CBS News | Kansas Court Setback For Gays | January 30, 2004 18:49:24: Kansas can punish illegal sex with children more harshly when it involves homosexual acts, the state Court of Appeals ruled Friday in a case being watched by national advocacy groups. Judge Henry W. Green Jr. wrote in the 2-1 decision that legislators could justify differing penalties for homosexual versus heterosexual sodomy in various ways, including greater health risks or an attempt to "encourage and preserve the traditional sexual mores of society." The ruling by Kansas' second-highest court rejected an appeal by Matthew R. Limon, who was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for having sex when he was 18 with a 14-year-old boy in 2000. He was convicted of sodomy. Had Limon's partner been an underage girl, he could have been convicted of unlawful sex under the state's "Romeo and Juliet" law and sentenced at most to one year and three months in prison.
This ... makes no sense. None.
The Supreme Court wouldn't have sent this back to Kansas after Lawrence vs. Texas had they not expected the Kansas courts to overturn their previous decision. The issue at hand wasn't whether or not the statute was in accordance with the Kansas Constitution, but whether or not the statute was in accordance with the federal constitution. The Kansas decision essentially rests on the point that Lawrence referred only to consenting adults, which is true enough. However, surely the fact that one is a minor doesn't give the state carte blanche to say that the same act can be treated differently purely because of the sex of the people involved. Contrary to the appeals court's statement, it is not rational; it is simply blind prejudice.
Tamara Lange, an ACLU attorney representing Limon, said she planned to appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court. "This decision is not a victory for morality or a victory for Kansas," she said. "It's a victory for prejudice and fear."
Kansas' Supreme Court having previously upheld the state's sodomy law (prior to Lawrence), I fear that there will be no justice found for Limon in that quarter. First, there is no guarantee that the court will hear it -- given their demonstrated preferences in this area, I should think the chances that the Kansas Supreme Court would touch this case to be rather small. The case will then have to shift into federal district court, if possible, and then to the federal court of appeals and thence to the Supreme Court. Even if the Kansas Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, assuming that all the people involved are the same, regardless of which way the court decides, the loser will appeal to the US Supreme Court -- one way or another, it's likely that this case is going to get back there one more time -- a process which will take a few more years, no matter which path it follows. Heaven only knows if the composition of the Court will be the same by then; Stevens is currently 84 years old, so I wouldn't be willing to lay odds on his still being there.
It seems odd that Kansas is willing to fight so hard to enforce its unrecalcitrant bigotry upon the body of one person. Or it should seem odd, but it doesn't, really, does it?
Posted by iain at 07:47 PM
Really, it's getting to where it's more surprising when a week or two goes by and you don't hear about another fast-spreading internet virus.
ABCNEWS.com : E-Mail Worm Spreading Quickly Across Web: Network administrators were working to stop a fast-spreading e-mail worm that looks like a normal error message but actually contains a malicious program that spreads itself and installs a program that leaves an open door to infected computers.The worm called "Mydoom," "Novarg" or "WORM MIMAIL.R" was replicating itself so quickly that some corporate networks were clogged with infected traffic within hours of its appearance Monday. Its mail engine could send out 100 infected e-mail messages in 30 seconds, experts said.
Posted by iain at 12:58 AM
And they don't let a little thing like clearly apparent insanity stop them.
madison.com | Rob Zaleski: Death penalty hits home : To hear Jack and Yvonne Panetti tell it, the mental problems that have tormented their son were evident almost two decades ago. And it was the demons he was battling, they contend, that caused Scott Panetti - who'd shaved his head and was clad in military fatigues - to shoot and kill his parents-in-law after breaking into their Fredericksburg, Texas, home on a September morning in 1992.
But three years later - after a bizarre trial in which Scott, acting as his own lawyer, wanted to subpoena Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy, among others - a Texas jury decided otherwise.
And so, barring any last-minute developments, the 45-year-old Panetti - a former all-conference football star at Poynette High School in Wisconsin - will be executed by lethal injection on Feb. 5 at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, Texas. [...] Scott's supporters argue that because he'd been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1986 and had been hospitalized more than a dozen times before the crime, he never should have been allowed to represent himself at the trial in the first place. In fact, a hearing in 1994 to determine whether Scott was mentally competent ended in a mistrial, Hougas notes. But a jury at a second hearing later that year did find Scott competent, which cleared the way for his trial in 1995.
Even allowing that Panetti was competent to stand trial in the first place -- and you would think that someone who had been hospitalized that frequently would almost by definition be incompentent to stand trial -- surely that many hospitalizations would indicate that he was not competent to serve as his own attorney. And surely any judge worth his or her salt, as soon as the defendent tried to put Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy on the stand, would find him incompetent to serve as his own attorney.
What puzzles me is why the US Supreme Court would refuse appeals on this case. The federal courts do seem generally to be getting rather testy with Texas' approach to what it is pleased to call a court system. This case would seem to be tailor-made for a reversal, especially in light of their decision in the Atkins case (although that had to do with mental retardation rather than mental illness).
