statements of mine made during an interview for the September 30 edition of CBS's "60 Minutes" were hurtful to the feelings of many Muslims. I intended no
disrespect to any sincere, law abiding Muslim.
     In my more than 50 years of Christian ministry, I have never preached a sermon on Islam. I have never ritten a book or booklet on the subject. I have always shown respect for other religions, faiths and denominations. Unfortunately, I answered one controversial and loaded question at the
conclusion of an hour-long CBS interview which I should not have answered. That was a mistake and I apologize.

Well, let's see ... leaving aside the ludicrous concept that he has "always shown respect for other religions" ... THAT is an apology? Someone asks if you believe what you yourself wrote, and that is a controversial and loaded question? Falwell does not say that he doesn't believe Mohammed to be a terrorist; he's merely sorry he said so and that people's feelings were hurt.

What a yutz.

Posted by iain at 02:13 AM

 

Forbes.com: Amazon Won't Shelve 'Boylovers' Book: In late September, the United States Justice Foundation, a conservative group based in Escondido, Calif., threatened to sue Amazon.com (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) under California law for unfair business practices if the company doesn't remove from its Web site David L. Riegel's book, Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, within 30 days. Other conservative watchdogs are joining the fray, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell. The foundation's attorney, Richard Ackerman, went on Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, saying Amazon is making it too easy to bring children into contact with "that sick world." Amazon.com says pulling the book would be an abridgment of free speech, protected under the First Amendment. [...] Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers was published in 2000 by SafeHaven Foundation Press, which, according to its Web site, tries to "publish, distribute, and retail nonfiction works on the subjects of boy love, loved boys, and boy lovers."

Wouldn't it be nice if so many of the people who need First Amendment protection weren't so utterly and absolutely revolting?

Ah, well. The point of the amendment is that it protects unpopular expression of ideas, and this is, if nothing else, certainly an unpopular expression of an idea.

That said, as a private retailer, Amazon is perfectly entitled to abridge free speech all they want, simply by refusing to sell the thing. They're not required to sell it by any law. The First Amendment, as such, is something of a red herring in this case; it only requires that the people be allowed to express the idea, which they have done by publishing the book. Amazon simply doesn't choose to let itself get pushed around.

For the moment, anyway.

But still ... ick.

Posted by iain at 12:47 AM

 

(NY TIMES, registration required)
Powell Finesses a Sour Note From Harry Belafonte, 'a Friend': Harry Belafonte, the singer and liberal political advocate, denounced Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a radio interview this week, likening him to a plantation slave who abandoned his principles to "come into the house of the master." Mr. Powell called the characterization "unfortunate." [...] Tonight, in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Secretary Powell said, "I think it's unfortunate that Harry used that characterization. If Harry had wanted to attack my politics, that was fine," Secretary Powell added. "If he wanted to attack a particular position I hold, that was fine. But to use a slave reference, I think, is unfortunate and is a throwback to another time and another place that I wish Harry had thought twice about using."

I wish I understood Powell. At all.

I mean, he handles a direct and profound insult with a really remarkable amount of true class. I can't think of any blacks in political life who would not have absolutely gone off at Belafonte's statement.

And yet ... and yet, he works for this administration. He's talked about his opinions and beliefs on issues such as abortion and affirmative action, and to say that such positions are not consonant with the administration's positions would be a mild statement of those disagreements. (His position on most domestic issues is strongly at odds with the administration he serves, in fact. About the only point of agreement is on gays in the military -- I suppose everyone has their blind spots.) He continually advocates policy positions that infuriate the administration, and has to run behind himself trying to make what he's said agree with what the administration wants him to say. Said administration continually undercuts him in public. And yet he stays and works for them.

I expect that some part of it has to do with a dedication to public service. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with ambition; the man could almost certainly have been a vice presidential nominee (although having him on the ticket would have lost the Republicans the solid South, but I digress). He's stated that he doesn't want to be president, for reasons that make perfectly good sense.

But ... surely a dedication to serving your country, the people ... surely there are limits to the self abnegation that it requires of a person.

