A smashing bit from the good Dr. Nokes, at UnLocked Wordhoard.
Originally from Anachronista, but I'm no link pirate. I found it first
from Nokes.
Can you imagine learning about the B.T. from this source? There even appears to be someone puking from sea-sickness, though I may have that wrong. (No, I watched it again. Definitely puking!). Kids would love this. Incredibly educational.
Smashing.
Monday, April 09, 2007
That Won't Fly....
This from Andrew Sullivan, in the At Monthly:
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Enemy of the People
08 Apr 2007 05:57 pm
Meet Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. He's a former Marine, with five years of active service and 19 years in the reserve, and a legal critic of Roe vs Wade and supporter of the Alito confirmation. He's also on the Terrorist No-Fly List:
"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said."
Just a heads up about what these people are up to.
(Nod to JT. I hope they let him fly to Chicago. He is a dangerous man....)
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Enemy of the People
08 Apr 2007 05:57 pm
Meet Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. He's a former Marine, with five years of active service and 19 years in the reserve, and a legal critic of Roe vs Wade and supporter of the Alito confirmation. He's also on the Terrorist No-Fly List:
"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said."
Just a heads up about what these people are up to.
(Nod to JT. I hope they let him fly to Chicago. He is a dangerous man....)
Monday, April 02, 2007
On the Other Hand....
Handedness and Earnings
Christopher S. Ruebeck, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Robert Moffitt
NBER Working Paper, July 2006
Abstract:
We examine whether handedness is related to performance in the labor market
and, in particular, earnings. We find a significant wage effect for
left-handed men with high levels of education. This positive wage effect is
strongest among those who have lower than average earnings relative to those
of similar high education. This effect is not found among women.
Strange, but accords with my own crude "survey" observations. Sometimes, in meetings of faculty for committees or some other (for this purpose) random event, I'll notice that 1/3, or even 1/2 or more of the people present are left-handed.
This compared to a handedness proportion in the general population of 10% or maybe a little more.
So, among faculty, it is not clear why this would be true. On a baseball team, one can see why there would be a premium on left-handed hitters, or pitchers, up to a point. But faculty just LEAN to the left, not select for people who use that hand. (Yes, that was an attempted political joke).
To balance that, a fun fact, which I think is bizarre: Even if both parents are left-handed, the child has only a 25% - 30% chance of being left-handed. What the hell is up with THAT?
My favorite book on handedness, though now a bit dated: M.C. Corballis, THE LOPSIDED APE, Cambridge, 1991.
(Nod to KL, who is preternaturally EVEN-handed.)
Christopher S. Ruebeck, Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., Robert Moffitt
NBER Working Paper, July 2006
Abstract:
We examine whether handedness is related to performance in the labor market
and, in particular, earnings. We find a significant wage effect for
left-handed men with high levels of education. This positive wage effect is
strongest among those who have lower than average earnings relative to those
of similar high education. This effect is not found among women.
Strange, but accords with my own crude "survey" observations. Sometimes, in meetings of faculty for committees or some other (for this purpose) random event, I'll notice that 1/3, or even 1/2 or more of the people present are left-handed.
This compared to a handedness proportion in the general population of 10% or maybe a little more.
So, among faculty, it is not clear why this would be true. On a baseball team, one can see why there would be a premium on left-handed hitters, or pitchers, up to a point. But faculty just LEAN to the left, not select for people who use that hand. (Yes, that was an attempted political joke).
To balance that, a fun fact, which I think is bizarre: Even if both parents are left-handed, the child has only a 25% - 30% chance of being left-handed. What the hell is up with THAT?
My favorite book on handedness, though now a bit dated: M.C. Corballis, THE LOPSIDED APE, Cambridge, 1991.
(Nod to KL, who is preternaturally EVEN-handed.)
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Video on America, 1948
Alina S links a very fine video, made at Harding College in 1948, to show Americans why they didn't want to be commies.
Some lessons one notices:
1. Young man are idiots who hang out at malt shops when teenagers, but turn into bad golfers with anger management issues in middle age.
