Good stuff happens on Tuesdays

And I have some proof. First off, news out of the Congo that primatologists have found nearly 100,000 lowland gorillas no one knew existed. I say this is great news first because these gorillas have been on the brink of extinction since the middle-1980s. I got my undergraduate degree in anthropology, and if I hadn't been seduced by the glamour and money (both of which I'm still waiting for) of a career in the law, I'd have gotten my Ph.D in primatology. This is a tremendous find because we still tons to learn about our physiological make-up as well as how our brains function. Finding more of our evolutionary relatives is a big deal.

Next, a victory for my favorite technological innovation: DVR. A U.S. Court of Appeals (I think 1st Circuit, but this article is basically crap) overruled a district court's decision that prevented Cablevision from offering its customers "network DVR," a remote DVR system that would eliminate the need for an in-home DVR set up. This could allow the DVR technology to become available to more homes, and hopefully also make it cheaper.

Aside from apes, monkeys, and the law, I also dig not having to arrange my schedule around when a network decides to air my favorite shows. I have been things to do Monday-Friday than sit down and watch television. TV is entertaining, but should be relegated to those times when one is hungover and can't do much else but stay stationary. DVR allows me to be entertained when sitting on my couch on Saturday mornings, as opposed to watching re-runs of Mythbusters. And that is why it is the most important technology of this century.

DC & H's Thursday Throwdown

I don't know what my deal is today. At some point this morning, my every effort at being productive ended in failure. I truly have the dumb. Onward.

In case you didn't know, and I sure didn't, sunglasses are the next hot fashion accessory. Teenage girls and sorority sisters everywhere will be begging mom and dad for 350 bucks for new shades. Not sure what the Magnificent Bastard would have to say about them, but I plan to stick with my $20 Dive Shades.

Iran may be part of the Axis of Evil (or, now that Iraq is on our side, should we call it the Axle of Evil? There are only two left after all), but that doesn't stop it from being funny. I mean, come on, doctored missle photos? What was the point?

In baseball news, all that I can say is finally.

In other baseball news, I'm taking my folks and my brother to Fenway this Sunday. Dice-K is on the hill after a solid effort against Minnesota, and the offense is clicking. Hopefully going to be a bad day to be an Oriole.

In politics, you have to take advantage of your opponent's gaffes. With Obama allegedly moving to the right, with Jesse Jackson giving Obama hell, and with Fox pounding Obama daily, John McCain and his campaign must be shifting into high gear trying to show the nation that he's a great guy and perfect to lead, right? Oops. Whining bastards.

And lastly, just your daily reminder of this administration's hubris.

Obama opts out of public campaign financing

Today, Senator Barack Obama opted out of public financing for his presidential campaign, becoming the first major party candidate to do so since the system was created in 1976. Oddly, I'm fine with this.

The public financing system limits the amount that a candidate can spend to spread his message, but it does nothing to stop advocacy groups from spending all sorts of money to promote their ideas and candidate, or from spending all kinds of money to disparage a candidate or someone else's ideas. Who can forget the Swift Boat Veterans for (their version of) Truth?

Because we live in what we should call the Swift Boat Vets era of campaigning and campaign financing, it is unrealistic for a candidate to limit himself to public financing and its restrictions. Political action committees, with their nudge-nudge, wink-wink relationships to major candidates, can attack from any angle, sometimes with devastating effectiveness. Campaign finance restrictions like those we have in place lead to a battle of the PACs, and the veneer-thin notion that our candidates (and their supporters) are not skirting the rules. It all appears just the tiniest bit dishonest. Just a tiny bit.

Frankly, I think that our campaigns need to borrow a page from the Securities and Exchange Act. Since the 1930s, if your company is selling stock, you need to make a book available to the public that describes everything your company is doing, has done, and will do. Everyone knows your business. We need to do the same for candidates. I don't care how much money a candidate gets, I just want to know how he got it, and who from. The FEC already keep this kind of information. Now, we need to make the candidates get pro-active and send this info out to whoever wants it.

Five for Friday

This week has been a bit relentless. Tons of work and not a lot of sleep on my end, at least. Same goes for the rest of the LSWTF.com crew. So, apologies. Without further ado, my Five for Friday.