I do not understand the man. No.

Posted by iain at 12:26 AM

 

Taylor quits Senate race in Montana: State Sen. Mike Taylor, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, will withdraw from the race this afternoon, saying a Montana Democratic Party television ad has destroyed his campaign. Taylor said at a press conference in Helena that the ad, which he said insinuated that he was a gay hairdresser, had pushed his poll numbers through the floor. [...] What incensed Taylor was the film clip accompanying the ad. Taylor had a twice weekly segment in the early 1980s on a Denver television station. The clip shows Taylor applying lotions to the face of a man siting in the barber chair and discussing techniques. The ad shows Taylor, then slender, sporting a full beard. He is wearing a tight-fitting, three piece suit, with a big-collared open shirt ala John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever." Taylor's top two or three shirt buttons are unbuttoned, exposing some bare chest and a number of gold chains. "I cannot believe they would stoop to that level," Taylor said.

You know ... I wouldn't have assumed he was gay from that picture. I'd have just assumed that he had ferociously bad taste back in the 70s and 80s. A true hallmark of straighthood, of course. ("A number of gold chains?" Eeuww.) But why should the people of Montana care about those things now? After all, those clothes were from such a very long time ago. As we can see from the more recent picture in the article, he has repented his days of Qiana. He has reformed to the Sober Undertaker look required of all politicians today. If he still has that unfortunate gold chain addiction, they're all safely hidden inside his shirt where nobody can see them. Can't everyone just forgive and forget?

I simply never thought that my opponent would run televisions ads that lied, assassinated my character and mislead the people of Montana.

Oh, please. Where has the idiot been for the past few decades? EVERY political campaign turns into lies and character assassination. Facetiousness aside, the punk needs a kick in the ass. He wore those clothes. He was a hairdresser. He did, in fact, do something with student loans that resulted in a settlement between himself and the government. Gay or straight, why on earth should he feel that depicting his very real past is an assault on his character? Is he ashamed of his past? If you're going to get into politics, your past will be used against you if it can be, and you'd better be prepared for it. The fact is, he was trailing by 20 points in the polls, he was getting hammered, his funds had dried up, and he took this ad as an excuse to drop out of the campaign.

Someone also ought to kick the Montana Democrats in the ass. They should know better. They clearly were trying to insinuate that he was gay, in one of the states more hostile to homosexuals.

And someone needs to kick the entire damn country in the ass. Because, frankly, what should have happened when the Democrats had the bad taste to run this ad is ... well, honestly, he should have simply ignored it. There's nothing in it, as described in the article, that needs answering, or that even can be answered. But in the best of all possible worlds, what the man would have said, if he felt driven to say something, would be either, "Well, I'm not gay, but what would it matter if I were? How would that make any difference in my ability to represent the people of this state?" Or he would say, "Yeah, I'm a gay hairdresser. Your point being .... what, exactly?" (I'm guessing that, what with the whole being married thing, this is probably not the tack he'd take.)

Like that's ever going to happen.

Posted by iain at 12:02 AM

 

The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"
      Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total authority to the president, who wants to invade a sovereign nation without any specific act of provocation. This would authorize the United States to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history.....

I am ... stunned, frankly, that a representative could be induced to say that on the floor of the House during what they were laughably pleased to call "debate".

I would, however, imagine that both Spain and Mexico would take issue about this being the first time we have acted as an aggressor. We wouldn't have the western half of our country if we hadn't.

Mr Stark also delivers insults of the first water: "So we have a president who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's dugout and Kashmir is a sweater."

It's a pity more of our representatives didn't have this level of courage and common sense. The plain fact is, the president has lied and he refuses to support his statements. His own intelligence agencies refute said statements. There is no reason -- none -- that supports Congress making an unlimited grant of the power to make essentially unprovoked war on a sovereign nation.

(That said, I would imagine that Mr Stark's seat is a sinecure. I am nothing if not consistently cynical about what it takes to get our representatives to speak their minds.)