2. Young women move their hips in very suggestive ways to get young men to dance with them at the malt shop, but in middle age become obsessed with getting their children and husband to go to church.
3. Public schools were fully and peacefully integrated...in 1948.
4. Juries were all male, and easily distracted from the trial by women in short skirts.
5. Given the way the film describes the Congress, and politics, it appears that Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House in 1948. Politics never changes, only the names.
6. Capitalism is based not on financial intermediation, but on people who store money in their garters, or under their mattresses, or buried in their back yards.
7. The state chains up laborers, tyrannizes over farmers, and thumps capitalists in their plump bums.
8. The state is an enormous blue hand, with an iron bracelet, like Grouchy Smurf gone very wrong after a nuclear accident.
Since these observations are by and large correct (#3 is a bit of stretch, but #7 and #8 are completely accurate), I recommend the video most heartily.
Some lessons one notices:
1. Young man are idiots who hang out at malt shops when teenagers, but turn into bad golfers with anger management issues in middle age.
2. Young women move their hips in very suggestive ways to get young men to dance with them at the malt shop, but in middle age become obsessed with getting their children and husband to go to church.
3. Public schools were fully and peacefully integrated...in 1948.
4. Juries were all male, and easily distracted from the trial by women in short skirts.
5. Given the way the film describes the Congress, and politics, it appears that Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House in 1948. Politics never changes, only the names.
6. Capitalism is based not on financial intermediation, but on people who store money in their garters, or under their mattresses, or buried in their back yards.
7. The state chains up laborers, tyrannizes over farmers, and thumps capitalists in their plump bums.
8. The state is an enormous blue hand, with an iron bracelet, like Grouchy Smurf gone very wrong after a nuclear accident.
Since these observations are by and large correct (#3 is a bit of stretch, but #7 and #8 are completely accurate), I recommend the video most heartily.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Bong Hits.....4 The Man
I had been following the "Bong Hits For Jesus" controversy, if you can call it that. I enjoy seeing Fascist tendencies unveiled. In fact, I have to admit to being a little obsessed. The complexities of the political coalitions....very interesting. (Check here, particularly "What would Jesus smoke?"). Anyway, it is pretty wonderful.
But, John Lott sends a nice lagniappe via email. You can find the entire case here....but the money quote, from Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, is this:
All sorts of missions are undermined by legitimate and protected speech -- a school's anti-gun mission would be undermined by a student passing around copies of John R. Lott's book,'More Guns, Less Crime;' a school's anti-alcohol mission would be undermined by a student e-mailing links to a medical study showing less heart disease among moderate drinkers than teetotalers; and a school’s traffic safety mission would be undermined by a student circulating copies of articles showing that traffic cameras and automatic ticketing systems for cars that run red lights increase accidents.
"Mission" is something good people have, don't you know. Don't go undermining it, just because you love to jabber about speech, assembly, petition, and perhaps even thinking the "mission" is a crock of old cheese. It is not enough to obey Big Brother; you have to love, really LOVE him.
The banner was not on school grounds, and the kids were released from school. The teacher made the kid a hero. Why not just laugh and shake your head? Of all the things that kids could be doing...
UPDATE: The first paragraph of the decision is delightful, for those of us who have teenage boys....
Facts
One January day, Coca-Cola and other private sponsors supported a “Winter Olympics Torch Relay” in Juneau, Alaska. Students were released from school so that they could
2464 FREDERICK v. MORSE watch the Olympic torch pass by. Joseph Frederick, then an
18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, never made it to school that morning because he got stuck in the snow in his driveway, but he made it to the sidewalk, across from the school, where the torch would pass by. He and some
friends waited until the television cameras would catch it, then unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Deborah Morse, the school principal, crossed the street, grabbed and crumpled up the banner, and suspended Frederick for ten
days. He appealed the suspension administratively, but it was sustained. He then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Federal District Court seeking declaratory and other relief.
"Never made it to school...but he made it to the sidewalk." Yes, indeed. My older son can't find his own bum with both hands, though he is way smarter than I ever was, or will be. Navigational skills, "what time is it?" skills, those he has trouble with.