Posted by iain at 12:52 AM
Salon.com News | The CIA revolt against the White House (subscription or day pass required): In President Bush's State of the Union address, national security was a core theme, and with good reason: Recent polls show Bush enjoys far more popular support for his aggressive foreign policy and terror-fighting tactics than on domestic issues. Undoubtedly, the president's reelection campaign will tout two swift, decisive military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and argue the homeland is more secure since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
... IRAQ was a swift decisive military campaign? Then why on earth have more US soldiers died since the declaration of victory than before?
But for almost a year, the White House has been quietly fighting a contentious battle at home on the national security front -- against the U.S. intelligence community itself. Vocal retired intelligence officials, and anonymous active ones, have protested repeatedly that the White House has coerced intelligence agencies to rig findings and analysis to suit administration aims. An egregious example: The long-held goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by unilateral war if necessary. The consequences of such White House intimidation could be disastrous, the intelligence veterans say, with the integrity of their work -- and national security -- put at grave risk. The latest salvo was launched this week when a group of respected former CIA officials, led by decorated analyst Larry C. Johnson, sent a letter to Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert demanding that Congress hold the White House accountable for deliberately revealing the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Johnson, who also served as deputy director for the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, says the administration's political tactics are clear. "With this White House, I see an outright pattern of bullying," he told Salon in an interview Thursday. "We've seen it across different agencies, a pattern of going after anybody who's a critic. When people raise legitimate issues that may not be consistent with existing administration policy, those people are attacked and their character is impugned."
Well, it will be interesting to see how, and if, this plays out. I should think that the leadership in Congress would think it in its own best interest to do all it can to bury this letter and the concerns expressed therein.
...Since Attorney General John Ashcroft has recused himself from the Plame investigation, are you comfortable that the Department of Justice is doing an adequate job with the case?
- It's only one part of the puzzle. I think that for its part the Department of Justice is probably on target, particularly with Ashcroft stepping aside. But what I fear here is that they'll come back and say, "We couldn't find evidence of a crime, and therefore no crime was committed." But it's not the legal statute that should be the standard here -- it's the moral statute that should be the standard, because it's U.S. national security and the lives of intelligence personnel that are at risk.
Well ... no, actually, it shouldn't be the moral statute, whatever that would be. Not for the Department of Justice, in any event. They are charged only with investigating and enforcing the written laws of this country; I do not think that we particularly want or need a Justice department -- particularly an Ashcroft-led Justice department -- enforcing what it would consider to be the "moral statutes" of the land.
Posted by iain at 12:15 PM
The State of the Union Address: ... One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem, with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001. In my budget, I have proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I propose an additional 23 millions for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we do not want to lose you....
Albertville Schools to Begin Drug Testing Student Drivers (WAFF.com [AL], January 23, 2004): Students at a high school in Marshall County will now be subject to a random drug test. That is if they want to drive to school. Students at Albertville High School will have to sign a waiver agreeing to comply with a random drug test before getting a permit go park on campus. If they do not sign, they can't drive to school. If a student tests positive, their driving privileges will be revoked. The Albertville School Board hope this will keep drugs and alcohol off school grounds. Dr. Robert Sparkman, Albertville School Superintendent said, "Our public knew that we were soliciting their opinions and I have had not one single person say they did not think that this was something we needed to do." Random drug testing for high school drivers is a growing policy throughout the state. Albertville approved the policy Tuesday night. It now joins Marshall and Blount County School systems with such a rule.
Pa. Lawmaker Wants Drug Testing For All High School Students: A Pennsylvania congressman is proposing to spend $23 million for a national program to test high school students for drugs. Rep. John Peterson says efforts to get youngsters off drugs far outweigh any concerns over their privacy. He says parents would have to opt out if they don't want their children tested. Peterson says test results would only be shared with parents and school officials, not turned over to law enforcement. Courts have previously upheld the right of schools to test students involved in extracurricular activities, including sports, for drug use. Peterson's plan would give individual schools wide discretion in random testing of all high school students.
It's probable that the Alabama plan would survive, while the Pennsylvania plan would be entirely unconstitutional, of course, but it does make really lovely political posturing, doesn't it? The Alabama plan would survive constitutional muster, under the grounds previously established by the Court, because driving and parking on high school grounds can only be considered a privilege, not a right or a duty.
The Pennsylvania plan, however, might have more difficulties. Unless the opinions of Mr Justice Scalia (who doesn't really believe in the constitution except when it suits him) hold sway when/if this makes it to the Court (assuming that it is installed and that there are subsequent lawsuits), it does seem that most of the justices would consider this an unlawful intrusion into what little privacy students are allowed to have. They've allowed random drug testing for extracurricular activities because students choose to participate -- that is, they're privileges, not rights. Education, however, is both a right -- an entitlement you receive as a resident of the state -- and a duty -- the state requires everyone under a certain age to attend either private or public schools. Since it is a duty, the Court may be reluctant to say that the state has the right to force you to undergo that loss of privacy to fulfill that duty.
