1. A rather remarkable class action restraint on free speech. The man was part of a group certified to constitute a class. But he did not give his consent to be part of the class. And he wanted to protest the settlement. The judge not only said he could NOT protest the settlement (bad enough), but that also he had to promote, without comment, the very settlement he intended to protest. An interesting problem for the "residence means consent" crowd who insist that just being privileged to live in the U.S. implies that the state actually owns all your property. Does the state own your religious conscience, and your website, too?
2. Firefox will allow users to block third party cookies. Interesting.
3. A tent city for fun...and profit. NYTimes story about K-ville, and money in sports in colleges.
4. Vote buying in Mexico. Wall Street Journal version. Monkey Cage version One and version Two
5. Arizona court rules, bizarrely, that "DUI" for marijuana only requires that the driver has smoked or ingested the drug within the last two weeks. No evidence of actual "influence"is required. Just "driving" is the offense. The driver can be completely sober and functional. This is truly odd, when you think about it. If I find that you have traces of MJ in your blood, I cannot charge you possession or use. Even though it is plausible to think that you used (at least, that is what the evidence appears to mean*). But I can charge you with driving unsafely because you were high at the time you were driving. Even though there is exactly zero evidence to support that claim.
*If the blood test does NOT reveal that you used, how could we conclude you were under the influence? The test is either reliable or it is not.
6. The rule about extra-marital affairs exposing operatives to blackmail should be scrapped?
Nod to Angry Alex, WH, Kevin Lewis, and Sam B
2. Firefox will allow users to block third party cookies. Interesting.
3. A tent city for fun...and profit. NYTimes story about K-ville, and money in sports in colleges.
4. Vote buying in Mexico. Wall Street Journal version. Monkey Cage version One and version Two
5. Arizona court rules, bizarrely, that "DUI" for marijuana only requires that the driver has smoked or ingested the drug within the last two weeks. No evidence of actual "influence"is required. Just "driving" is the offense. The driver can be completely sober and functional. This is truly odd, when you think about it. If I find that you have traces of MJ in your blood, I cannot charge you possession or use. Even though it is plausible to think that you used (at least, that is what the evidence appears to mean*). But I can charge you with driving unsafely because you were high at the time you were driving. Even though there is exactly zero evidence to support that claim.
*If the blood test does NOT reveal that you used, how could we conclude you were under the influence? The test is either reliable or it is not.
6. The rule about extra-marital affairs exposing operatives to blackmail should be scrapped?
Nod to Angry Alex, WH, Kevin Lewis, and Sam B
4 comments:
The Mexico articles made me laugh. Their wasn't fraud, but there was vote buying and the 'PRI would have lost in a clean election'.
I must be an economist. Mutual coincidence of wants and the ensuing Trade seems pretty clean to me!
Serious question for Arizonians: if you go to a concert and end up with a bit of a contact buzz, should you be worried about driving around the next day? Not that you're likely to get stopped, but still, that seems ridiculous.
Glad to see that. Great blog.
Thanks a lot.
fostering agencies London
I always enjoy to read your post, Because its interesting.
fostering agencies London
Post a Comment