Posted by iain at 11:17 PM

 

Democrat Morales backs GOP's Perry: Former state Attorney General Dan Morales on Tuesday endorsed Republican Gov. Rick Perry over Democrat Tony Sanchez, who defeated Morales in a bitter party primary earlier this year. [...] "I'm a Democrat, but I'm first and foremost a Texan," Morales said. "I want every Texan to put aside party politics and join me to vote for the best man for the job -- Gov. Perry."

Anyone care to take bets on just how much longer Morales will actually be a Democrat?

Declining to support your party's candidate is one thing; actively supporting the opposition party candidate is the sort of thing that will get him thrown out of the party. Not officially, of course; political parties don't actually work quite that way. However, I would be surprised if he weren't ostracised and locked out of all access to anyone important in the Texas Democratic Party.

If there actually is anyone important in the Texas Democrats, that is.

So far this year, New Jersey and Illinois politics are vastly entertaining (periodically in a "gee, I wish I lived somewhere else" sort of way), California's races seem to be dull as dirt after a fairly intense primary season ... and Texas is downright nasty.

Posted by iain at 04:44 PM

 

(NY Times, registration required) Japanese Masters Get Closer to the Toilet Nirvana: Japan's toilet wars started in February, when Matsushita engineers here unveiled a toilet seat equipped with electrodes that send a mild electric charge through the user's buttocks, yielding a digital measurement of body-fat ratio. Unimpressed, engineers from a rival company, Inax, counterattacked in April with a toilet that glows in the dark and whirs up its lid after an infrared sensor detects a human being. When in use, the toilet plays any of six soundtracks, including chirping birds, rushing water, tinkling wind chimes, or the strumming of a traditional Japanese harp.

So here's the thing: I get the toilet with the soundtrack. I think it's kind of silly -- no, I think it's very silly, but the thinking is understandable. But why on earth would you want to know your body fat ratio at that point in time? What could be the possible benefit of having your toilet, of all things, tell you that you're fat, two or three times a day? (Or if you're on the outer edge of "regularity", once a week.) I just don't see how that contributes to anyone's good mood, somehow. (Or even their health, since most people would try to turn that feature off after two days, max.)

Another factor stimulating toilet research is the fact that Japan's population is peaking and the number of households is expected to start declining by the end of the decade. Some money can be made by exporting toilets to countries with comparatively primitive toilet cultures, like China and Vietnam. But in Japan the real sales growth will be found by adding exotic toilet features.

You know, that could be a serious side effect of the end of the baby boom and the baby boomlet. People talk about the fact that the aging of the nations will put a burden on various social security programs. However, to put it euphemistically, sometime around 2020 or so, the funerary industry should start experiencing truly spectacular growth. Or, to be noneuphemistic, we're all going to start dropping like flies in winter. Thus, more funeral homes, cramped cemetaries ... and industries in decline simply because there are fewer people who need their products. Including toilets.

Americans should prepare for more than that simple 20th-century choice: to flush or not to flush. Users of the Matsushita toilet can program it to pre-heat or pre-cool a bathroom at a specific time at a set temperature. For owners who might not be so regular, this toilet allows users to set the temperature and pressure of a water jet spray used to wash and massage the buttocks, an enormously popular feature in Japan. Toilet jet sprays, which sometimes confuse foreign visitors with disastrous results, are now in nearly half of Japanese homes, a rate higher than that of personal computers.

Yes, I daresay an unexpected bidet-like attack on one's nether regions could prove disastrous. Although the concept of the toilet as your bathroom heater isn't all that bad, actually.

Posted by iain at 02:18 PM

 

Arroyo says she still has 'plenty' of sex: MANILA -- President Arroyo said Wednesday she has "plenty" of sex despite a hectic schedule that has relegated her family to the lowest of her priorities. [...] Pressed by a reporter whether she still had sex, the 55-year-old mother of three grown up children shot back: "Plenty." The diminutive president blushed but gave a broad smile when the audience, which included foreign diplomats and senior government officials, broke into laughter. "That's gonna be the headline," she chuckled, urging reporters however to concentrate on her remarks on foreign policy.