Or, on the other hand, they could continue on the path they've taken of late, which essentially declares that minor children are chattel of their parents. As long as the parents are allowed to choose to opt their children out of the test, the district may be allowed to proceed. (To be sure, it's only the most basic plan at this point; there aren't any court challenges in progress. But if it passes, there most certainly will be; I should think the ACLU would be launching suits almost before the ink had dried, naming every high school student as a member of a class affected by the action.)
Posted by iain at 12:07 PM
AKA, "What the hell was he THINKING? WAS he thinking?
ABCNEWS.com: Forget the South?: Kerry's remarks Saturday were so starkly antithetical to how many southern Democrats feel their party should campaign for the presidency, that a former South Carolina state Democratic chairman told ABCNEWS that Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., who endorsed Kerry last week, perhaps "ought to reconsider his endorsement." During a town hall meeting on the Dartmouth campus, Kerry noted that former Vice President Al Gore would be president if he'd won any number of other non-Southern states in 2000, including New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Ohio. "Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own." "I think the fight is all over this country," Kerry said. "Forget about those red and blue states. We're going to change that now, and we're going to go out there and change the face of America."
Leaving aside the fact that he's mathematically correct ... what does it serve him to alienate the South by declaring publically, in essence, "Eh. We don't need you. Screw you." And yes, it's entirely possible to win everything but the South and still carry the electoral college ... however, it's not terribly likely, now is it? Even if he's correct, simply articulating that position would make the party extraordinarily twitchy; it doesn't have terribly good luck with Northeasterners who don't run well in the South. (Mind, those same people tend to run badly everywhere but the northeast.) And while focusing on California makes perfectly good sense, paying more than token attention to Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada simply doesn't.
It's just dumb to dismiss the South out of hand. And doing so, however briefly and unintentionally, is likely to come back and bite Kerry in the ass.
Posted by iain at 10:48 AM
On the one hand: Heh heh heh heh...
Gay Marriage Poll Gets Annulled by Daniel Terdiman, Wired News, 02:00 AM Jan. 22, 2004 PT: When the American Family Association posted an online poll last month asking its constituents their position on gay marriage, it thought it was engaging in a straightforward exercise. The conservative organization supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it planned to forward to Congress the results of the poll, which it expected would support its position, as evidence of Americans' opposition to gay marriage.
But the AFA never counted on the power of the Internet. And once the URL to the poll escaped its intended audience, everything went haywire. As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio. "We're very concerned that the traditional state of marriage is under threat in our country by homosexual activists," said AFA representative Buddy Smith. "It just so happens that homosexual activist groups around the country got a hold of the poll -- it was forwarded to them -- and they decided to have a little fun, and turn their organizations around the country (onto) the poll to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to. And so far, they succeeded with that."
Yes. Yes we did. Heh heh heh heh ...
On the other hand: entering the high-spin zone...
Conservative group quietly drops plans for poll (PlanetOut.com): The conservative American Family Association (AFA) said it will not take the results of its marriage poll to Capitol Hill after a majority of respondents favored same-sex marriage, according to a Thursday report in Wired News. [...] Matt Foreman, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce was dumbfounded. "The abject hypocrisy of these people never ceases to amaze me," he exclaimed. "They constantly manipulate facts, and when things don't work out as they want, they run to mama and whine."
On Jan. 6, the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network discussed the AFA poll with expert Bob Witeck, who said that since it was not a scientific survey, its results could not be considered meaningful data. According to Witeck, legitimate polls show support for gay marriage somewhere between 40 to 50 percent -- and growing.
You know, I'm pretty sure that most polls feature the American public saying, in essence, "Gay marriage? EW! ... er, no, wait, maybe I should just say that I'm not sure it's a good idea."
Same-Sex Marriage (ABCNews.com, Jan. 21, 2004): Most Americans agree with President Bush's opposition to same-sex marriage — but most also oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban it, saying instead that it should be a matter for the individual states to decide. [...] In this ABCNEWS/Washington Post survey, 38 percent of Americans favor amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to marry, but 58 percent say, instead, that each state should make its own laws on gay marriage. That's not an endorsement of same-sex marriages — indeed most, 55 percent, say such marriages should be illegal. Instead it suggests a public judgment that the issue doesn't merit pre-empting the states and amending the U.S. Constitution. Compared to same-sex marriage, this poll finds a closer division in public views on gay civil unions — 51 percent opposed, but 46 percent in favor.
The numbers have been trending downward ever since people suddenly realized that it could actually happen. (It also doesn't strike me as abject hypocrisy to state the facts, which are pretty much as the AFA guy stated -- depending on your definition of "homosexual activist group", since it seemed to be forwarded all over the internet by people who wouldn't go near an "activist group" if you paid them and aren't actually homosexual, but were happy to stick it to the AFA. However, it is still whining.)
