humble arbiter

Trouble at the old rumor mill: The Gawker restructuring

2008-12-03T10:09:00.010+01:00

There's an all out feud at the Internet gossip site over owner Nick Denton's firing of its only female staff member, Sheila McClear. The firing is related to Denton's plans to broaden the mission of the popular site known both for its irreverent critique of media (a very broad mission) and its snarky celebrity gossip thrown in liberally to increase page counts. Denton is in "cost-cutting mode," as Gabriel Snyder, managing editor of Gawker, explains.

According to him, there will be a simultaneous "shrinking" and "expansion," which translated from the Downtown Manhattan dialect of Bullshit, roughly equates to mass firings.

Denton plans on decreasing emphasis on Gawker's traditional beat, New York, in order to broaden the audience. To this end, he is closing Gawker's sister site in Silicon Valley (Valleywag) and bringing in its managing editor, Owen Thomas, as a replacement for Sheila, as well as selling off his consumer advocacy blog, Consumerist. (As a side note, it could be a hint of interpersonal strife that Gabriel Snyder tells us that Sheila "will be departing the site at the end of the year" when, we are left to assume, solely "her writing will be missed.")

It is only to be expected that in such a small media firm tensions will run high. The most potent criticism comes from a former guest writer, Ian Spiegelman, who writes the following scathing indictment of Nick Denton and editor Noah Robischon:

Ug. This is fucking disgusting, Sheils. Your page views were consistently as good as anyone’s. That’s a fact. Nick Denton hates women. Um, did he fire even ONE male writer from Gawker? Of course not. I fucking quit, and everyone at Gawker should have when he let us know he was reducing our salaries retroactively and only backed down from that after we informed him that that was against the law.

Yes, we had to inform Nick and Noah that they’re plan to retroactively pay us less was literally against the laws of the State of New York. Because Nick and Noah are fucking thieves and human waste.

Back to the point: Women scare the fucking shit out of Denton half the time and the other half he dismisses them as meaningless. Watch out because he’s going to point to Sheil’s stats and conveniently forget that she posted under two different names. He’s totally going to rip her off for money. But now Gabe will do it instead of Noah.

What a happy family you’ve bred, Nick and Noah. And welcome to it, Gabe. I hope you all feel very good about yourselves, you scared little prejudiced fucking pieces of garbage. But, well, women do live here in America. You can’t avoid them all the time, you total fucking pieces of shit.

According to a general statement of principles relating to Internet media that Nick Denton prepared on November 11, 2008, he is planning on deemphasizing controversial topics, like politics, in a bid to increase chances of pulling in more advertising money that has hitherto been out of reach because of the strong political positions writers from the site are prone to take. Also, there will be more invasive advertising, salaries that will rise and fall with the fortunes of the company, tougher bargaining tactics with companies providing goods and services to Gawker and the aforementioned dropping of titles in the Gawker Media Group.

In all fairness, it seems that Denton is attempting to batten down the hatches in order to ride out the economic storm that is raging outside. He frames these changes as being related to "survival of the quickest," which would seem to imply that he conceives of Gawker Media Group as a squirrel that squirrels nuts into its cranny for the winter, then, after summer arrives, quickly shifts course in summer by unpacking its nest and searching for nicer digs and better food.

All things considered, however, Denton is angering and demoralizing his employees, alienating the Gawker readership -- reader comments were overwhelmingly negative -- and firing an extremely talented young writer. If Denton is not careful, he risks losing some of the ability to be as nimble as he is now. Gawker is, of course, turning a profit. And that is a result of a steady base of readers and commenters that is already beginning to show signs of chafing under the changes, a sentiment that is epitomized by long-time commenter in the following statement, "I'm trying hard to keep this site relevant and interesting to myself. I may be failing and tech news and gossip will make it that much harder."

Shoe leather

2008-11-02T01:16:00.009+01:00

I just received a picture in my inbox contending that Barack Obama is a man of the people, because he wears shoes that are worn down. Barack Obama's being seen as an elitist was always a disadvantage for him among middle class voters.

