On the continuing problem of controlling legal authority....
The Supreme Court today issued a 5-4 decision narrowing the First Amendment rights of public employees. It held that speech made “pursuant to” an employee’s duties is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Employees do have other statutory and contractual protections, however.
Two excerpts from LA Times story:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday restricted the free-speech rights of the nation's 21 million public employees, ruling that the 1st Amendment does not protect them from being punished for complaining to their managers about possible wrongdoing.
Although government employees have the same rights as other citizens to speak out on controversies of the day, they do not have the right to speak freely inside their offices on matters related to "their official duties," the high court said in a 5-4 decision.
When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, rejecting a lawsuit brought by a Los Angeles County prosecutor.
Lawyers for government whistle-blowers denounced the ruling as a major setback. They said it could threaten public health and safety. Public sector hospital workers who know of dangers may be discouraged from revealing them, while police and public employees may be dissuaded from exposing corruption, they said...
and
...Still, Tuesday's majority opinion left open the possibility that an employee might be shielded by the 1st Amendment if he or she acted as a "citizen," rather than in an official capacity, and took complaints to a newspaper or to a state legislator.
Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that it "seems perverse" to protect whistle-blowers who go public, while punishing those who take their concerns to their managers.
"We think this is a bad decision, but it may not be a catastrophe," said Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer in Los Angeles. "It basically says, if you go to the L.A. Times, you might get some protection. But if you report it in the office and up the chain of command, you don't have any protection under the 1st Amendment."
ATSRTWT
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Ice and Fog...not
Check this, or else this, for word on the giant wreck on I-40/I-85. It was apparently caused by heavy fog and a layer of ice on the road.
Except, without the fog or the ice. Just rain. So not even like January 19, 2005, when traffic was completely gridlocked for five or six hours, because of less than an inch of ice. At least that was ice. It's hard to drive on ice.
Today, in the rain, more than 80 cars wrecked, in more than 20 little goofball clusters, with more than 30 injuries.
I mean....wtf? Lots of these people did nothing more than stop to avoid the cars in front of them, only to be rear-ended, of course, so maybe only half of the 82 (or less) were actually at fault. But that's a lot fault for a Wednesday morning with a brief rain shower.
People in San Diego were talking about this pile-up: "See, Californians aren't the only ones who can't drive!"
One elderly man, at least, was seriously injured. Sometimes, when it first rains in summer, that sheen of oil comes up, and watch out.
Be careful out there....Or else just abandon the pretense and get yourself one of these. Cops love gags like this.
Except, without the fog or the ice. Just rain. So not even like January 19, 2005, when traffic was completely gridlocked for five or six hours, because of less than an inch of ice. At least that was ice. It's hard to drive on ice.
Today, in the rain, more than 80 cars wrecked, in more than 20 little goofball clusters, with more than 30 injuries.
I mean....wtf? Lots of these people did nothing more than stop to avoid the cars in front of them, only to be rear-ended, of course, so maybe only half of the 82 (or less) were actually at fault. But that's a lot fault for a Wednesday morning with a brief rain shower.
People in San Diego were talking about this pile-up: "See, Californians aren't the only ones who can't drive!"
One elderly man, at least, was seriously injured. Sometimes, when it first rains in summer, that sheen of oil comes up, and watch out.
Be careful out there....Or else just abandon the pretense and get yourself one of these. Cops love gags like this.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Yes, Dear
My (our) twentieth wedding anniversary is coming up. My lovely wife:
The lovely wife did something that, years ago, might have gotten me into trouble.
Here's what she did:
1. Decided my son's car needed gas (it did, it had fumes and nothing else. he had driven it home on empty...why? now, if I did that, i'd get a stony look. But since our older son did it, she decides she is going to go fill it up for him).
2. Drove to a gas station three miles away. (Pretty scary, might have run out of gas any second)
3. Realized, when she got to the gas station, that she had forgotten her purse. No money, no credit card.
4. Reasoned that she couldn't drive home, AND BACK, on the clearly empty tank (almost certainly correct). Reasoned further that without money she couldn't put gas in the car if she stayed at the station, either.
5. So, she called me. On my son's cell phone. I am pitching batting practice. He holds up the phone...."Mom wants to talk to you!"