Posted by iain at 07:55 PM
You wonder sometimes if Our Glorious Leader ever pays attention to what he says when he's off-script.
Bush Courts Black Voters (washingtonpost.com): President Bush traveled to the South on Thursday to court black voters and to emphasize his conviction -- disputed by Congress -- that the government should devote more federal money to religious groups that deliver social services. [...] The president also said his administration is continuing efforts to rewrite agency regulations to permit faith-based spending. Referring to an executive order he issued 13 months ago to make faith-based groups eligible for federal subsidies, Bush said: "It's not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance. We are beginning to see some success in opening up federal coffers for faith-based programs."
The leader of allegedly the most powerful democracy in the world, when it comes to religion, apparently doesn't believe in democracy. Apparently, we should live in a presidential theocracy of some sort. (Oh, all right, even I know that's overstated. But still. That there was one brain-damaged statement he made. I'm surprised that the big-D Democrats didn't pick up and jump all over that statement. I guess they were too busy shredding each other in Iowa.)
Posted by iain at 04:09 PM
OK, I am impressed. On the one hand, a Catholic cardinal saying effectively, "Gays! Ick ick yucko phooey!" is kind of a "dog bites man" headline. It's not remotely surprising, the usual suspects will get themselves all a twitter (which is also not remotely surprising) and it's not even a ten-seconds' wonder.
The rest of it, however, is really quite an impressive fulmination.
Cardinal says gays are perverts but brothels are OK - www.theage.com.au: A Belgian cardinal who is a personal protege of Pope John Paul II has denounced gays and lesbians as "sexual perverts" and appeared to ridicule the principle of one man, one vote, causing deep embarrassment to the Catholic Church. "I am prepared to sign here in my blood that of all those who say they are lesbian or gay, at most five to 10 per cent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are sexual perverts," said Cardinal Gustaaf Joos on Wednesday. "I demand you write this down. If they come to protest on my doorstep, I don't care. I'm just speaking out on what thousands of people are thinking but never get a chance to say," he told the Belgian soft-porn P-Magazine. "Real homosexuals don't wander in the streets in colourful suits. Those are people who have a serious problem and have to live with that. And if they err, they will be forgiven," he said.
Well. We'll be forgiven. How very special of him.
I'm also baffled as to what, precisely, the difference between the 5-10% of "effectively lesbian or gay" people and the "sexual perverts" is. I'm guessing -- just guessing, mind -- that the 5-10% he's talking about are only people who are ashamed of being what they are and would change it if they could, but they can't. Otherwise, frankly, I have no clue what on earth he could mean.
[Joos] expressed contempt for Belgian politicians who had pushed through some of the world's most avant-garde laws on gay marriages, euthanasia and abortion. "Politics, democracy. Don't make me laugh. The right to vote, what is that all about? I find it strange that a snot-nosed 18-year-old has the same vote as a father of seven. One has no responsibilities whatsoever, the other provides tomorrow's citizens," he said. It is the first time a leading cleric has appeared to endorse calls by right-wing Catholics for an end to the principle of one person, one vote.
OK, that is impressive. A cardinal in a democratic country who believes that democracy is wrongheaded. One wonders whom he feels should be making the decisions in society. The Church, no doubt.
The cardinal also appeared to endorse visits to a brothel, in extremis. "If a man thinks he needs sex or is going to explode, it is better to find a prostitute than seduce or rape a girl. At least there are no innocent victims involved," he said.
Leaving aside the rather benighted opinion of men generally that this particular view would seem to involve, it would seem to be a mite peculiar. I mean, isn't the official view of the Church that nonmarital sex is not to be condoned in any way, shape or form? It also seems to conflate both consensual sex and rape in a truly bizarre way; most men who desire sex really don't think in terms of, "Hey, let's go out and rape us some women!" His view also seems to discount the idea that women might actually desire sex themselves -- one would hope that said "girl" would be an eager and willing participant in her own seduction -- but again: Catholic cardinal, bizarre views of women, and we're back into "dog bites man" territory.
Posted by iain at 12:50 PM
My. The administration can't be happy about this one.
Lawyer Criticizes Rules for Tribunals (washingtonpost.com): A military defense lawyer for an Australian detainee expected to be the first man tried before a military tribunal denounced President Bush's rules for the special courts yesterday, saying they are skewed against defendants and could result in proceedings that resemble political trials in authoritarian Third World countries. Marine Corps Maj. Michael Mori's news conference demonstrated that he and other military defense attorneys appointed by the Pentagon to represent defendants in the tribunals agree on many points with human rights activists around the world who have criticized the tribunals. "The military commissions will not provide a full and fair trial," said Mori, who represents David Hicks, an Australian detainee at the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who was arrested while allegedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001. "The commission process has been created and controlled by those with a vested interest only in convictions," Mori said. Mori was one of five military defense attorneys for future tribunal defendants who filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court last week seeking access to federal courts for their clients. The U.S. government contends that the 680 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay are not entitled to access to U.S. courts, whether they are assigned to military tribunals or not.