First, if you're an woman attorney, I think the last thing you might want to hear at a deposition is, "Respectfully, I think he's just referring to the fact that he can see your breasts."

Next, if you're David Stern, you can't make this NBA ref game-fixing story go away fast enough. Apparently former NBA ref (and, as Stern points out, convicted felon) Tim Donaghy has some dirt on other refs fixing games, including a playoff game from 2002. Now other refs are getting accused. For once, in my opinion, the NBA actually has its atrocious refereeing going for it. As my good friend the Tenacious Mr. Lee put it, "I don't even know what a foul in the NBA is anymore." It's that bad. Now, I ask you this, how are you going to prove that a ref called a foul intentionally? How are you going to prove intent to rig a game, when there are dozens of borderline calls per game? I think the NBA gets away from anything really bad, like game-fixing, but has to fix its officiating system, or fans are going to walk away.

Third, keeping with the NBA theme, Game 4 last night featured the greatest comeback in NBA Finals history, and it has the C's within one game of their 17th championship. Honestly, I turned the game off after the first half. I hadn't slept well in days, was falling asleep, and badly needed a shower. My buddy, Tenacious Lee, called at the start of the fourth, asking if I could believe the comback. I had no idea what he was talking about. I officially suck, a lot.

Fourth, your semi-weekly dose of Krugman: it's about time we stopped living in our laissez faire dream world, and actually got to business making sure our food is safe. Reminder, don't eat any tomatoes for a while.

Fifth, and last, Boumediene v. Bush, yesterday's habeas corpus detainee case. Split 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo detainees have the right to seek review of the legality of their detentions in federal court, striking down as unconstitutional parts of the Military Commissions Act and the Detainee Treatment Act. You can get the full opinion, with the dissents, here (via Scotusblog). I haven't had the chance to fully read this one, but needless to say, with the Court's focus on the Suspension Clause, this election year is going to be huge. Congress may well take another crack at creating legislation to suspend habeas for detainees. This case, along with the decision in The DC Handguns case, will set the tone for this election cycle.

Annoyed Gym-Goers of the World! Unite!

New York stockbroker and gym-goer Christopher Carter was acquitted of assault charges today stemming from an incident that took place in his spin class some months ago. In that class, investment firm partner Stuart Sugarman began grunting and yelling things like "You go girl!" and "Good burn!" until Carter had had enough, picked up Sugarman's exercise bike by the handles, and dropped it back down on the floor. Sugarman claimed afterwards that the incident left him with injuries that caused a herniated disc in his neck.

All I can think about is the movie Dodgeball.

As a four-year, federal work study veteran of undergraduate gyms, and a gym rat since I was 15, I must applaud Mr. Carter. I cannot count the times I've seen screaming, yelling, grunting meat head fools annoy people to the point where they won't come back to a gym. When I worked in gyms as an undergrad, a week couldn't go by without some obviously insecure and overweight freshman guy or girl being scared away from the gym by these (equally obviously insecure) dirtbags screaming and yelling. It was always sad to see them trudge out the door, discouraged from doing something really good for themselves. I, for one, appauld Carter. It's time someone took back the gym.

So, what's your gym story? What gets your goat at the gym?

Good burn!

GOP Slogan Buffoonery

This story is all over the place, but bears repeating.

In their attempt take advantage of the American public's sincere desire for change (read some more here how there will be absolutely no conservative majority for decades to come), House Republicans have come up with a new slogan, calling themselves "the change you deserve."

Well, there's a tiny problem: the slogan is trademarked.

Trademarked and being used to market anti-depressants. Oops. Is anyone else having visions of a re-make of Brain Candy with an ensemble cast of prominent Republicans? Can they get Larry Craig to play the in-the-closet gay dad who comes out after taking the drug? This could be brilliant.

DC & H's Five for Friday

Happy Friday everyone. I hope you all had a great Singles Awareness Day.

First off, out of my home town, comes Jaime Deforge, 28, who wanted to teach a bartender a lesson about handling too much cash at one time in public. Mr. Deforge brought a loaded handgun to the bar, dropped the weapon, and then put it on the bar in order to show the bartender just how easy it was for someone to sneak a gun in. His BAC was .22. I wish I could say that things like this happen infrequently, but, well, this is Barre. After the bartender told him he had to leave, he replied that it was all okay because he's in the National Guard. I say hopefully not for long. Summing up his predicament, Mr. Deforge said "I just don't want to be treated like a dirt bag." Unintentional comedy factor = 10.