... Well, she was right about the headline, wasn't she?

But seriously, can you imagine Our Shrub saying that? For that matter, can you imagine Our Shrub actually ever being asked that question? Or answering it, should any reporter be so impertinent?

Let's face it: our general opinion is that the sex life of our public officials is none of our business ... except when we want it to be, of course. I suppose a more accurate statement would be that we don't really care about the adequacy and enjoyment of our public officials' sex lives. A pity, in a way: imagine how our recent history would be different if the public sentiment had been, "Hey, he's gettin' some. That's nice." I mean, the whole adultery angle would be messy, but after all, that would have been None Of Our Business.

Actually, the most accurate statement would probably be that we hope that our public officials become Official Eunuchs (male and female versions) for the duration of their time in office. Even married ones. After all, married officials seem to have affairs in office with really quite remarkable frequency. If they could just lose that pesky desire, things would be ever so much more convenient for us.

Posted by iain at 01:12 PM

 

Court Backs Closing of Detainees' Hearings: A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the legality of closed immigration hearings for hundreds of "special interest" detainees in the Sept. 11 investigation, agreeing with the government that the secrecy is necessary to protect the nation against terrorism. [...] The decision means that two federal appellate courts have now issued conflicting rulings on the secret hearings, an issue the government has said touches upon "the nation's very ability to defend itself." In August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati ruled that the government had illegally closed immigration hearings for a Lebanese activist detained as a terrorism suspect.

Well, that ought to be fun. With the conflict in circuits, the Court has relatively little choice but to do something. That said, they may decide to pick the individual case that will allow them to make a more specific, tailored ruling.

The administration has to decide by October 24 whether or not to appeal the Haddad case. However, the case itself seems to have been rendered moot, since Haddad got an open hearing. Even if the government appealed to get a ruling on the principle involved, the Court may well decline that one to take a case where the issue of the open hearing is still at issue -- that is, this case is more likely to be accepted than the Haddad case.

Prediction: in a 5-4 decision in which the justices do everything but yell "Your mother does it with chickens!" (Scalia's opinion of his colleagues will no doubt be particularly scathing; he does "scathing" very well, after all), the Court will decide that during a declared national emergency, national security trumps rights. After all, once said national emergency is over, we can all go back to normal, under this democratically elected president who doesn't believe in democracy, and this constitutional defender who doesn't believe in the Constitution.

Right?

Posted by iain at 11:38 AM

 

Scientists Give the Lie to Polygraph Testing: Polygraph testing for national security screening is little more than junk science, with results so inaccurate that they tend to be counterproductive, according to a long-awaited report released Tuesday by the National Academy of Sciences. [...] Produced by experts in psychology, engineering, law and other fields, the report confirms long-standing doubts about the validity of polygraph testing that led to a 1988 federal law banning the use of such tests for employment screening in most private businesses.

Well, that can't be a major surprise to anyone. As far as can be told from the things that become public, the lie detector's principal utility comes from being a threat. "If you don't tell the truth, we'll know it and we'll take reprisals." The fact that they won't know the truth doesn't actually matter in this little psychological tango.

"If logic has anything to do with it, then the report will have a major policy impact," said Steven Aftergood, an intelligence analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. "I don't think federal agencies stop and ask themselves how many spies have we caught with this—because the answer is 'none'—or how many people have been unfairly denied employment, because the answer is 'many.' "

But logic doesn't -- and never did -- have anything to do with the test. It's the psychology, man, the psychology! Vide the CIA:

"The polygraph has been, and continues to be, one of a number of useful tools in the applicant screening process," said CIA spokesman Paul Nowack.

In other words, "We don't care if it doesn't do what it's suppose to do; it still works for what we want it to do."

Posted by iain at 11:27 AM

 

Students Tested for Tobacco Use: Breath mints won't cut it anymore for students who have been smoking in the bathroom - some schools around the country are administering urine tests to teenagers to find out whether they have been using tobacco. Opponents say such testing violates students' rights and can keep them out of the extracurricular activities they need to stay on track. But some advocates say smoking in the boys' room is a ticket to more serious drug use.

