] A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday filed by
] VeriSign (Quote, Chart) against the government's ruling
] body, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
] Numbers - or ICANN.

Sounds like a bigger deal then it is. This lawsuit is just getting started. But its interesting to see one of their claims already on the mat.

Judge Dismisses V$'s Antitrust Claim against ICANN

] Hey, George Soros! You're sending sackloads of cash to
] all sorts of groups dedicated to defeating President Bush
] this November. But by so ruthlessly exploiting one
] loophole in campaign-finance law”the one that allows
] unlimited donations to the political nonprofits known as
] 527 committees ”you're ignoring a different, equally
] large loophole. And it's one that affects a medium no one
] seems to be taking advantage of yet: the Internet.
]
] 1. The Internet is the only place where political parties can still
] spend soft money on the presidential election.
] 2. On the Internet, you can run things that look like TV ads.
] 3. There are fewer disclosure requirements.

McCain-Feingold's Internet Loophole

] "Do you think Hong Kong was democratic under British
] rule?" Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing asked reporters in
] Shanghai today. "Did the British raise concerns about
] that? Did the Americans raise concerns? No. Why don't you
] take a look at this double standard?"
...
] Prominent executives have warned that elections could
] lead to the establishment of a welfare state, a concern
] also raised in the late 1940's.

The truth hurts. The U.S. agitated for democracy during the second world war, and then dropped it. It didn't become a popular idea again until it got close to hand-over time. The economic arguements being made by the executives here are despicable and regressive. Frankly, primitive.

The New York Times : China Condemns U.S. and Britain on Hong Kong Democracy

] The Cybercrime Convention does three major things:
]
] It includes a list of crimes that each member country
] must have on its books. The treaty requires
] criminalization of offenses such as hacking, the
] production, sale or distribution of hacking tools, and an
] expansion of criminal liability for intellectual property
] violations (Articles 2-11).
]
] It requires each participating nation to grant new powers
] of search and seizure to its law enforcement authorities.
] They include the power to force an Internet Service
] Provider (ISP) to preserve a citizens internet
] usage records or other data, and the power to monitor a
] citizens online activities in real time (Articles
] 16-22).
]
] It requires law enforcement in every participating
] country to assist police from other participating
] countries. US police would be required to cooperate
] mutual assistance requests from police in
] other participating nations to the widest extent
] possible (Articles 23-35).

The obvious intent of this treaty is good and it does some things that need to be done, however, the ACLU makes a compelling case that it is poorly crafted. The result would be worse then the disease.

In general, the problem with these UN treaties is that these are governments negotiating with eachother over their interests. Citizens, and their interests, are frequently not at the table.

American Civil Liberties Union : Seven Reasons the US Should Reject the International Cybercrime Treaty

] The only thing this time-wasting pest Newdow has going
] for him is that he's right.

Yes indeed folks, you heard right, its circus time again! Get ready for pseudo-intellectual arguments from angry leftists who have no consideration for how people feel. Get ready for idiotic chest pounding from right wing zealots who don't see why a pesky thing like the establishment clause should prevent them from establishing a religion they see as already established.

This is a dumb question, and hence it has absolutely no good answer. When these words were added to the pledge it was establishment. It was illegal. It was wrong. It didn't even flow well. But now they've been there for 50 years. The establishment is over with. Now its part of our national tradition. So you can't change it without fucking with patriotism. You're telling a democratic people what their national symbols can and cannot be. This isn't some state flag that nobody really cares about. This is the primary source of national brainwashing, and the whole country is lathered up.

Can the Supremes really strike this decision down? If they do they are faster and looser with logic then I thought. But, then again, they managed to side against Eldred.

Can the Supremes really uphold this? If they do they'll face the unbridled furry of most of the people in this country. Those people will respond with an amendment, and it will pass faster then the repeal of prohibition.

If we're lucky, the amendment will just strike the establishment clause, or seriously weaken it, simultaneously making our country entirely inhospitable to the multicultural population that it consists of, and providing a smoking gun to every Islamist who ever entertained the notion that Americans represent a religion. Slowly this will damn us to the same perpetual hell on earth that Israel has crafted for itself.

On the other hand, maybe the Bush administration and friends will see this as the opportunity they've been waiting for to eliminate the check that the Judicial system represents on the power of the Executive, torpedoing the Constitution's real foundation and damning us even faster.

I think a positive outcome here is cryptographically improbable. There is no where to go from here but down. We may be about the witness the beginning of the end of western society.

I must strongly encourage the Supreme Court to hand down a bullshit decision. There has never been a better time or place for bullshit and hand waving then right here and now. The smart people will know why you did it.

The real problem here isn't the "under god" part of the pledge. Its the fact that there is a pledge at all. Getting people, especially children, to repeat the same slogans (or songs) over and over and over again, in unison, is how you program people. It doesn't matter if you're a crazy cult, a fascist, a Japanese corporation, a Methodist church, an army, or the United States of America. It works exactly the same way in every case. This is what brainwashing is. And there is absolutely no way an independent person can uphold this as a good thing no matter how much he or she believes in the things said people are being programmed for, because this serves no purpose other then to eliminate independent thought. Such an effort weakens your society. Sit back, pop some popcorn, grab that law dictionary, and prepare for a demonstration.

Op-Ed Columnist: Of God and the Flag

] Given the fact that the information in issue could almost
] certainly be found on the Internet, there is not a protectable
] privacy interest in addresses and telephone numbers.

(and social security numbers and other information...)

[Politech] Judge: Because of Internet, names and addresses in suit must be public [priv]

] An Orwellian taint is emerging in the Bush
] administration's big victory last year in wringing the
] Medicare prescription drug subsidy from a balky Congress.
] The plan is being sold to the public through
] propagandistic ads disguised as TV news reports, and it
] turns out the government's top Medicare actuary was
] muzzled by superiors during the debate about the
] program's price tag.

This is probably a coincidence, but certainly the people who developed this PR campaign should not be working in the government.

Phony medicare news reports

] The bill would raise the maximum fine for a broadcast
] license-holder from $27,500 to $500,000. The fine for a
] performer would jump from $11,000 to $500,000.

This is rocketing through the government. Its inevitable that it will pass. Its just part of the process of the mass media becoming irrelevant.

Congress responds to Jackson incident

There aren't too many normal people waking up in normal suburban split-levels assuming they should rule the world. But God bless the upper class. They've lost their legitimacy, but they haven't lost their self-confidence.

Clash of Titans

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