One would think that the process has difficulties when those charged with carrying out its procedures are willing to go not only on the record, but into the Court to state that the process is inherently unfair. To be sure, as the Pentagon mouthpiece notes, the purpose of defense attorneys is to defend, and to attack any possible rule or avenue that they perceive can be used against their clients.
But.
Doing so in this manner would seem to be contrary to the lawyers' own interests, given that they are military themselves.
Mori said he objects to one rule that bars tribunal judges from dismissing charges filed by Pentagon officials. Another unfair provision, he said, is that convictions are to be appealed not to civilian courts but up the chain of command to the defense secretary and the president. Echoing the privately expressed views of some U.S. military officials, Mori said the tribunals might lead adversary nations to try U.S. soldiers under unjust terms if they are captured in war zones. "What's to stop the North Koreans from arresting a [U.S.] contractor as a spy and trying him under the very rules we set up?" he asked. "We wouldn't tolerate it." Smith, the Pentagon spokesman, said the tribunals will have many rules that are akin to those in criminal courts, including the presumption of innocence and a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
It will be fascinating to see what the Court finally decides to do with this.
Posted by iain at 11:18 AM
BBC News | EUROPE | Cardinal: Antichrist is a vegetarian: A leading conservative candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II has warned that the Antichrist foreseen in the Book of Revelations is already among us. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 71, said that the modern Antichrist, identified in the Book of Revelation as a seven-headed beast, was most likely now disguised as a philanthropist supporting creeds like vegetarianism, animal rights or pacifism, or advocating dialogue with Orthodox or Anglican believers.
... A vegetarian. Well. Who knew? Who knew that advocating not eating animal flesh, for whatever reason, was in the book of Revelation somewhere as a sign of the antichrist?
Mind, the way they've been behaving lately, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to visualize PETA in that role. Either the antichrist, or a front for the beef industry. They have had an impressive streak lately, what with
- an impressively relentless attack on KFC,
- persecuting children a little (most unwise, that one),
- advertisements linking impotence and meat-eating (said ads having been rejected by CBS for the Super Bowl ... and how on earth does PETA afford that sort of ad time, anyway?)
- and getting use the beef.com domain free for a month (which, to be sure, strikes me more as clever work than anything so nefarious as their usual work) to deliberately confuse people who might think that the beef industry site would be beef.com (and why on earth didn't the National Cattlemen's Association buy beef.com way back when)
Somehow, thinking of PETA as the antichrist doesn't seem that as far fetched as it would have back in, say, October.
It is impressive that advocating dialogue with the Orthodox and Anglican faiths would be a sign of the antichrist, though. Really, who knew that just talking to other faiths would be enough to bring on the end of days? Apparently, an open mind -- or at least a willingness to give a listen -- is a sign of the devil. The devil!
(Purely a side note: the College of Cardinals may theoretically be looking to replace a 79-year-old pontiff with a 71-year-old cardinal. And, unless il papa drops dead, like, today or next week, or next month, it's likely that they'll both be notably older when the whole replacement issue finally comes up. One would think that his Eminence Cardinal Biffi would perhaps be a bit long in the tooth by the time his chance arrives. Unless they're aiming for the same sort of placeholder pope that John Paul I was supposed to be, and we all remember how well that particular foray worked out.)
Posted by iain at 12:23 AM
The Scotsman - Top Stories - Briton jailed in US after joking about bombs: A BRITISH student was facing 15 years in a United States jail last night, after allegedly joking that she was taking bombs aboard an aircraft. Samantha Marson, 21, who is originally from Bridgnorth, Shropshire, was arrested before boarding a London-bound British Airways flight at Miami Airport. Police said that during a baggage security check, she told a transportation security administration official: "Hey, be careful, I have three bombs in here." Asked to repeat herself, she allegedly made the statement twice more. Ms Marson was arrested for making a false bomb report on Saturday and was taken to Miami-Dade County Jail. She is being held in jail until she can come up with a £2,700 bond, the authorities said. She is scheduled to appear before a court on 6 February, where she will be asked to enter a plea, according to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office. A spokesman added that if convicted, Ms Marson faced a maximum of 15 years in a state prison.
sigh. Just ... sigh.
You kind of wonder where this child has been the past three years. I mean, at this point, we do rather have an international reputation for being extraordinarily hypersensitive about this sort of thing.
I expect, after a rather long time in jail, she'll be given reduced charges and set free. Unless the government is in one of its periodic "let's make an easy example of the idiots!" moods, in which case she won't get out of jail until she's a very old woman.