Wait, wait, let me get this straight-ish: tobacco is now considered to be a gateway drug for teens. A substance that is perfectly legal for adult use, that is marketed to teens (oh, like anyone believes that the tobacco companies have stopped?), that item is now considered a gateway drug.

A gateway to what, precisely? How many studies are there linking tobacco use to crack or heroin or any heavier drugs? And if it's really a gateway drug, then why is it legal to sell to adults?

Purely as a rhetorical point: calling the developers of the drug test -- who stand to make quite a startling amount of money if, as one would expect, school districts go insane and start testing for this as well -- calling them "advocates", as though they were uninvolved parties, is extraordinarily bad reporting.

It will be interesting to see what the Court does with this and similar cases, two or three years hence. First, it's entirely possible to test positive for tobacco without either smoking or being around students who smoke, if you happen to live in a family with parents who smoke. It is, after all, still legal for adults to smoke. (For how much longer, one wonders.) Second, it's entirely possible for you to test positive if you are around other students who smoke, which has nothing to do with you. Third, if the particulars of this article are correct, students are being tested because they're going to the bathroom. Not because anyone thinks they're doing anything wrong, but because they're going to the bathroom. Period.

Frankly, I fully expect, when these cases make it to the Supreme Court, that a sharply divided court will rule that attending public schools is a privilege and not a right (the fact that attendance at some school is compulsory will be completely ignored) and therefore, the students will be subject to testing for any and all illicit substances purely because they attend school.

It will be a roussing victory for the ability of the state to violate what few civil rights juveniles actually have. (Not that they have many, as children are considered the possessions of their parents, in general.)

Posted by iain at 11:53 PM

 

Supreme Court won't take New Jersey Senate case: Democrats already buoyed by polls showing their new Senate candidate with a slight lead over his Republican rival got more good news Monday after the Supreme Court refused to consider a challenge to the last-minute ballot switch. The court's decision allows former Sen. Frank Lautenberg to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli in the campaign as Democrats try to keep their one-seat hold on the Senate. Torricelli dropped out of the race last week, just 36 days before the Nov. 5 election.
     The case resurrected memories of the court's intervention in the Bush-Gore presidential contest. But this time the justices stayed out.

My goodness. How alarmingly sensible of them. I wonder why they decided that this case wasn't worth the agita.

And according to another article that I can't find now, the Republicans' federal court challenge was dismissed as well; the federal court ruled that it was a matter for the state courts and not the federal courts. Since the New Jersey state courts have already ruled on the issue, that particular game would seem to be over. (Mind, there's always the federal court of appeals on this issue. Although I can't imagine that, having had the case dismissed from both above and below them, a court of appeals would touch the matter.)

Of course, now the NJ GOP is trying to block the transfer of Torricelli's campaign funds to the state party. Somewhat of an empty gesture; Lautenberg, by all accounts, is well able to fund his own campaign, but I suppose it would prevent the Democrats from using those funds to help other campaigns, should the suit succeed. The FEC seems to feel that it doesn't have the power to block the transfer. Can you just imagine the court case on this? The New Jersey GOP on one side, saying, "Yes, you DO have the power! Use it! Use it now, before it's too late!" The FEC itself saying, "Well, no, we're pretty sure we don't got the power." Torch saying, basically, "I don't care. I hate Lautenberg. You can all go fry." Seriously, New Jersey's Senate campaign promises to outstrip the Illinois gubernatorial campaign for sheer entertainment value alone.

Posted by iain at 04:04 PM

 

Congress asked to unpick copy lock laws: A proposal to defang a controversial copyright law became public on Thursday, after more than a year of anticipation and months of closed-door negotiations with potential supporters. Formally titled the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, the new bill represents the boldest counterattack yet on recent expansions of copyright law that have been driven by entertainment industry firms worried about Internet piracy. The bill, introduced by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and John Doolittle, R-Calif., would repeal key sections of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It would also require anyone selling copy-protected CDs to include a "prominent and plainly legible" notice that the discs include anti-piracy technology that could render them unreadable on some players.