6. I take the call. She explains. I say...."Well, now, that could happen to ANYONE, dear! I'll be right there!" (Baseball field is 1.5 miles from this gas station).
What does this have to do with 20 years of marriage? Answer, especially for young men not yet married or only married for a little while: You will do stuff MUCH more stupid than this. You will do it often. And if you laugh, or yell, or do any of the things that a not-married-for-20-years person would automatically do, you will regret it.
Besides, maybe this way I'll get lucky later. You never know. It could happen. Even after 20 years of marriage.
The lovely wife did something that, years ago, might have gotten me into trouble.
Here's what she did:
1. Decided my son's car needed gas (it did, it had fumes and nothing else. he had driven it home on empty...why? now, if I did that, i'd get a stony look. But since our older son did it, she decides she is going to go fill it up for him).
2. Drove to a gas station three miles away. (Pretty scary, might have run out of gas any second)
3. Realized, when she got to the gas station, that she had forgotten her purse. No money, no credit card.
4. Reasoned that she couldn't drive home, AND BACK, on the clearly empty tank (almost certainly correct). Reasoned further that without money she couldn't put gas in the car if she stayed at the station, either.
5. So, she called me. On my son's cell phone. I am pitching batting practice. He holds up the phone...."Mom wants to talk to you!"
6. I take the call. She explains. I say...."Well, now, that could happen to ANYONE, dear! I'll be right there!" (Baseball field is 1.5 miles from this gas station).
What does this have to do with 20 years of marriage? Answer, especially for young men not yet married or only married for a little while: You will do stuff MUCH more stupid than this. You will do it often. And if you laugh, or yell, or do any of the things that a not-married-for-20-years person would automatically do, you will regret it.
Besides, maybe this way I'll get lucky later. You never know. It could happen. Even after 20 years of marriage.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Je kanas nowan, Jabba Munga
Separated at birth? Check these two pictures, and tell me
we aren't related.....
(btw, if you want to translate the Huttese in the title, here....)
we aren't related.....
(btw, if you want to translate the Huttese in the title, here....)
Now Young Faces Grow Old, and Sad
Went to a Durham Bulls game last night. One of our favorite family things to do. Cheap, great seats (if you get season tickets, or even one of the modified ticket packages).
You get cheesy little things, giveaways, if you do buy one of the ticket packages. We have the "Hit Bull, Win Steak" ticket package (See seventh bullet point here). So, for May 26, you got a coupon for a free autographed baseball.
We get there, and the poor people at the "Fan Assistance Center" are looking harried. We walk up to present our coupon to get our baseball, and they say, "We'll stamp it, and you can use it later."
Turns out that the "autograph" on the baseball they were GOING to give away was from (wait for it, I bet you can guess!) Delmon Young.
Now, Mr. Delmon Young is the younger brother of that oversized Treasure Troll*, Detroit's Dmitri Young and that would be some claim to fame already.
(a real Treasure Troll, for comparison)
But my man Delmon is also serving the baseball equivalent of house arrest for two months for throwing a bat at an umpire. And the bat hit the umpire, as you can see in an already famous video. I've never seen anything like that. Spitting on the ump is kind of gross, and bumping him is bad...but to throw a bat? And HIT the ump?
Discretion, better part of valor, and all that, for the Bulls. So, no baseballs, even though they had all the baseballs ready. They just didn't want to give them out.
My questions:
1. Why give out baseballs, anyway? You can THROW them. Having hundreds of kids in the stands with baseballs is not such a great idea. It's not "disco demolition night," but it's close. (oh, HELL no, you did NOT skip over that link. Go back and also look at DDN 25th anniversary. Outstanding baseball history. Don't be a putz; click it).
2. Why not give out THESE baseballs, anyway? Instead of making the ticket-holders mad, give out the Delmon Young-signed balls, with maybe a little toy ankle-bracelet GPS transmitter. Clearly a collectors' item, soon, when Delmon Young goes on to complete the trifecta of (a) hit ump with bat, (b) get caught with cocaine, and (c) use Mark McGuire-style steroids. People would be trying to buy these balls on Ebay, within just a few years.
