November 21, 2003
Energy Bill Stalls
Well, the energy bill has been blocked, at least temporarily. And, from what little I understand, this seems to be a good thing. There seems to be a lot of badly spent money in here, not the least of which is a Tax breaks of $13 billion for oil, gas and coal industries.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why that segment needs tax breaks. Here's a funny story, though it's really sad. A while ago, someone thought it would be a good idea to give tax credits to coal manufacturers that created (I actually read this a while back in Time, but can't link to it, so here's a related article). Well, no one touched them, until someone realized that - as written - you didn't actually need to improve the coal, just make it different.
By taking regular coal and spray-coating it with a cheap tar or a resin, the coal could be transformed into a so-called synfuel.
To qualify for the tax credits - subsidies ultimately paid for by U.S. taxpayers - the makers of synfuels don't have to prove that they are making a better kind of coal. Some sleight-of-hand synfuels players do so little to "transform" their coal, critics call it spray and pray.
They spray it with chemicals, get the tax credit, then sell the coal - which often burns dirtier than the regular coal, because whatever they spray on the coal is burned off.
Is the whole energy bill filled with this stuff? No, but there's enough to make it worrisome.
The bill has "glaring examples of industry favors," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona., another opponent. He called it a "Thanksgiving turkey" stuffed with goodies for special interests.
Yes, while I'm sure this will go down as another example of how the Democratic minority is holding the majority hostage, the fact is that the bill would not have been blocked, if some republicans didn't jump ship, especially, since farm state Dems jumped ship To support it, due to the Ethanol portions of the bill.
As a side note, Daschle's decision to support the bill - because he's from an Ethanol state - has some people (like KOS)wondering if we need to replaced him.
Comments:Patent Problems
This is the problem with the current patent process, especially as it relates to the internet. AT&T is going to sue Pay Pal (now owned by EBay) for copyright infringement, because they claim to have come up with the concept of "Mediation of Transactions by a Communication System.", or more simply put having someone as the middle man to handle to money.
"AT&T invests hundreds of millions of dollars every year in our research and development efforts, which have yielded a sizable portfolio of patents -- that's what we're vigorously protecting here," Morgenstern said. "EBay and PayPal have refused to compensate us for patented technology, and so we're forced to take this to the courts."
Now while it certainly unclear if they have a case, they must think there is some glimmer of hope, or they wouldn't be attempting it. I feel the same way about the Amazon one-click fiasco. They lost a case, and have to pay millions in royalty to a guy who says he came up with and patented the idea (they're appealing).
I understand the need to protect intellectual property, and even novel ideas, but there needs to be some sort of common sense approach to this. Neither one of these concepts are earth shatteringly novel. Both the idea of being able to check out with one 'click' and the mediation of transaction both existed before their respective implementation on the internet (When was the first person allowed to wire money? Isn't that ultimately a mediation of transaction? And 'One click' chopping is basically shopping somewhere where you have an 'account').
You should be able patent code you have written to perform such tasks, but not the concept of the tasks themselves. Even then, though, there needs to be some sort of realization that some coding tasks are not overly complex to implement - and just because other code uses the same logic to approach the problem, that shouldn't be considered a infringement.
And, contrary to AT&T claims, there's no way they spent 'millions of dollars' to come up with that idea. To create a system to implement it, maybe. And if they can prove that Pay Pal's system has stolen some of that implementation, then fine sue.
I have a feeling that's not the case, though.
Comments:The Good Life
Man, I wished I lived this life. Yes, I know, being the President is rough - but after a week abroad (which, while maybe not Disney Land, wasn't all that Rough. Tex-Mex dinner with the queen, pretend to pull a few beers, a speech or two). Home again, Pardon a Turkey and sign a bill. Then some real work - visiting with troops and the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. Then?
Tuesday, travel to Las Vegas, Nevada, where he will make remarks on Medicare and medical liability.
Then he'll attend a Bush-Cheney 2004 luncheon.
Then he'll travel to Phoenix, Arizona, and participate in a conversation on Medicare, and then attend a Bush-Cheney 2004 reception.
He will then return to the ranch and -- to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday.
And he will remain there through the weekend.
Notice how he has 'remarks' to make each day. I bet the campaign is not paying for his travel.