Second, and also out of Vermont, is Republican candidate John McCain making a stop in Burlington for an appearance with our Governor Do-nothing, err, Douglas. Hundreds of supporters showed up, which means that the entire Vermont Republican Party was in Burlington yesterday, along with a couple hundred curious folks. I'm kind of puzzled, however. Why even make the trip? It's not like 1) he's going to need our delegates this badly and 2) like he'll lose this state to the Huckster. Did he really think that a bunch of old-time Yankee Republicans were going to go to Huckabee? But really, the thing that really confuses is this: why has a Republican presidential candidate come to Vermont before a Democratic one?

Third, despite all this foolishness from the Republicans, I am glad to report that Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania has solved all of our domestic and foreign problems. He has to have. Why else would he be spending his time investigating the NFL's role in Spygate? Good work Senator.

Fourth, I'm not done picking on Republicans today. Yesterday, the House voted to issue contempt citations to White House counsel and former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten in connection with their roles in the US Attorney firings. But, nearly every Republican in the House walked out in protest. The Republicans' rationale was that the House should've been addressing a bill they said will enhance our national security instead of the contempt citations. Look, Republicans, you're dead wrong on this one. If our President has been trying to corrupt the justice system, we should know. I'm pretty sure some minor national security bill can wait a day or two. Shame on you again, Republicans.

Fifth and finally, some candid photos from the campaign trail. I wished we'd had this one yesterday.

Five for Friday

I have been scouring the interwebs for literally minutes, and I've come up with five blog-worthy things to share with you. In no particular order:

First, my boy Krugman at the NYT writes about the effect John Edwards had on this campaign. Without Edwards, and I think everyone who writes for the blog hit on this in one way or another, the Democrats would not be talking about actual ideas and concrete policy initiatives. Instead, the nominee would John Kerry version 2.0. So, if you see him, thank John Edwards.

Second, Gene Upshaw is prepared for an NFL players strike if the owners decide to opt out of the current contract after the Super Bowl. Owners say they're broke, but Upshaw isn't buying what they're selling.

Third, we've all heard by now that Microsoft has made a bid to buy Yahoo!. The bid, however, is likely to go hostile. Here's some more on the could-be takeover. If there's a request, I'll post a blog soon explaining the mechanics of a hostile takeover. Question is, can Microsoft make my Yahoo! mail suck more? I'm betting on yes.

Fourth, in news from my hometown of Barre, Vermont, it looks like a property management company has taken a bunch of its tenants for a ride. Why is this news? Well, it's looking like I'm one of them (maybe, I must throw in the allegedly cause I don't know all the facts).

Fifth, and finally, in a sign that Hillary cannot, and should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to win the Democratic nomination, there's news that she's earned Ann Coulter's endorsement (and probably the endorsement of the Horsefaced Women's Alliance - HWA for those of you not in the know).

That's it. Have fun in Vegas, WTFers.

Pardon me?

Attorney General Mukasey did his best Bill Clinton impression (or tried) today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to the Attorney General, although he personally would feel tortured were someone to interrogate him using waterboarding techniques, he was not ready to call it torture.

So, it would feel like torture, but might not be torture? Excuse me?

The pesky problem is that we've banned torture as an interogation method. Calling waterboarding torture opens the interrogators up to civil liability. Wouldn't want to hold people accountable for the pain and suffering they've caused now would we?

The insanity went on. Senator Jeff Sessions felt compelled to point out that its not like the U.S. tortures much. Lame. The point is that any torture is too much. That's why its banned, Senator. This isn't like a game of "just the tip" where a little bit is okay, but going whole hog is bad. I think the last time the Senator's argument worked in my life, I was in second grade and had walked just a little bit on the new carpet with my dirty shoes.

I know these guys are trying to walk a legal tightrope and toe the administration line, but there's got to be a point where you have to have some self-respect and admit it when you're beat. You've got to hand it to Ted Kennedy on this one though. He basically summed up the Attorney General's arguments by comparing it to saying you're against robbery, but you're not sure if a bank heist fits the defintion. Awesome. Good ahead and pour yourself a stiff one, Teddy, you've earned it.

Why Reagan?

First of all, I'd like to admit that I have a man crush on Paul Krugman. It's great to read a liberal economist debunk conservative economic theories every week in the New York Times. Cheers to you, Krugman.

Yesterday, Krugman took up the Ronald Reagan myth. You know it. Ronald Reagan has been transformed from a bumbling, race-baiting, Alzheimer's patient into the standard-bearer of the conservative ethos. It's a very odd and striking transformation from a social and cultural standpoint because at the time, and you just have to watch comedians from the 1980s to appreciate this, he and his policies weren't taken all that seriously. In a sense, the Reagan ethos is entirely manufactured. He's become an icon for the extreme free market, anti-government, no taxes on the rich crew, and Krugman rightly wonders why Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has accepted the premise that Reagan was a great man. These same folks have demonized FDR, the president who defeated the Nazis and led us out of the Depression. Go figure.

Obama wanted to latch onto a notion of Reagan as a dynamic leader, one who changed the tone of an era. He dropped the ball on that one. Reagan was a charismatic man, true. But he was deeply entrenched in a philosophy - hatred of government to the point of no governance, the economics of privilege - that has proven (twice as Krugman points out) counterproductive. Charisma and personality can lift a nation up, just as JFK's did, but it can also lead us to ruin. Obama needed to point that out. He should've pointed out that entrenchment and hoggishness are our true enemies, and that no amount of likeability can overcome those personality flaws.

Instead, we're left with a nation clamoring for a person, not an idea. Our paychecks are about to get smaller, maybe even dry up altogether. A lot of people are going to be desparate. We need some ideas, Mr. Obama, not more Reagans.

Signs the end is nigh

The Associated Press is reporting that Oprah Winfrey is getting her own TV network in 2009. Yes, that's right, the Oprah Winfrey Network, or OWN. It'll be replacing the Discovery Health network.

So, we can infer a couple of things from this. The first, and easiest, is that the world is coming to an end, so please promptly tuck your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. It's been good knowing you.

Second, we live in a truly retarded society. Discovery is about to replace a network geared towards teaching people how to life healthy with an entire network pretty much devoted to making you feel better about sitting on your butt all day long. This is easily a market decision: Oprah sells better than health, so Oprah gets (this is still hard to wrap my mind around) an entire network.

Say it with me, just for the effect: her entire network.

Truly, a sad, sad society.

Recount!

Just caught this on CNN: Rep. Kucinich (hereinafter referred to as "The Meddling Elf") has demanded a recount. The Meddling Elf cites to discrepancies between hand-counted ballots in the Democratic primary, which favor Barack Obama, and electronically-counted ballots, which favor Hillary Clinton (hereinafter referred to as "Weepy"), as well as the huge, pre-primary change from polls forecasting an Obama victory to the actual voting, where Weepy one. The Meddling Elf is footing the bill for the recount, so we're for sure going to get one.

More sure to come, stay tuned.

Friday Morning Blog-o-rama

Good morning everyone. I'm seriously wishing I hadn't gone out with my roommates last night. It's making sitting in my office kind of unbearable right now. Someone has the heat set way too high.

Two things to get your Friday going right. First, it's not really news when a man kills a dog. It may be news however when 1) the man is allegedly suicidal 2) he asks the dog to shoot him and 3) the dog is a cockapoo. Just another case of southerners polluting the north if you ask this Yankee.

Second, and more importantly, the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on Indiana's voter ID law. The law, so far as I can tell, requires voters to present a state issued photo ID before they can vote. That, in a sense, seems like a very prudent requirement, but as with any law, the devil is in the details, or as the law kids can tell you, the innane hypotheticals.

The problem here boils down like this. First, as you can imagine, voting is a very important right, a fundamental right. In order for the state to infringe upon it, the state must have a very, very good reason. And there seems to be some infringement upon the right to vote, especially for poor people who can't afford to get a photo ID, or those who might be denied an ID for reasons that would have nothing to do with voting or voting fraud. Liberal folks get that argument.

For the conservative folks, the idea is law and order and keeping fraud at bay. That's an easy one to understand. But, as the folks over at SCOTUSBlog point out, this issue a political football, with both liberals and conservatives accusing each other of voting shenanigans.

On a side note, I just took a fantastic poop. I'm feeling much better now. I love the restorative power of a simple poop.

"Gays did not make me fail the bar exam"

A few months ago, a would-be Massachusetts lawyer filed suit in federal court against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, claiming that he failed the MA bar exam because it included a patently offensive question about the legitimacy of gay marriage. I guess the guy missed out on passing by one question.

Well, fast forward a few months, and the guy has issued an apology. Claiming that his lawsuit was an affront to core American values and had become a tool for religious discrimination, the applicant, an Irish immigrant, compared the plight of gays and lesbians to that of the Irish when the Irish first came to America.

I guess I can't argue with the comparison too much, except gays and lesbians probably have had it a lot worse than us fish-eating papist Micks (love that, an ex-girlfriend's Protestant grandfather used to love calling his son-in-law that gem). This guy had some balls though, and this goes down as one of the greatest excuses for failure I've ever heard. "I'm sorry sir, I cannot pass this exam, it talks about the gays." Wow. I just wonder what his excuse for failure is now. Couldn't understand our crazy American use of English, perhaps?

So, question of the day, what's the greatest excuse for failure you've ever used? Please keep the "I'm sorry, honey, I've just had way too much to drink" stories to yourselves.

$3,014,170,389,176,410

The number above represents the amount of damages one Hurricane Katrina victim is claiming against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Say it with me now: three quadrillion, fourteen trillion, one hundred seventy billion, three hundred eight-nine million, one hundred seventy-six thousand, four hundred ten dollars. Wow.

As the article suggests, this and other staggering claims for loss of property, loss of life, and anguish are probably a combination of protests and legitimate claims. I can't personally imagine the amount of damages I'd claim if my entire life was destroyed, so I won't be the guy to claim something along the lines of lawsuit fraud.

For the legal nerds, this has got to bring up some interesting sovereign immunity issues, and probably some issues that political nerds will enjoy as well. My question to both types of nerds is this: to what extent does the federal government open itself to suit when it ensures the safety of an entire city? You can't sue the government for retroactive relief unless it consents, but doesn't the situation in New Orleans shock the conscience and make you question what the federal government should owe these folks?

As an aside, I really hate the 11th Amendment and the jurisprudence that arose around it. It strikes me as a throw-back feudal notions of government supremacy that I don't think should be carried forward to a democratic society. I must also admit that I don't know a lot about federal sovereign immunity, but I do think that in this context it has a very, shall we say, meaty and consequential application. As I said to Dews when he sent me this story (thanks SayHey), law school students will soon be reading about the Hurricane Katrina cases in law school, just like they read about the Civil Rights cases.

Also, Rickey Henderson is not a first ballot HOFer.

Banished!

You gotta feel sorry for this guy: a Georgia prisoner, set to be released on parole in 2009, has been banished from all but one county in the entire state. Gregory Mac Terry has spent the last twelve years behind bars after a conviction for threatening his estranged wife. The trial judge ordered that Terry not enter all but one Georgia county after his release. The Georgia Constitution prohibits both banishment from the entire state and whipping as punishments for crimes, but judges have come up with an end-around: prohibit a convict, like here, from entering all but one county.

Compounding Mr. Terry's problem here is that the's been ordered to enter a work release program after he gets out on parole. The problem is, the one county he can lawfully enter doesn't have that program. Moreover, Terry can't even get to the county he's allowed to be in without violating the judge's order because he'd have to go through a number of places from which he has been banned.

This is one of those cases that makes you scratch your head and wonder what the judge was thinking, if for no other reason than the judge's order can't logically be followed. But, things like banishment are becoming popular among law and order judges who are looking for creative ways to punish offenders. Fines and jail time can only go so far, so some of these judges are looking for ways to truly shame and embarass offenders. For example, consider the guy who got caught stealing mail and had to wear a sign that read "I stole mail. This is my punishment." That's a bucket of pure awesome if you ask me. Now we just need to bring back the stocks.

All this brings me to my question of the day. Pick an offense and pretend you're the judge. What punishment are you going to hand out? Have fun with it.

Clemens Files Defamation Suit

Today brought news that William Roger Clemens has filed a defamation lawsuit against Brian McNamee, the guy who fingered Clemens during the Mitchell Report investigation. You can find a copy of the complaint Clemens filed here. Not to be repetitive, but this is going to provide some fireworks.

One of the reasons why this will provide some fireworks is because among the elements that Clemens must prove in his suit is that McNamee told the Mitchell investigators things that McNamee knew to be false. So, Clemens must show be a preponderance of the evidence that he didn't use any steroids. Similarly, one way for McNamee to defend against Clemens' lawsuit is to show that Clemens did in fact take steroids.

Another reasons why this could get very, very interesting is that Clemens is going to have subpeona power to compel some people to testify about what they know. He'll also have the power to get records from all sorts of people regarding his alleged steroid use. The type of evidence that he could collect is as wide-ranging as the Mitchell Report itself. This could have the effect of either validating the Mitchell Report or showing it to be a fraud, an over-reaching attempt by baseball to show that it's trying to do something about performance enhancers. This is going to be fascinating if for no other reason than Clemens could (indirectly) go on his own witch hunt just to clear his name, if it can be cleared.

Facebook is doomed to failure

Since I was an anthropologist in a former life (well, really I just got my undergrad degree in anthro), I thought I might pass along this story about how Facebook is doomed to failure.

It's a neat idea though: everything can be cool so long as 1) not everyone does it 2) you don't have to interact with people you don't like and 3) it's fun.

I must personally attest to the fact that I've become a Facebook-aholic. It's freaking ridiculous. I think part of the problem is that having moved away from school for the first time in years, I'm away from people my age most of the time. Older adults are kinda boring, and there aren't many 20-somethings to chill with who don't have kids/aren't in serious relationships/aren't on speed around here. So, silly Facebook addiction it is Monday through Friday.

But yes, I think Facebook is losing its appeal. There are only so many times you can play that stupid Pirates game or read someone's wall posts before you realize that you need to stop and get a hobby/move to a bigger town.

End rant.

Always turn off your phone before going to court

Thanks to SayHey for this one. A judge in New York State, Robert Restaino, jailed his entire courtroom because no one was willing fess up to their ringing cell phone. Of the 46 people jailed, 14 couldn't make the $1500 bail the judge ordered, and were taken to prison. Apparently, after this judge came to his sense, he ordered everyone out of jail. Pure insanity.

First, I'd like say that nearly every judge I've met has been a truly cool, interesting, and warm person. I think it's a prerequisite for the job honestly. If a person doesn't have the patience to work long hours, work with attorneys who are at each others' throats, and maintain the appearence of justice, why nominate them to the bench?

Second, and I have to reiterate, this is nuts. Judges do have the ability to maintain order in their courtroom, and that's what the contempt power is for, but indiscriminately throwing an entire room full of people in jail violates even the most basic concepts of due process in my eyes. Besides, it's just a dick thing to do. Good thing this guy is going to be removed.

No snow day for you, sucka!

Dews already hit this one, but I'm living through it, so I thought I'd add my two cents.

First, this snowstorm really sucks. No, seriously, it officially sucks. Thank you Weather Service for pointing out what I learned this morning, that the roads are particularly dangerous today.

Okay, so I work for a state agency in Vermont. I'm not going to complain too much about the State's decision to keep all the offices open today, because, if I'd wanted to, I could have just called and taken the day off, probably just using a vacation day. However, I must point out the hilarity of it all. As I walked into work this morning, one of the administrative assistants had the radio playing so she could listen to the news and weather. The State has a hotline that you can call after 5 am to see if State offices are closed or if there is a delayed opening. The radio station played a recording from the hotline, and it said something to the effect that the snow storm was not serious enough to warrant closing or delayed opening. Immediately after that, the radio news guy gave the traffic report: roads closed because of overturned semis, roads closed for being too dangerous, long delays because of accidents, etc, etc, you get the picture.

So, while I look outside and notice that visibility seems to be limited to about two hundred yards and worry about getting home tonight, I'm starting to wonder how comfortable the carpet would be. I hate driving in the snow. But hey, at least it's not serious enough out there to warrant closing. I'd hate to see what that's like.