Posted by iain at 06:01 PM
The New Republic Online: Campaign Journal - KERRY ON: Des Moines, Iowa to Manchester, New Hampshire (1/20/2004): ....In his final words before his final Iowa crowd before the caucuses Monday, Kerry implored, "Go to your caucuses tonight and don't just send them a message, send them a President of the United States, so we can say, 'Mission accomplished!'" His eyes were a little moist. "I think this was really emotional for him," said an aide after the event.
Well, yes, one would think that it would be a tad emotional; he was afeared that he'd be unceremoniously punted out of the race if the polls were anywhere near right. So congrats, and all that; thanks for keeping things interesting and keeping the punditry in business for another week.
But here's the question I've been wondering: why Iowa? and why New Hampshire, for that reason? Why do both major parties allow two states with small populations, which cannot in any reasonable way be said to be representative of the country at large, to be the pacesetters for the election? If this were, say, 1804 (except that Iowa wasn't a state yet) or even 1904, it might make slightly more sense, but in this day and age, it's just baffling. I understand why Iowa and New Hampshire are dogged and determined to keep such precedence -- it gives them national attention and influence of a sort that they would not otherwise warrant -- but really, why doesn't the party just say, "You know what? You're skewing our results. We're going to try to set a national primary no matter what you say; states that don't do what we tell them when we tell them will not be allowed to seat delegates at the national convention."
The extent to which Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of this country is really impressive, in its own way.
(Actually, it turns out that there are lovely comparative summary tables for both New Hampshire and for Iowa that do part/whole comparisons of the state against the US at large. Almost everything you could want, census-wise, is on that site, but it's easy to get lost digging in the wrong place.)
On the one hand, the argument can be made that if you can't get the well-off white folk to vote for you, you can't win. That's certainly true enough. However, although most people in this country may well be white, most people certainly aren't that well off, and economics guides people's votes considerably more than race generally does.
The more you look at things, the more it seems that Iowa and New Hampshire really ought not to be allowed to dictate the course of election-season politics in this country.
Posted by iain at 04:29 PM
Pat Robertson: God told him it's Bush in a 'blowout' in November: Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Friday he believes God has told him President Bush will be re-elected in a "blowout" in November. "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way." Robertson told viewers he spent several days in prayer at the end of 2003. "The Lord has just blessed him," Robertson said of Bush. "I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad, God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him."
I ... see. So our Glorious Leader could commit all manner of amoral and immoral actions, and just because he prays, God would ensure that Bush wins.
Well. All-righty, then! So nice to know that not only does God play favorites, but he does it on such a flimsy basis!
Really, you know, one wonders if Bush and Rove don't periodically make a little phone call to Robertson and say, "Well, Pat, it's nice that you're supporting us and all, but please, stop trying to help ... No, really .... No. REALLY. Stop helping. You're making yourself look like an idiot, and you're not doing us any favors."
Posted by iain at 05:54 PM
How very ... odd.
CNN.com - U.S. probe into Heathrow arrest - Jan. 15, 2004: U.S. officials are investigating how a Sudanese airline passenger may have carried suspected ammunition onto a flight from Washington to London. The man was arrested at Britain's Heathrow Airport Wednesday after the suspected ammunition was discovered as he tried to board a flight to Dubai. Metropolitan Police stopped the man during a routine security check at Heathrow. Scotland Yard said he was not carrying any weapons. In Washington, a U.S. government official said the man had a few bullets in his pocket. The official said it was unclear if the bullets were live ammunition and whether the passenger got them upon arrival in London or before his departure for London from Washington's Dulles Airport.
Terror arrest questions US airport security (The Scotsman UK, Thu 15 Jan 2004): ... A MAN accused of carrying ammunition on a flight from Washington to London was arrested last night on suspicion of terrorism offences. The 45-year-old Sudanese-born passenger was taken from Heathrow to a central London police station to be interviewed by anti-terrorist branch officers. The passenger was initially held for allegedly carrying bullets as he went through a routine security check in transit to boarding a connecting flight to Dubai. Scotland Yard said he was later arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He had not been picked up by security at Washington’s Dulles airport, where he boarded Virgin flight VS022. The man was missed there despite the route between London and Washington having been publicly identified as a potential target for terrorists in recent weeks.
Another interestingly peculiar side note: not one word about this in the Washington Post, as far as I can tell.
That aside, one does have to wonder about security in the nation's airports, or at least in that airport. They've been searching through checked luggage, making everyone take off their shoes, having the odd hysterical fit over belt buckles and arch supports ... and yet somehow, they miss actual bullets. Since it was in a coat pocket, he probably had to take off the coat and put it on the conveyer belt for x-ray; metal detection as such would likely not have had anything to do with the issue. So someone likely looked at the x-ray image of bullets in this man's pocket and either didn't know what they saw, or, possibly saw them and realized what they were, but decided that since the man had no weapons and no reasonable access to them on the aircraft, that they were no threat or particular reason to worry. Which might be a reasonable exercise in judgement, but unfortunately, exercised in a situation in which the screener's judgement is not supposed to be used in that manner. In any event, given that he was taking weaponry, however unusable, onto a commercial flight -- let alone a flight that had run into repeated delays in the past month due to suspected terrorist attempts to board -- he should even now be mouldering in some federal prison somewhere, having been detained under the PATRIOT Act.
