] Citing problems with truancy and youth violence, the Los
] Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved an ordinance
] restricting the hours during which minors can visit
] Internet cafes and requiring the shops to install video
] cameras for security.

I wonder how much of this is real and how much of this is the typical pattern of mindless news media sensationalism feeding back into a government which clamps down on youth activities because it has nothing better to do and no political reason to think twice.

Of the cyber cafes in LA, what percentage of them actual have a real problem with violence. Is this any different from the number of problems at video arcades, non internet coffee shops, or other youth hang outs?

"86 percent of the people arrested at cybercafes were juveniles and 93 percent were for truancy or curfew."

So in other words there is almost no problem here? All that this statistic tells me is that young people like to play video games. Curfew isn't illegal for adults. Personally, I don't believe it ought to exist at all. In any event, if you already have a curfew, which you are enforcing, then why do you need a new curfew law for internet cafes? What percentage of these cases were truancy?

In either case this is simply people hanging out at the cafe when ditching school or "when they ought to have been in bed." Oh please, please, nanny state, save us from this horror.

How many people hanging out at bars in Los Angeles have been arrested in the past year? How many for violence? Why don't you require bars to have closed circuit television?

Los Angeles clamps down on cybercafes | CNET News.com

] By selecting Edwards, Kerry went with the smooth-talking
] Southern populist over more seasoned politicians in hopes
] of injecting vigor and small-town appeal to the
] Democratic presidential ticket.

[ I think this was the right choice... Edwards appeals to lots of people, for a variety of reasons, and I think this will provide more excitement than any other pairing.

Incidentally, Fox NEWS' first story on this was one which highlighted all the "bad" things they said about each other during the primaries. Insightful journalism or low-hanging fruit? -k]

RE: Kerry Picks Edwards!

"Pop-psych punditry about fragile male egos may cloud the real problem inherent in many alpha-alpha marriages. Psychologists agree that difficulties most often arise not because a man feels emasculated by his wife's star power ("No one can emasculate you except you," avows Pak), but because the woman grows disappointed with her partner...If a woman is powerful, smart and ambitious, her expectations for her husband, and for the relationship, rise," says Nando Pelusi, a New York City psychologist who has counseled plenty of alpha-alpha pairings. McCarthy says it's the primary reason that middle-class marriages fail in the first five years: The woman feels her spouse is not keeping his end of the pact"(Seigel).

[ interesting... -k]

The New Trophy Wife

] President Bush is seeking a second term but Democratic
] nominee John Kerry and independent Ralph Nader want him
] out of the White House. Each has a range of views on the
] key issues involved in the November election

A set of short tables of key issues in the upcoming election, and how each candidiate stands.

Election Issues and stances of candidates

] By selecting Edwards, Kerry went with the smooth-talking
] Southern populist over more seasoned politicians in hopes
] of injecting vigor and small-town appeal to the
] Democratic presidential ticket.

Totally works for me. I fall for the hot young populsits every damn time.

Kerry Picks Edwards!

] US Congressman Rick Boucher took up arms against the
] Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act bill, being
] brought before Congress right now, in a website interview
] at Inside Digital Media this week.

Man I wish I could vote to re-elect this man

Hatch's Induce Act comes under fire | The Register

[ Some more space elevator news for the space junkies in our midst... -k]

Notes from the Third Annual Space Elevator Conference

] Ultimately, it's not the carbohydrates -- or the next
] unsuspecting food group that will come under attack
] -- that will make us overweight. It's our
] relationship with food and our lifestyle.

[ I hope this meme catches on with the greater public. Eat less. Exercise more. -k]

You Are How You Eat

Brandon Mayfield, a lawyer in Oregon, was held for two weeks, even though the only other connections between him and terrorism were things like the fact, as the FBI pointed out, that his law firm advertised in a "Muslim yellow page directory" whose publisher had once had a business relationship with Osama bin Laden's former personal secretary.

So is this what you call a Non-Obvious Relationship?

This nation was organized under a rule of law, not a dictatorship of the virtuous. The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights specifically because they did not believe that honorable men always do the right thing.

About Independence

Having finally had time to sit down and read Hamdi v. Rumsfeld its clear to me that the press reports so far have been confusing at best and misleading at worst. While I am heartened that the court has decided that there are some limits to the power of our executive, their decision is far from the stalwart defense of our traditional understanding of civil liberties that it has been presented as. I must express that I share the cynicism of the Russian commentator whose article I posted in spite of that commentator's hypocrisy.

My (apparently incorrect) understand of how things work in this country is that the legislative branch makes the laws (within the framework of the constitution), the executive enforces them, and the judicial interprets, applies, and upholds them. In this case the legislative passed a vague authorization for the use of military force against Al'Q and the T. From this the executive invented an entirely unprecedented and undefined legal status for prisoners. We'll call this "legislating from the Oval Office." In this decision the judicial has upheld the existence of this undefined status and invented a vaguely defined and unprecedented legal standard to go along with it. We'll call this "legislating from the bench."

From now on, as long as Congress has authorized the President to use "force" against an "enemy" the President may name any citizen an "enemy combatant" and place them in prison. The President is required to present its case against these individuals to a neutral decision maker (which need not be a civilian court), but the standard in these cases is "guilty until proven innocent." This is an enormously important precedent that will continue to impact our history forever.

I do not recall "guilty until proven innocent" ever being a part of how Americans view justice. Nor do I recall that the Supreme Court has the power to invent standards like this for cases of this sort. Missing from every event leading up to this moment (the solidification of a new legal standard for certain prisoners in our justice system) is the explanation of why. Why won't standard POW processes work for "combatants" in Afghanistan? Why do we need a new standard? Why is this situation so significantly different from any we've faced in the past? Justification is what you'd get if this new creation was the product of a normal legislative process. Instead what we have is the technical assertion of power by the executive and the judicial, with no more explanation then then "these are bad people."

Maybe the court has reached the right balance here and this is the standard we ought to have. Its certainly preferable to me then Justice Thomas's unsaid statement that the only recourse that you have against unreasonable executive detention is to Impeach him. (If Thomas's well referenced dissent is correct, then I would say we are in need of new laws immediately!) However, I think it ought to have gone through the legislature, and that it ought to have been birthed in the open, with the traditional discussion of ends and means that is typically afforded a democracy when creating a new basic legal framework.

Repeating my basic point to ram it home: A new legal standard has been created in our justice system. It applies to enemies of the state. The standard is guilty until proven innocent. Its use requires Congressional authorization, but that authorization need not be specific. This is a watershed event that will inform future generation's basic understanding of what the Constitution means.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Now THATS legislating from the bench!