Comments:November 20, 2003
Peterson Tapes
I usually don't post about stuff like this, but CNN has released transcripts of a taped call between Scott Peterson (P) and Amber Fey. (F) Now, I can't even begin to guess as where my mindset would be if someone I loved went missing, never mind if I then had to explain this all to my mistress, but most of this seems pretty damning.
F: Yeah is that why you said you didn't want to have any children and Ayiana was the only child you ever see of having and ... and at that point assuming we're together she would be ... you would have her as your own? Why would you tell me when you were expecting a baby?
P: Sweetie, I .. I'm so sorry I can't tell you everything now.
F: Why can't you tell me everything? Why?
P: There is simply .. it just has entirely too many repercussions and they're not all for me.
F: ... and you're what?
P: ... okay ... there's a lot and all the repercussions don't deal with me.
F: What repercussions? What repercussions?
P: If I was to explain, explain to you ...
F: Yes,
P: And you, you know the media, started attacking you ... or anything else, so many people would be hurt.
There was one section, though, which seems to be good for the defense. He never asked her [Fey] to keep quiet.
Comments:AF: Why should I not go to the police with this?
P: It's your decision.
F: Really?
P: Of course.
F: And at that point, uh... I go to the police, um... I don't know. I don't know if they would, uh, release it to the media or, you know, obviously they would question you, they would want to know everything.
F: Uh-hum.
P: Uh... I don't know... I mean it's your decision...of course. Uh... I... I wanted to tell you...what has happened and I wanted to tell you that I lied to you.
One More...
Okay, I lied.
There's a pretty good article on Religious Conservatives and Gay Marriage at Slate :
Comments:In other words, many of the world's faiths do argue against homosexuality, but they don't raise it to the level of moral calamity: It's bad but not that bad. Privately, religious conservatives are appalled and grossed out by homosexuality but realize that the more common American view is modulated. So, they choose to focus on the idea that marriage in general is under threat. Read their public statements, and you'll see a surprising shortage of outrage about homosexuality itself. Perhaps they've been reading their Bibles more carefully. More likely, they've figured out that the most effective argument for religious conservatives is not, in fact, a religious one.
Three Views of Bush
My friend Greg points to two recent NYT articles, one from the left and one from the right, which both highlight a problem the same problem with Bush.
Greg summarizes it thusly:
....In other words, he has yet to back up his vision with real interaction with the people. After that last speech trying to spin the increasing attacks into a positive light, I do think people are finally getting the message that it's all spin. No matter what happens, the spin-masters will turn it into a victory for the Bush administration. Someone needs to tell the man there's no moral authority in 'spin'.Comments:
Last One
Okay, I'll get off the Gay Marriage thing, for now. I can't keep up with the 'World is coming to an end' articles that are coming from the conservatives. (Like this, and this, and this, and this, and this.) Actually, I've been trying to get my head around the Energy Bill. (IF I don't mention it again, that means I failed.)
Anyway, just a quick mention that Rick at The Rant, has a post wondering what it is about gay marriage that gives the conservatives the willies.
It was his ending, that gave me a chuckle:
Comments:I guess they figure that fight is pretty much lost so they desperately cling to the one thing that still seems to gross some fairly broad-minded folks out, gay people, wearing white. Whether they're entitled to or not.
November 19, 2003
And another....
Maggie Gallagher over at Town Hall has her own crazed view of the world.
So at last it has happened: Four judges in Massachusetts, ruling in a same-sex marriage case, have decided that children don't need mothers and fathers, that marriage has nothing to do with getting children what they need. Marriage is a passing plaything of the latest fashionable ideology, a toy for adults with graduate degrees to tinker with, at their pleasure.
I didn't read any of that in the opinion. Why is it that conservatives don't seem to understand that a law against gay marriage doesn't stop gay couples from having kids (though, I'm sure they'd like a law to do that as well). Gay families exist without legal approval - always have, always will. Refusing to recognize them does not make them disappear.
And oh, by the way, there is no great reason to have a state legislature, either, since the justices believe they have the right not only to strike down laws they consider unconstitutional, but to order elected officials to pass new laws to their liking. The form of democracy is maintained, but it is drained of its substance.