Of course, there's no actual error tracking built into our system. There's no identification of who is being scanned at that time, or any way to connect the scan to a particular time or particular screener. Whatever error was made, whether of commission or judgement, there's no real way to track who did it or how it happened. One wonders what, if anything, TSA will do to prevent this happening again. Given that it doesn't seem to be getting any play in DC itself and relatively little coverage nationally, Congress isn't likely to do their normal strut and posturing on the topic, so TSA's drive to fix the problem -- especially given their miserable budget situation and ongoing personnel cuts -- is likely to be somewhat low.
Another side note: if we weren't living in the age of PATRIOT-related detentions and constitutional rights violations, Section 41 of Britain's Terrorism Act 2000 would seem perhaps a tad draconian. It would also seem far fetched to arrest a person under the Terrorism Act when there was no evidence that terrorism was intended, nor did he do anything whatsoever. (Frankly, given the situation, you have to wonder if maybe he had the bullets for some reason prior to his trip, and he simply forgot that they were there.)
Posted by iain at 11:33 AM
OK, OK. Scotland's proposed changes are not remotely that extreme. But it is decidedly different.
The Scotsman - Top Stories - MSP calls for stiff penalties for non-voters: COMPULSORY voting as a way of countering the increasing problem of voter apathy and persuading more of the electorate to turn out at the polls is to be considered by a committee of MSPs. The controversial measures - which could result in voters being fined or taken off the electoral roll if they fail to vote - will be debated by the parliament's local government committee, which is currently considering the introduction of proportional representation (PR) in council elections. The committee members will be urged to persuade Scottish Executive ministers to raise the issue with their counterparts at Westminster, as they would need to bring forward UK legislation if the change is to be made.
... If they need to bring forward UK legislation just to change voting in Scotland ... what on earth does the devolved Scottish parliament actually do, then?
But I digress.
MSPs in Scotland have voiced growing concern about voter apathy following the Scottish Parliament election last May, when just under 50 per cent of the voters turned out. They believe efforts must now be made to ensure there is a marked improvement in the number of people voting and that compulsory voting, while regarded as an extreme measure by some, should be considered.
I suppose the question is: does Scotland consider voting to be a right, a privilege, or a duty? If it's a right, then you should not force people to vote. After all, refusing to choose is, in fact, a choice in and of itself, for "none of the above". Surely it goes against the tenets of a rights-based democracy to force people to exercise that right to choose someone they don't want ... or the person they loathe least, as may be.
If voting is a privilege, then, while it is still somewhat antithetical to require people to vote, it makes sense that not-voting would be penalized. Most democracies treat their various rights as privileges as well. That's why, for example, in this country, people convicted of federal felonies lose their right to vote in federal elections, because they have offended the body politic and that's the penalty.
If voting is a positive duty owed toward the society by its members, however, then it makes perfectly good sense to require people to vote, and to penalize them when they fail to perform this duty. It's pretty much the same thing as people who receive jury summonses but fail to respond; when the society calls on you to perform that duty, you are required to do so, one way or another.
Somehow, compulsory voting does rather seem in line with Europe's form of top-down democracy. Mind, such a system will probably not catch on here, or even ever be proposed. Quite apart from the fact that it does seem rather antithetical to our particular flavor of democracy, it would depend almost entirely on the combination of which party was in power in Congress and which party had a substantial edge in voter registration. In general, although the gap has narrowed quite a bit in recent years, more people are registered Democrats than Republicans; Democrats are also more likely to decline to vote than Republicans. Thus, the Republicans would have absolutely no reason to propose or allow to be passed any sort of proposition for compulsory voting in national elections.
Posted by iain at 05:27 PM
The Scotsman - Top Stories - Why depression may be a vital part of our survival: EVOLUTIONARY psychology is a relatively new field which has raised a very provocative question - are psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, so common because they serve some kind of useful purpose in the development of mankind? This new discipline hinges on the idea that much of our motivational and emotional machinery evolved to help us survive our environment.
For example, seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is triggered by low light conditions found in winter. It is a condition that enforces withdrawal and perhaps reduced energy consumption at times when our ancestors would have suffered seasonal scarcity.
Another puzzle about depression which might be amenable to evolutionary explanation is the fact women suffer two to three times the rate of depression of men. Females have traditionally been involved in child-rearing, whereas men have historically been the providers of food, material resources and protection. Depression, with its symptoms that produce withdrawal and a reduction in risk-taking, would have kept women sheltered from danger, to bear and care for children, whereas a depressed man would have been impaired in the role of provider and protector.
These are two key concepts in the evolutionary theory about the function of depression - like any kind of pain, it draws our attention to something that needs fixing and it motivates us to fix it. One function of depression could be social, drawing our attention to the depressed person to try to provide assistance.