Of course, there was also a game. A couple of monsoon delays, so we left early. But there was this kid, Edwin Jackson, a top prospect, who started for the Bulls. He was throwing 92-94, with a nice curve. Several Braves got the jelly leg and then had to go sit down for a while.
My son asked me a plausible question: "Given how weak the Devil Rays [Bulls are DR AAA farm club) are at pitching, how can this guy be down here?"
The answer quickly became apparent. Strikeout, groundout.....5 pitch walk, 6 pitch walk. Then a single, which scores a run. Infielders are kicking at the dirt, bored. Back on their heels. They get out of the inning, but the kid throw 24 pitches in the first inning. A lot of them were fast. Not that many of them were strikes.
My son (14): "How can a professional pitcher be that wild?" It's hard to say. There is some mental difference between the guys that have control, and those who don't. But EVERYBODY loses it sometime. That pitching thing: It's tough.
(*FOOTNOTE: I got the Treasure Troll bit from Boondocks. McGruder made the crack about the mug shot of James Brown. And....that's right. Of course, Nick Nolte has some pretty good Treasure Troll action going, his own self.)
You get cheesy little things, giveaways, if you do buy one of the ticket packages. We have the "Hit Bull, Win Steak" ticket package (See seventh bullet point here). So, for May 26, you got a coupon for a free autographed baseball.
We get there, and the poor people at the "Fan Assistance Center" are looking harried. We walk up to present our coupon to get our baseball, and they say, "We'll stamp it, and you can use it later."
Turns out that the "autograph" on the baseball they were GOING to give away was from (wait for it, I bet you can guess!) Delmon Young.
Now, Mr. Delmon Young is the younger brother of that oversized Treasure Troll*, Detroit's Dmitri Young and that would be some claim to fame already.
(a real Treasure Troll, for comparison)
But my man Delmon is also serving the baseball equivalent of house arrest for two months for throwing a bat at an umpire. And the bat hit the umpire, as you can see in an already famous video. I've never seen anything like that. Spitting on the ump is kind of gross, and bumping him is bad...but to throw a bat? And HIT the ump?
Discretion, better part of valor, and all that, for the Bulls. So, no baseballs, even though they had all the baseballs ready. They just didn't want to give them out.
My questions:
1. Why give out baseballs, anyway? You can THROW them. Having hundreds of kids in the stands with baseballs is not such a great idea. It's not "disco demolition night," but it's close. (oh, HELL no, you did NOT skip over that link. Go back and also look at DDN 25th anniversary. Outstanding baseball history. Don't be a putz; click it).
2. Why not give out THESE baseballs, anyway? Instead of making the ticket-holders mad, give out the Delmon Young-signed balls, with maybe a little toy ankle-bracelet GPS transmitter. Clearly a collectors' item, soon, when Delmon Young goes on to complete the trifecta of (a) hit ump with bat, (b) get caught with cocaine, and (c) use Mark McGuire-style steroids. People would be trying to buy these balls on Ebay, within just a few years.
Of course, there was also a game. A couple of monsoon delays, so we left early. But there was this kid, Edwin Jackson, a top prospect, who started for the Bulls. He was throwing 92-94, with a nice curve. Several Braves got the jelly leg and then had to go sit down for a while.
My son asked me a plausible question: "Given how weak the Devil Rays [Bulls are DR AAA farm club) are at pitching, how can this guy be down here?"
The answer quickly became apparent. Strikeout, groundout.....5 pitch walk, 6 pitch walk. Then a single, which scores a run. Infielders are kicking at the dirt, bored. Back on their heels. They get out of the inning, but the kid throw 24 pitches in the first inning. A lot of them were fast. Not that many of them were strikes.
My son (14): "How can a professional pitcher be that wild?" It's hard to say. There is some mental difference between the guys that have control, and those who don't. But EVERYBODY loses it sometime. That pitching thing: It's tough.