Well, this will be interesting to see. It's not going to go anywhere, of course. The RIAA and various media companies spent too much money getting the DMCA passed to allow this to happen. That said, it does appear to be the media companies versus the technology companies, which don't want to have to enforce laws by including technology that consumers don't want, so I suppose it's a matter of who engages in the most effective bribery .... er, that is, whose clearly legal lobbying and campaign contributions wind up being used most effectively.

Frankly, the only part of the bill that I can see getting through at all is the labeling requirement for copy-protected CDs. That's a small enough thing that the media companies may let it through without kicking too hard, as long as the rest of the bill fails.

(A puzzlement. The CNET article contains a link to a DeCSS executable. I thought that the program was now illegal to host or distribute.)

Posted by iain at 01:53 PM

 

Now I don't want anybody
To get the wrong idea about me
I don't have nothing to hide
I want the world to see

Just like a car I'll drive you
Out of your mind
It's always the first step
In us having a good time

Oh, oh, oh, sugar

I'm living the surreal, surreal, surreal, surreal, surreal ...
Life
Surreal, surreal, surreal, surreal, surreal ...
Life

You know ... "a good time" is not quite the phrase that comes to mind, somehow ...

Media Relations: livin' the surreal life/ October 2, 2002

(May I just say that finding the words to "Single Life" on a site called "Wedding Vendors", featuring things for brides and grooms, is just deeply deeply disturbing, somehow? Slightly mangled lyrics from "Single Life" by Cameo, words and music by Larry Blackmon of codpiece fame and by Tomi Jenkins.)

Posted by iain at 12:55 PM

 

Of course, the question is, exactly what are we teaching them, anyway?

JS Online: Man beaten by mob of youths dies: A man savagely beaten with rakes, shovels and baseball bats by a mob of yuouths [sic] died Tuesday, a hospital official said. Doctors declared Charlie Young Jr., 36, of Milwaukee, dead late Tuesday afternoon, Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital spokesman Mark McLaughlin said. [...] The chief said the pack of youths, which included a 10-year-old, beat Young with bats, shovels, folding chairs and a rake because he had punched a 14-year-old after the 10-year-old hit Young with an egg Sunday night. [...] Jones would not comment on the demeanor of the suspects in custody, saying only that they had been cooperative and that they had known what they were doing. [...] The beating took place on the porch and in front of the house and was so brutal it left blood splatters on the walls and even the 9-foot-tall ceiling.

I'm certainly not excusing the man. He should have known better than to punch a kid, even though he'd been provoked. But ... what on earth made those children think that the appropriate response to one punch was to beat a man to death? I'm not going to speculate about whether they had been beaten or whatever else had happened in their lives; that's utterly pointless. After all, at some point, you become responsible for your own actions; if it's not when you're consciously trying to cause someone's death -- and the police say that the children knew what they were doing -- then when?

The fact remains that somehow, for some reason, these children believed that knowingly causing a man's death was an appropriate response for one punch.

The man died because of one egg and one punch.

Posted by iain at 09:26 PM

 

Suit claims newspaper wrong on arrest identity : Charging that a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter incorrectly identified the son of the former head of a group of black Cincinnati police officers as a criminal, Clarence Williams III and his family sued the newspaper, the reporter, the city and police Monday for $10 million. ... In the story, the Enquirer correctly reported the brother of Timothy Thomas -- the unarmed black teen whose fatal shooting sparked Cincinnati's race riots -- was arrested late last week. Reporter Jane Prendergast also reported an adult with Thomas, Deangelo Williams, was arrested -- but she incorrectly reported that Williams was the son of Clarence Williams III and also was a convicted drug dealer.
     "Plaintiff Clarence Daryl Williams (IV) has no adult conviction and at all times relevant to this complaint, specifically Sept. 26th, 27th and 28th, was attending college on the campus of Alabama A&M, where he maintains a 4.0 grade average," Monday's suit notes. [...] The suit attorney Ken Lawson filed on behalf of the Williams family accuses some Cincinnati police officers of having a "special" relationship with Prendergast and asks whether the Fraternal Order of Police might have leaked the incorrect information to the reporter for political reasons.