Of course, it turns out that the student not going to school is germane, or possibly so, for the decision. What if the kid had gone to school, been released to go to the school parking lot, on school grounds, and had had that same poster? The principal could have taken it, then. The school can regulate such displays on school grounds, particularly when school is in session and during a school activity. But none of those things were true. As the decision says (and this made me chuckle, also):
This is no case of ignorance. The law was clear, and Morse was aware of it. The law of this circuit has provided explicit directives such that officials may
determine which Supreme Court standards govern which types of potential student behavior. No novel question is posed on the basis urged by defendants—that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” promoted a view contrary to government policy—because the armbands in Tinker raised the same concerns. The law of Tinker, Fraser, Kuhlmeier, Burch, and McMinnville is so clear and well-settled that no reasonable government official
could have believed the censorship and punishment of Frederick’s speech to be lawful.62 In fact, there is nothing in the authorities that justifies what the school did, and no reasonable official could conclude otherwise. Morse fails the
third prong of the Saucier test.
(For Morse's reaction, or my speculation on that reaction, repeat this to yourself, using your best Homer Simpson voice: "STUPID third prong of the Saucier test!")
But, John Lott sends a nice lagniappe via email. You can find the entire case here....but the money quote, from Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, is this:
All sorts of missions are undermined by legitimate and protected speech -- a school's anti-gun mission would be undermined by a student passing around copies of John R. Lott's book,'More Guns, Less Crime;' a school's anti-alcohol mission would be undermined by a student e-mailing links to a medical study showing less heart disease among moderate drinkers than teetotalers; and a school’s traffic safety mission would be undermined by a student circulating copies of articles showing that traffic cameras and automatic ticketing systems for cars that run red lights increase accidents.
"Mission" is something good people have, don't you know. Don't go undermining it, just because you love to jabber about speech, assembly, petition, and perhaps even thinking the "mission" is a crock of old cheese. It is not enough to obey Big Brother; you have to love, really LOVE him.
The banner was not on school grounds, and the kids were released from school. The teacher made the kid a hero. Why not just laugh and shake your head? Of all the things that kids could be doing...
UPDATE: The first paragraph of the decision is delightful, for those of us who have teenage boys....
Facts
One January day, Coca-Cola and other private sponsors supported a “Winter Olympics Torch Relay” in Juneau, Alaska. Students were released from school so that they could
2464 FREDERICK v. MORSE watch the Olympic torch pass by. Joseph Frederick, then an
18-year-old senior at Juneau-Douglas High School, never made it to school that morning because he got stuck in the snow in his driveway, but he made it to the sidewalk, across from the school, where the torch would pass by. He and some
friends waited until the television cameras would catch it, then unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Deborah Morse, the school principal, crossed the street, grabbed and crumpled up the banner, and suspended Frederick for ten
days. He appealed the suspension administratively, but it was sustained. He then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the Federal District Court seeking declaratory and other relief.
"Never made it to school...but he made it to the sidewalk." Yes, indeed. My older son can't find his own bum with both hands, though he is way smarter than I ever was, or will be. Navigational skills, "what time is it?" skills, those he has trouble with.
Of course, it turns out that the student not going to school is germane, or possibly so, for the decision. What if the kid had gone to school, been released to go to the school parking lot, on school grounds, and had had that same poster? The principal could have taken it, then. The school can regulate such displays on school grounds, particularly when school is in session and during a school activity. But none of those things were true. As the decision says (and this made me chuckle, also):
This is no case of ignorance. The law was clear, and Morse was aware of it. The law of this circuit has provided explicit directives such that officials may
determine which Supreme Court standards govern which types of potential student behavior. No novel question is posed on the basis urged by defendants—that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” promoted a view contrary to government policy—because the armbands in Tinker raised the same concerns. The law of Tinker, Fraser, Kuhlmeier, Burch, and McMinnville is so clear and well-settled that no reasonable government official
could have believed the censorship and punishment of Frederick’s speech to be lawful.62 In fact, there is nothing in the authorities that justifies what the school did, and no reasonable official could conclude otherwise. Morse fails the
third prong of the Saucier test.