I'm not an expert in government, but isn't striking down laws they consider unconstitutional the exact role of a supreme court? Also, Conservative always seem to think the courts just step into these things. Citizens of Massachusetts feel that their rights were being restricted and took that grievance to the court. The court then uses the constitution to decide if those rights were indeed violated. The courts don't care about majority opinion of the citizens, that's not their role. Tier role is to interpret laws and make sure they confirm to the constitution.
Why did they do this? So they can be heroes to their friends at cocktail parties? So they can feel historic and powerful? The most striking thing about this decision to me is the complete absence of any sense of risk.
Because people brought a case to the court?
There's a difference between Judicial Tyranny and a Judicial Decision you didn't like.
Comments:Brett said (at November 19, 2003 05:07 AM):
I'm not an expert in government, but isn't striking down laws they consider unconstitutional the exact role of a supreme court?
Sure.
The problems crop up when justices invent constitutional principle out of whole cloth in order to strike down or uphold laws that comport with their own ideological preferences.
I'm don't think this is what happened in Massachusetts, but it's pretty clear that Gallagher disagrees.
Henry said (at November 19, 2003 10:36 AM):
Well, she's the one who wrote in her article that she doesn't seem to think that's what the courts role is. Let's forgive her for that:
It's convenient to say they are 'create constitutional principles' when you don't agree with the decision. The fact is that any judicial court case deals with conflicting rights which are not specifically addressed in whatever governing document (MA Constitution, in this case), or is addressed in such a way that it conflicts with other sections of said document. The courts have to decide which or these conflicting rights has the stronger weight. In the Mass Case, they basically said that the protections and benefits which the state grants to straight couples (and families) can not be denied to gay couples and families.
It's also easy to suggest that there's some sort of ideological preference behind any decision that seems to favor gay marriage. What compelling reason do any of these justices have in making these decisions beyond that they feel that's what is constitutional dictated?
You may disagree with their interpretation of the law, but that doesn't mean that they're just making up laws randomly. There is a justification for the decision.
Brett said (at November 20, 2003 05:13 AM):
I think we may be talking past one another. :)
When you say that judges aren't randomly making things up as they go, that's surely true. But there's frequently a pretty broad gulf between outcome-oriented "moral" or "evolving standards of decency" interpretations and, say, textual or original intent-based interpretations.
Constitutional scholars call these different forms of argument and interpretation "modalities". There is considerable feuding across ideological lines about which modality is most appropriate to apply to any given question of law. As a rule, conservatives tend to prefer textual and original intent, while deriding evolving standards arguments as soft-headed and libertine. Meanwhile, liberals tend to prefer evolving standards and moral arguments, while deriding textual and original intent as regressive, uncivilized, and mean-spirited.
For my money, a pox on both houses. I think the text of the Constitution matters, as do the intentions of the Framers: these are crucial points that liberals are frequently far too cavalier about (I'm thinking in particular of liberal expansions of the welfare state to a level that would have been unimaginable to the Framers, and liberal incursions against the Second Amendment). On the other hand, the Constitution also establishes a broad framework for individual liberty that conservatives are equally cavalier about (I'm thinking in particular of a lot of the law-and-order hokum that's turned the Fourth Amendment into a dead letter, as well as Justice Scalia's asshatted dissent in the Texas sodomy case).
Let the panic begin!
CalPundit mentions the foolishness taking place over at NRO's 'The corner' in regards to the Gay Marriage decision in MA. Since this is near and dear to me, being a MA native and gay, I popped over and took a peek.
After washing my eyes out (and losing a point or two of INT), I have to say I'm tied between these two arguments against gay marriage.
Tim GrahamAsk your liberal friends: If the diktats of state Supreme Court justices were imposed across the country, and homosexuals generally have an above-average standard of living, isn't giving them all the tax benefits etc. of what proponents call "gay marriage" just another regrettable tax cut for the rich?
Or, to turn it around, isn't this a reason for you to support gay marriage? I thought all conservatives liked giving tax breaks to the rich.
My other favorite is this:
John "I lie about my links" Derbyshire"Your comment about cell-mates marrying got me thinking. Under the traditional restrictions, a man cannot marry his daughter, or, a fortiori, his son, and so if he leaves them a very large inheritance, it is taxed, although what he leaves his wife is not taxed. But under a general license to 'marry' another man, a man could marry his son, and thus pass his property to the son tax-free."