You know ... I wonder if the plaintiffs actually have a case here. Mr Williams IVth certainly shouldn't have any standing; the names are different, after all. Most people should have looked at the article and thought, "DeAngelo? Williams IIIth's son isn't named DeAngelo. I wonder who that is?" (You do wonder that they didn't call the hospital and verify the identity of the person therein before dragging Williams IVth's grandmother down there. Then again, they may only have been told "the son of Clarence Williams", without having ever heard a name, especially early on in the sequence of events.)

I would also think that, unless they can force the reporter to testify about her sources (given the substantial issue of setting unwelcome precedent, she probably won't), the plaintiffs will never be able to prove their assertions, that the Fraternal Order of Police deliberately confused the issue to libel Williams III. As an incident of libel, it's curiously ineffective; mistaken identity of someone who was demostrably not in the state at the time and who was not Mr Williams III himself in any event ... how can that possibly work to anyone's advantage? The mistake would be discovered almost immediately, as it indeed was. Frankly, the case is so desperately weak that I would think a judge would dismiss it out of hand.

As for the rest of it ... the political issues boiling under the surface of this incident would seem to indicate that Cincinnati has yet to learn its lessons from the recent past. One wonders how long it will be until their next deadly riot.

Posted by iain at 11:50 AM

 

For Sale: A DNA Test to Measure Racial Mix: A company in Sarasota, Fla., is offering a DNA test that it says will measure customers' racial ancestry and their ancestral proportions if they are of mixed race. Claiming to be "the world's first recreational genomics testing service," the company, DNAPrint Genomics Inc., says its test will be useful for people interested in their own origins as well as for more practical purposes, like "to validate your eligibility for race-based college admissions or government entitlements." (NY Times, registration required.)

Well ... aside from sending the Daughters of the Confederacy into a tizzy, I can't imagine why any reasonable person would bother. And sending the Daughters of the Confederacy into a tizzy isn't reasonable; it would just be vastly entertaining. Of course, they would never perform any such test on themselves, so it doesn't really matter.

The actual agenda of the test producers -- and there clearly is one, aside from the ordinary desire for filthy lucre -- is apparent in that one line: "to validate your eligibility for race-based college admissions or government entitlements." If they can get enough people to validate that they have significant amounts of some sort of minority DNA, then they can pretty much destroy affirmative action by effectively saying, "Hey, look! We're all minorities!" (Mind, affirmative action is pretty thoroughly demolished these days anyway, but that's beside the point. Interestingly, aside from quoting the line from the materials, the Times declines to speculate on the point within the article. Unusual for them.)

Of course, this has one very significant problem. Many of the people who are that unrelentingly hostile to affirmative action policies -- to put this delicately -- would not be at all amused to discover that they were not what they thought themselves to be. They might have second thoughts about the utility of destroying affirmative action if it also meant destroying their concept of who they were and where they came from. (For not a few of them, it would also entail discovering that parents or grandparents had lied about one's ancestry, for whatever reason. The family angst would also be marvelously entertaining, as long as it wasn't your family angst.)

Aside from the company's political agenda, there's a secondary issue. Why, in heavens name, would anyone want "recreational genomics testing", of all things? Perhaps it's just me, but I don't normally perform medical procedures on myself and others for fun, no matter how minor.

In any event, the test itself has its own web site, independent of DNAprint Genomics' own web site. (I know it's terribly juvenile, but I just find the "Order Ancestry" link on the test's site thoroughly amusing. "Let's see ... I'd like to make mine 75% black, 15% Native American, and surprise me with the rest, OK?" Then again, who knows? Maybe that's a step somewhere along the line. Custom ordered descendants. But I digress, forwardly.)

Posted by iain at 11:11 AM

 

[Main Index]