(For Morse's reaction, or my speculation on that reaction, repeat this to yourself, using your best Homer Simpson voice: "STUPID third prong of the Saucier test!")
I Told You So. Yes, I Did.
Large Guns Man sends this link, and these thoughts:
And the Bush Reich promised that they wouldn't abuse the powers granted under the "Patriot" act...
The founding fathers are weeping.
The constitution is apparently written on toilet paper.
But, LG! They promised, right?
An excerpt from the article:
My National Security Letter Gag Order
Friday, March 23, 2007; A17
It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.
Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.
Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.
Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.
Well, now, that's nice.
And the Bush Reich promised that they wouldn't abuse the powers granted under the "Patriot" act...
The founding fathers are weeping.
The constitution is apparently written on toilet paper.
But, LG! They promised, right?
An excerpt from the article:
My National Security Letter Gag Order
Friday, March 23, 2007; A17
It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.
Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.
Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.
Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.
Well, now, that's nice.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Say it, brother!
I have nothing to add to Steven T's series of posts on the U.S. Attorney charade.
So, I'll just link to him, and say, "Yup."
So, I'll just link to him, and say, "Yup."
Monday, March 19, 2007
So I couldn't have a plate that said, "Donna"
From the Wall Street Journal:
"The Associated Press reports that Salt Lake City resident Glenn Eurick's
1996 Mercedes will be forced to roll with a new tag after having a license
plate reading 'merlot' for 10 years. Mr. Eurick says the plate never got a
lot of notice -- that is, until the Utah Tax Commission informed him last
week that he had to remove it because the state doesn't allow the names of
intoxicants to be used on vanity plates. His plate managed to glide right
past the censors for more than a decade, so how was he finally caught? An
anonymous caller apparently rang up the state and ratted him out. The car
that carried the offending plate was dark red, like the wine. Mr. Eurick
plans to challenge the state's decision."
I think this means I could not have a plate that said "Donna" if I lived in Utah.
Because my wife (who has started reading my blog, GOTT IN HIMMEL!) is an intoxicant. Aren't you, honey?
(Nod to KL, who has three daughters, and that is intoxicating enough for anyone).
"The Associated Press reports that Salt Lake City resident Glenn Eurick's
1996 Mercedes will be forced to roll with a new tag after having a license
plate reading 'merlot' for 10 years. Mr. Eurick says the plate never got a
lot of notice -- that is, until the Utah Tax Commission informed him last
week that he had to remove it because the state doesn't allow the names of
intoxicants to be used on vanity plates. His plate managed to glide right
past the censors for more than a decade, so how was he finally caught? An
anonymous caller apparently rang up the state and ratted him out. The car
that carried the offending plate was dark red, like the wine. Mr. Eurick
plans to challenge the state's decision."
I think this means I could not have a plate that said "Donna" if I lived in Utah.
Because my wife (who has started reading my blog, GOTT IN HIMMEL!) is an intoxicant. Aren't you, honey?
(Nod to KL, who has three daughters, and that is intoxicating enough for anyone).
They Cite....the WIKI? ICKY!
Good lord. Surely there was some real sociologist to cite. Lots of folks can jabber about the larger meaning of the "Magic Negro" in THE GREEN MILE, or a dozen other movies. (This is a little different from the black crewman on STAR TREK, the guy you had never seen before, who would be eaten as soon as they beam down to the planet by some papier mache blob.)
Instead, LATimes cites the freakin' WIKI. The apocalypse.
I guess the WIKI doesn't have to return the reporter's call. And the WIKI loves you. It really, really loves you.
(Nod to AV, who would cite the WIKI too, if he could type better. But I hear Yalies have neighborhood kids to do that stuff for them...)
Instead, LATimes cites the freakin' WIKI. The apocalypse.
I guess the WIKI doesn't have to return the reporter's call. And the WIKI loves you. It really, really loves you.
(Nod to AV, who would cite the WIKI too, if he could type better. But I hear Yalies have neighborhood kids to do that stuff for them...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)