Hmmm....that a very clever idea. Of course, they'd have to get a divorce before the son could marry someone else. But I forgot, the ruling in MA will lead to all sorts of polygamous marriages, so the son can stay married to 'dad' and still take a blushing bride. The sleeping arraignments may need to be worked out.
Hey, you know who really wins with this idea? Those old people who leave all their money to their cats. No, they can marry their cats before they die, thus relieving those cats of the burdensome 'death' tax .
These people give a whole new meaning to the phrase 'gay panic'. Or idoit. No...gay panic.
Idiot.
Maybe both.
Comments:November 18, 2003
Almost forgot....
Conservative response The phrase 'activist judges' in 5...4...3...
| Conservative Response | My Analysis |
| FRC | |
| "While we are certainly relieved that the court stopped short of granting marriage licenses to the homosexual couples demanding them, it is inexcusable for this court to force the state legislature to 'fix' its state constitution to make it comport with the pro-homosexual agenda of 4 court justices." | How dare the court demand that the legislators fix the constitution. |
| "This is THE wake-up call for both the American public and our elected officials. If we do not amend the Massachusetts State Constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation. | We demand that the legislators fix the constitution. |
| "We must amend the Constitution if we are to stop a tyrannical judiciary from redefining marriage to the point of extinction." | Tyrannical instead of 'activist'. I was so close.... |
| James Dobson (FoF) | |
| "The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is now closer than it has ever been to administering a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family. What makes these developments so shocking is that the legal acceptance of homosexual marriage was little more than a pipe dream just a few years ago, but now it has become a tidal wave that is sweeping around the globe. "
"That, " Dobson added, "illustrates the destructive power of the judicial tyranny that has gripped our nation." |
Allowing Gay people to get married will mean that men, who would otherwise get happily married to a woman and create lots of kids, will now enter joyless, childless, same-sex marriage instead of tradition marriage? You got me on this one. (Tyranny again. Hmmmm). |
###
(I'll be updating this as they come)
Comments:A victory for Marriage
Well, actually, we still have to see how this all plays out. This route has actually been followed before, I seem to recall. It doesn't mean much if the Legistlators alter the constitution to explicityl define marriage as 1-M, 1-F.
So, while the news is good, there's nothing set in stone.
Comments:A glimpse of understanding
Speaking of the liberal media, I read a great piece in Newsweek (I have the print edition and can't link to the article by Hosenball, Isikoff, and Thomas in the 11/17 edition) which deconstructs Cheney's mind set as it relates to post-9/11 and the war in Iraq. Now, while it certainly suggests that Cheney may have been listening to the wrong people, and ignoring less-worrisome intelligence, it also made me realize something.
The Vice President is afraid.
For years Cheney had feared - and warned against - a terrorist attack on an American city. The hijacked planes that plowed into the world trade center and the pentagon confirmed his suspicions of American Vulnerability - though by no means his worst fears - that terrorists would use a biological or nuclear weapon.
Imagine that you're worried about a terrorist attack. Not vaguely, instead on a semi-regular basis. Since 9/11 I've spent a lot of time imagining a biological or nuclear attack. The best scenarios are the ones where I am killed right away. The worst are when I survive but the people I love don't. These thoughts haunt me - not enough to paralyze me or keep me from living, but probably more than they should. I, like many people, have had more nightmares since 9/11. The world, which had always been vaguely frightening, had become clearly terrorized.
Now imagine, unlike me, you spent days, even weeks, or hearing the intelligence reports of what they might be planning. Vague warnings, chatter, reports of missing radioactive materials. I'm not talking about the vague warnings that homeland security loves to give, I'm talking about the real stuff. Rumors of biological labs, and nuclear programs.
And it's your job to stop it all.
I'm not saying any of this excuses what was clearly an over statement for the threat Iraq posed, and what I think was a clear intent of misleading us to garner support for the war.
I'm just saying that, all things considered, it's not surprising that Cheney may have wanted to believe the worst. Especially since, while we often refer to 9/11 as the worst, we also know that it was far better than what could have happened.
Comments:Rush's other problem
ABC is reporting that Rush may have helped launder the money he used to buy drugs.
Banks must file a report to the government if someone withdraws more than $10,000 at once.
Limbaugh's lawyers confirm that as part of US Trust's service, a bank employee personally delivered cash to Limbaugh at his New York studio in amounts of $9,900 or so.