(*FOOTNOTE: I got the Treasure Troll bit from Boondocks. McGruder made the crack about the mug shot of James Brown. And....that's right. Of course, Nick Nolte has some pretty good Treasure Troll action going, his own self.)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Dog Bites Man
Skilling and Lay guilty
Enron former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling and founder Kenneth Lay were found guilty Thursday of conspiracy and fraud in the granddaddy of all corporate fraud cases. On the sixth day of deliberations, a jury of eight women and four men convicted the former executives of misleading the public about the true financial health of Enron, whose collapse in late 2001 symbolized the wave of corporate fraud that swept the United States early this decade
ATSRTWT
Enron former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling and founder Kenneth Lay were found guilty Thursday of conspiracy and fraud in the granddaddy of all corporate fraud cases. On the sixth day of deliberations, a jury of eight women and four men convicted the former executives of misleading the public about the true financial health of Enron, whose collapse in late 2001 symbolized the wave of corporate fraud that swept the United States early this decade
ATSRTWT
Nobody's perfect and I stand accused, for lack of a better word
Verdict in Enron trial: noooooooooon today.
less than 30 minutes.
My prediction: guilty, guilty, guilty.
Of course, that seems obvious.
And, if I actually knew anything, I'd be executing trades
based on the info, not blogging about it.
less than 30 minutes.
My prediction: guilty, guilty, guilty.
Of course, that seems obvious.
And, if I actually knew anything, I'd be executing trades
based on the info, not blogging about it.
Welcome to New Kind of Tension
Kelo and eminent doman seem to have caught fire as issues, nationally and locally.
An NR article....
And this...
In NC, there is this....
It will certainly be a central issue for me, in the next two years.
An NR article....
And this...
In NC, there is this....
It will certainly be a central issue for me, in the next two years.
Monday, May 22, 2006
News and Observer Article
From a piece in the Q section in the N&O yesterday:
The turning point in ideas about government was the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. It changed our character, it ended for many people the sense of optimistic self-sufficiency they had been brought up with and it turned us back from progressivism toward liberalism. Liberalism came to mean that concern for the poor is not just a sentiment, but a motivation for policy. Liberals fought for reforms that built a wall of government resources around those who were least well-off, a dam holding back a tide of poverty, ignorance, starvation and disease.
And it worked, as politics. Regardless of what you think of the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the '60s and the scores of other programs focused on social ills, they were wildly popular. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for decades and from 1933 to 1969 held the presidency for seven out of nine terms.
More recently, however, liberalism has stopped working. Many of the core beliefs of liberals are still present in American thought and culture, but for a politician to call herself a "liberal" is suicide in most jurisdictions. The reason is that the French sense won the war of meaning, and Americans rejected that view of political life. Doctrinaire ideologues, insisting on a particular conception of equality at the expense of liberty and on a narrow secular interpretation of the rhetorical space of public discourse, hijacked liberalism.
It was a Pyrrhic victory: In winning control of the Democratic party, they lost the confidence of voters. Liberalism was reduced to an interest group code phrase: "Vote for me, and I'll give you other people's money."
ATSRTWT
UPDATE: For those interested in "fair use" rules....
The turning point in ideas about government was the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. It changed our character, it ended for many people the sense of optimistic self-sufficiency they had been brought up with and it turned us back from progressivism toward liberalism. Liberalism came to mean that concern for the poor is not just a sentiment, but a motivation for policy. Liberals fought for reforms that built a wall of government resources around those who were least well-off, a dam holding back a tide of poverty, ignorance, starvation and disease.
And it worked, as politics. Regardless of what you think of the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the '60s and the scores of other programs focused on social ills, they were wildly popular. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for decades and from 1933 to 1969 held the presidency for seven out of nine terms.
More recently, however, liberalism has stopped working. Many of the core beliefs of liberals are still present in American thought and culture, but for a politician to call herself a "liberal" is suicide in most jurisdictions. The reason is that the French sense won the war of meaning, and Americans rejected that view of political life. Doctrinaire ideologues, insisting on a particular conception of equality at the expense of liberty and on a narrow secular interpretation of the rhetorical space of public discourse, hijacked liberalism.
It was a Pyrrhic victory: In winning control of the Democratic party, they lost the confidence of voters. Liberalism was reduced to an interest group code phrase: "Vote for me, and I'll give you other people's money."
ATSRTWT
UPDATE: For those interested in "fair use" rules....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)