You know ... somehow, this doesn't quite seem likely. To be sure, not an evolutionary psychologist. Nonetheless. One of the things that happens in depression, as noted, is that you withdraw. That very withdrawal makes it more difficult for others to realize that something is wrong, depending on how it's done. Moreover, depressed mothers are frequently poor caretakers, for both themselves and their children; if seasonal affective disorder-related depression is meant to keep women closer to home and hearth so that they'll care for their children, it would not seem to be a terribly effective way of going about things.
This social perspective needs to be considered broadly in the treatment of depression. For example, married people not getting along with their spouses are an astonishing 25 times more likely to attract a diagnosis of major depression than people without marital unhappiness. Another study found approximately 30 per cent of new episodes of major depression are associated with marital dissatisfaction. We also know recovery from depression is hastened by improvements in social relationships and strong social support.
You know ... I know perfectly well that they don't mean it this way, but it does sound vaguely like they're saying marriage causes depression. It does actually sound like they are saying that married people are more likely to be diagnosed as depressed than unmarried people -- again, that may be a matter of poor phrasing.
Posted by iain at 04:41 PM
Taking the rest of this week off to be sick and deal with some personal matters. Updates resume on January 12.
Posted by iain at 01:02 PM
CBS News | Bush Smiles On Gay Marriage Ban | December 17, 2003 11:49:53: President Bush said that he could support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. [...] Previously, though Mr. Bush has said he would support whatever is “legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,” he and his advisers have shied away from specifically endorsing a constitutional amendment asserting that definition. But on Tuesday, the president waded deeper into the topic, saying state rulings such as the one in Massachusetts and a couple of other states “undermine the sanctity of marriage” and could mean that “we may need a constitutional amendment.”
What was Britney thinking? (CNN, Tuesday, January 6, 2004 Posted: 12:26 PM EST): On Saturday, the question for Britney Spears was, "Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?" Today, the question is likely to be, "What were you thinking?" The pop star and a childhood friend, Jason Allen Alexander, were married about 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning at a Las Vegas, Nevada, wedding chapel, reportedly after watching a video of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." By midday Monday, a Clark County judge had signed an annulment order, and the marriage was over. Total time of wedded bliss: 55 hours.
Ah, the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Who knew you could achieve complete and total civil sanctification in but 55 total hours?
Posted by iain at 12:08 PM
Rose, in New Book, Admits Betting on His Team: After denying for 14 years that he had bet on baseball, Pete Rose admits in a new book that he did, thus setting in motion a process that may win him reinstatement to baseball and election to the Hall of Fame. Rose, major league baseball's career leader in base hits, makes the admission in a 322-page autobiography entitled "My Prison Without Bars" (Rodale Press), in which he also acknowledges betting on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds, although never against them.
Whether the admission will be enough to persuade Commissioner Bud Selig to let Rose back into baseball remains to be seen. Selig has told associates that he is looking for contrition as well as a confession from Rose, and while Rose does say in the book that it is time for him to take responsibility for his actions, the apologetic words stretch only so far and are, at times, overshadowed by the feistiness for which he was famous as a player. "I'm sure that I'm supposed to act all sorry or sad or guilty now that I've accepted that I've done something wrong," he says in the epilogue of the book, a copy of which was purchased yesterday in a Chicago bookstore; it is scheduled to be released on Thursday. "But you see, I'm just not built that way. Sure, there's probably some real emotion buried somewhere deep inside. And maybe I'd be a better person if I let that side of my personality come out. But it just doesn't surface too often. So let's leave it like this. . . . I'm sorry it happened, and I'm sorry for all the people, fans and family that it hurt. Let's move on."
You know, this whole publicity circus has been a fascinating study in watching someone publicly shoot themselves in the foot, while simultaneously knowing that they're doing so and being completely and totally unable to stop doing it. Leave aside the fact that the confesssion is years too late. The fact remains that it's essentially a paid confession, and the one thing the Commissioner has demanded -- contrition -- is apparently nowhere in evidence. Baseball officials, for once, also raise a perfectly reasonable question when they ask what's to keep Rose from betting on baseball again. The answer, "I know what you're thinking: If we let you back into baseball, Pete, what's to stop you from gambling again? Listen: There hasn't been a day in my life when I didn't regret making those bets. I wish I could take it all back, but I can't. What's done is done." is wholly inadequate; regretting the past doesn't necessarily prevent future behavior. The fact that he also doesn't see why his gambling problem made such a difference would indicate that baseball probably has no reason to reinstate him; all he sees is that this brouhaha is preventing him from reaching the Hall of Fame, and from being a manager again. As long as his focus is that narrow, baseball certainly has no reason to reinstate him. Selig may or may not be a fair man as commissioner -- the debate is certainly ongoing on that score -- but even the fairest of people would have to conclude that Rose has not only not made his case, but may have done it some damage with this book.
Posted by iain at 09:55 AM