Limbaugh's lawyers say it was US Trust that suggested the arrangement...
All of this is just allegations at this point, authorities haven't decided if they will charge him. If it's true, however, it's actually another aspect of his addiction. You do things, sometimes anything, to get the drug. It makes you susceptible to doing dumb, even illegal things.
Of course, whenever I start to feel bad for him, I get reminded why I shouldn't.
Limbaugh's lawyers say he did not do that and that he is being falsely accused by those who want to force him off the air.
Oh yea, That damn liberal media again.
Comments:November 17, 2003
Some good news
The mid-term elections weren't all bad news for the Dems. The Dem in Louisiana won, and is the first woman Governor to boot. I don't think this is an indication of anything other than good news in Louisiana.
Which, in and of itself, is enough.
Comments:Wherever they go, there they are
I was listening to Hannity's radio program on Friday. I mostly do my listening in the car, so forgive my lack of details - and he doesn't offer up transcripts to link to, but....He had a guest on and they were talking about Hillary's role in Iowa and the rumors that some of the Democratic hopefuls were upset she was going.
Hannity pointed out that he thought both her and Bill were crazed self promoters who can't bear for the spotlight to be on anyone else (my paraphrase, not his words). The ironic thing is, it's the right who keeps bringing the Clintons up, then they complain that the Clintons won't step into the background.
It's a good racket if you can get it.
Comments:Promises Kept
Newly sworn-in Governor Schwarzenegger has repealed the car tax increase . That sound you hear is the CA deficit tripling.
So....no new taxes (so he said), can't touch education, no car tax....
Maybe we can sell some of our deserts to Arizona.
Comments:When Good Christians Lie
You know, part of the interesting aspect of the net is it's ability to help people mislead. Case in point, John Derbyshire's latest column on NRO. The premise of the column, ultimately, is that we're the only Christian nation left on earth. Before he settles down into it, though, he starts with a 1940s story of an Atheist who was offered a teaching spot in the City College of New York and was run out of town by the local church. (As usual, I'm going to skip the main point of the article, and focus on a deliberate misleading link, that really has no purpose in the article, but he includes anyway to show we're a nation falling from god).
From the article:
A row ensued, of a kind that seems very quaint nowadays, when the syllabus of the average college is stuffed with courses on (to take some actual examples) "Abandonment to the Body's Desire" and "Queer Pedagogy in Law."
Average college. Stuffed with courses. I'm guessing Mr. Derbyshire was under a tight deadline, or is pretty sure no one who reads his column is going to bother clicking those links. Lets start with the second link, as it's more fun. First of all, it's not a course offered at an un-average college, never mind an average one. It's a session at a conference from September 2002 for lawyers.
The purpose of the conference?
Assimilation & Resistance: Emerging Issues in Law & Sexuality. The conference is aimed at exploring the tangled intersections between law and sexuality in the current political economy. Specifically, the conference seeks to examine the dynamic relationships between strategies of assimilation and those of resistance
Now, if you attend the conference you can get 11 CLEs, which are Continuing Legal Education credits. Yes, it is hosted at a law school, though is not a course. Even if it had been a course, I would hardly consider law school and 'average' college.
As for the other link, it is related to a college course. It is the personal writings of someone who was linked to by a women's studies class called : Transgender Lives and Experiences. That's a little bit different than a whole class called "Abandonment to the Body's Desire". (Interesting, that he links to 2 queer issue items in his attempt to point out the anti-god bend our schools have taken).
Now, sure, you - and he- are free to question the need for such a class. Then again, it's a women's study class - hardly a required course.
Are there plenty of probably dumb courses in colleges? Probably. Are there enough so that Mr. Derbyshire doesn't need make them up? Apparently not.
(By the way, of you read the column, it takes him 4 paragraphs to start his point, which is based somewhat off of an article he read in The Economist, which you can't read unless you have an account. Then he takes a swipe at Britain over Bush's impending visit - apparently there wouldn't be protests if Bush wasn't Christian, or it Britain was. Then he explores the possibility that Britain will become an Islamic Nation (Not a far-fetched idea, he thinks). Oh, and he takes a swipe at Paul Krugman.)
The highlight of the article, is when he examines Britain's state of utter moral squalor by looking at their tabloids.
Comments: