... and many more!

Happy Birthday Nanochick!

] The dispute over who controls key portions of the
] Internet's address system erupted into open conflict
] today when VeriSign Inc., the world's largest addressing
] company, sued the Internet's most visible regulatory
] body, charging that it has been unfairly prevented from
] developing new services for Internet users.

Verisign Sues ICANN to reinstate Sitefinder!

] Your post advocates a
]
] ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
]
] approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work.
] Here is why it won't work.

Well, personally I think that whitelists suck less then spam, so I would add two more checkboxes to this form:

( ) People's complete unwillingness to make even the smallest change to their established routine.
( ) People's general expectation that their problems should be solved by other people.

Standard form for responding to anti-spam proposals

] Although in recent years the proportion of our labor
] force made up of those with at least some college has
] continued to grow, we appear, nonetheless, to be
] graduating too few skilled workers to address the
] apparent imbalance between the supply of such workers and
] the burgeoning demand for them. Perhaps the accelerated
] pace of high-tech equipment installations associated with
] the large increases in productivity growth in recent
] years is placing unachievable demands for skilled
] graduates over the short run. If the apparent
] acceleration in the demand for skilled workers to staff
] our high-tech capital stock is temporary as many presume,
] the pressure on our schools would ease as would the
] upward pressure on high-skilled wages.

In english: "We needed a lot of engineers to set up the new infrastructure over the past few years. Admins, Programmers, Network Engineers, etc... We're done doing that now. We don't need ya'll anymore. Thanks for all the productivity growth. I'm sure you can find a suitable job in another industry at a significant reduction in pay. You can rest assured that the overall economy has benefited greatly from your work. We're not planning to share the rewards with you, because you don't own it. We own it. We're looking for people who own stock to do really well in the coming years. We're exited about that, and we think you ought to be excited for us. Oh, and BTW, I'm cutting your pension. Have a nice day."

FRB: Speech, Greenspan--Critical role of education in the nation's economy--February 20, 2004

So, I went digging for examples of commentators who support the enemy combatant designation. I don't really have time to read the DOJ's brief. In fact there is work I ought to be doing right now.

There is an essay reprinted in the articles section up at lifeandliberty.gov... The essay is interesting because the DOJ presents it as reflecting their opinions. However, it seems like the author does not really understand the basic facts of the issue very well. She says "Padilla still has the opportunity to make his case for liberty before a court, and the government still has to prove the validity of his detention."

No, the government does not have to prove the validity of his detention, and that is, in fact, the whole point of the discussion. Padilla is not making a case for liberty. A case is being made on his behalf (as cases must have standing to be heard) that he ought to be able to make a case for liberty.

She goes on to say "Should he prove incompetent to argue his petition, the judge could then appoint a special master to help find the facts, as legal journalist Stuart Taylor has recommended."

I figured I'd look up Stuart Taylor's column on the matter. He says: "The Bush preventive detention system has been implemented with little regard for the law, the rights of many detainees who turned out to be innocent, or international opinion."

So, I think I can safely say that the author in question is fundamentally confused. What is somewhat troubling here is that the DOJ trots her out as a spokes woman. I know the DOJ isn't similarly confused.

A commentator who at least does know what he is talking about is Andrew C. McCarthy. McCarthy prosecuted the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing. He has written a number of essays lately on the National Review site about civil liberties and the war on terror. He is opposed to the idea of a Jury trial for Bin Lauden (and seems a bit skeptical of the general concept of leaving things in the hands of Jurys). (Has he heard that we are planning to try Saddam in Iraq? I wonder what he thinks about that?) He offers a fairly strong defense of the Patriot Act. Unfortunately it is peppered with comments about dirty prosecutors being 1 in 5,000 and other forms of not too subtle disapproval of the general idea that there should be checks and balances. (I wonder what the ratio of innocent citizens to felons is overall in the population.)

He also offers up this essay on the enemy combatant issue. He argues that if the executive looses it's case terrorism defendants will be offered full rights to discovery and process. This is not at all what the question is here, and McCarthy knows it. The question isn't whether such detentions can occur. The question is whether the president can engage in such detentions without approval from Congress.

Viewed in that light most of his article reduces to nothing. He doesn't even touch the question of Congressional... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Andrew C. McCarthy on Jose Padilla on National Review Online

] How the FBI eavesdrops on Internet phone calls (and why
] it sometimes can't).

Can They Hear You Now? - How the FBI eavesdrops on Internet phone calls (and why it sometimes can't). By David S. Bennahum

I think you are right that its a political issue. Most people in the US oppose gay marriage. By forcing the Dems to publically state that they support it, Bush hits them where it hurts.

Personally, I find the idea that you'd vote on something like this, rather then, say, national security, or the economy, rather silly, but also not surprising. If conservative commentators can manage to memetically cast democrats as the "gay party" you can bet they'll be marginalized. They managed to memetically blame Saddam for 911. This ought to be easy. Look at what most people think of San Francisco.

Once again, the Republicans succeed at courting the essence of the American mindset, where the dems are too busy being correct to bother appealing to the masses.

] [ Actually, the wording is subtle, i think. It doesn't seem
] to forbid states from passing laws which confer the "status or
] legal incidents thereof" on gay couples, simply that they
] can't *requre* that such rights be conferred. In other words
] it says "No one can categorically define gay couples as equal
] to straight couples, even if they happen to recieve the same
] benefits."

I stumbled over this wording. Its subtlety is strange. I think it steps short of saying what it wants to say in hope of convincing people that it means something that it doesn't mean. I think the courts will see this for what it is irrespective of the tricky wording.

It says: (No law) shall be construed to require that (the legal incidents of marriage) be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Read it again: No law shall require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (Construed to require and require are the same thing.)

One more time: No law shall confer the legal incidents of marriage upon unmarried couples or groups. (What laws do is require things. If you cannot require you cannot confer. What would be the meaning of a law which said that the legal incidents of marriage may be conferred upon unmarried couples, but this is not required? Who confers the legal incidents of marriage? The probate court? Do they get to decide whether or not to confer these incidents depending on whether they feel like it? No. Laws don't work that way. If you cannot require you cannot confer. Thus this version is the same, but more readable.)

See? Its a deception.

RE: Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution

] The amendment that Ms. Musgrave and other lawmakers are
] backing in the House says: "Neither this Constitution or
] the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law,
] shall be construed to require that marital status or the
] legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried
] couples or groups." The White House spokesman, Scott
] McClellan, said just before the president's announcement
] that Mr. Bush believed the Musgrave measure "meets his
] principles."
]
] Mr. Bush said the amendment he envisioned "should fully
] protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures
] free to make their own choices in defining legal
] arrangements other than marriage."

If the law says that the legal incidents of marriage cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples, then how can this "leave the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage?" These two statements, presented right next to eachother by the NYT, seem mutually exclusive. Either Scott McClellan is out of line in his statement to the press, or Bush is lieing.

Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution

inignoct wrote:
] [ good point. so, what are the most likely new categories?
] What's bleeding edge right now? Nanotech? What else? -k]

The seven revolutions link discusses this, but that list hasn't changed much in the past few years... Nanotech. Biotech. Infotech.

Water desalination and purification technology developed today will prevent wars a few decades from now.

] point that we're gonna have to bust our ass and figure out
] which direction to aim ourselves is well taken though. -k]

By you, but apparently not by others. Nanotech. Biotech. Infotech. The Seven Revolutions website was pretty clear that Space is not on this list. They drove that point several times. Space is really the only place where our currently administration has demonstrated real technological leadership. What does that tell you.

N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, recently wrote "It is natural to ask what new jobs will be created in the future. Policy makers should create an environment in which businesses will expand and jobs will be created. But they should not try to determine precisely which jobs are created or which industries will grow. If government bureaucrats were capable of such foresight, the Soviet Union would have succeeded as a centrally planned economy."

There is a world of difference between leadership and central control. Policy makers cannot "determine precisely" which jobs are created, but they ought to have a pretty good idea, and they should encourage development that puts their nation in a strategically comfortable position.

Most western nations have a clear technology plan. They know where tech is going and how their country plans to fit into that future. A simple example is Japan's commitment to IPv6.

The U.S. also used to have such a plan. Investment and policy work in the early 90's (and earlier, in some cases much eariler) based on the vision of a "National Information Infrastructure" set the stage for the economy of the latter part of this decade by openning doors to the rise of the broadband internet as a platform for commercial and social activity. What is our plan today? How do we intend to lead in the future? I don't think its clear that we have one, and thats why Gregory Mankiw has to make leaps of logic. The United States has a technology leadership vacuum.

RE: Theory vs. Reality

] At this weekend's Indiana Pacers-Washington Wizards game,
] a woman's reaction to a man's marriage proposal stuns an
] expectant crowd.
]
] As he began to speak to the woman, she paused, grabbed
] her face in shock, and ran.

ooooooooooooooooooo

Woman Says 'I Don't!!!' At NBA Game