This all has happened before. I remember hearing a Studs Terkel radio broadcast about Adlai Stevenson's own run for the White House and the hole in his shoes:

Journal photographer William M. Gallagher's picture of Democratic presidential candidate Adlai E. Stevenson (right) and Michigan Gov. G. Mennen Williams would have been just one more picture of a politician until Stevenson crossed his legs, displaying a hole in the sole of his shoe. The flawed shoe was totally out of character for the aristocratic, intellectual Stevenson, who was having difficulty establishing himself as a candidate of the people in his race against Dwight D. Eisenhower. Gallagher’s shot — taken with camera held at arm's length so Stevenson wouldn't realize what was happening — became one of the great political photos of all time and winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 1953. Gallagher was a Journal photographer from 1941 until his death in 1975, at age 52.

Meatballs, aesthetic judgment, my ex-girlfriend, Kant and colonial America

2008-09-24T05:02:00.010+02:00

You know, I just read this interesting tidbit about Portugal and their very famous Madeira wine. Now, throughout the eighteenth century Madeira was extremely popular and the major, nay, sole export of the Portuguese Madeira Islands. Most of the exports went to the colonial United States. It arrived on ships, large sailing ships that were at sea for weeks. The Americans found at the time that the best Madeiras were those that had spent the longest time in holds of ships. Perhaps this was because they only knew Madeiras that had spent long times in transit and they simply grew accustomed to it. They were no longer satisfied with any Madeira that was fresh. They would only accept Madeira that was well-aged in the awful conditions -- oppressive heat, humidity, continual movement -- of the hold of a sailing vessel.

There is also another story involving the souring of Madeira and familiarity. Once, in Savannah, Georgia, a large shipment of Madeira was left in oak barrels on the beach, exposed to the elements. The buyer was initially put off by the wine, but he later discovered that the taste of the wine actually "improved" when people treat it like garbage by just dumping the casks on the beach in the hot sun and not covering it with a tarp or anything. (I am sure there was such a eureka! moment when milk first went sour.)

It reminds me of a time when my ex-girlfriend were in Vienna. We were at a restaurant, and for dessert she ordered the vanilla ice cream. After taking one bite of it, she pushed it away and declared the ice cream to taste like it had gone bad. I was amazed by this, so I took a bite and discovered that not only had it not only not gone bad, but that it was a great ice cream. We determined that it was the taste of the fresh eggs that was unexpected. See, this was a very traditional ice cream made like French ice cream, where they use a real well constructed crème anglaise base. It was a much richer, complexer, eggier ice cream than what we usually eat in the United States. You could taste that they even thought to caramelize the sugar a bit and that they had used fresh vanilla and added a twist of lemon zest to brighten the taste. To me, well, I found it superior because it was simple (vanilla and a bit of lemon) yet complex (caramel, egg, fresh cream) at the same time. It was also nicely presented with coffee and cookies in an elaborate goblet. Applying this story to the Madeira wines, I wonder whether the Madeira wines actually became complexer and better in the holds of the ships, or whether it was just a case of people fearing wines that were out of the ordinary because they were not accustomed to them. Probably, though, the modifier "better" means nothing in this context. Value judgments are meaningless when it comes to matters of taste. A wine is not better, it is just different, which is, strangely enough, exactly what my ex-girlfriend always used to say about everything (art, literature, politics, you name it).

I wonder whether Kant's pronouncement that the pleasure of food has philosophically nothing in common with the pleasure of aesthetic enjoyment, say of a painting by Leonardo, has anything to do with the question of comparing foods? He is wrong to assign wholesomeness as the only criterion to judge the goodness of food and to exclude familiarity from enjoyment of art. In addition to the aesthetic enjoyment a subject receives when the food on the plate (the colors, the arrangement, etc.) is artfully arranged, there is also the criterion of familiarity to the subject. In the second case I discussed above, the handmade ice cream was obviously more "wholesome" because it was made by hand probably the same day, because it had no preservatives and because it contained the best ingredients. Therefore, Kant was wrong: What makes mass-produced ice cream and (possibly) the Madeira taste better to some people is not anything to do with its wholesomeness (I am making the rather astounding assumption that Madeira that has been sitting in the holds of ships is less wholesome), but rather with how accustomed the subject is to something.

It is sometimes the case with art. We must not forget that familiarity is just another term for breadth of experience. Let us conceive of familiarity in such a way for a moment. Are we not better able to critique art (or food, or anything, for that matter) when we have a wide range of experience to compare it to? Also, as a final note on this, we should be careful to take anything that Kant says about food cum grano salis. Kant lived for almost his entire life in a city whose greatest culinary contribution to the world is the Königsberger Klops, arguably one of the ugliest, most pallid foods that has ever graced a table -- even the name makes me shudder out of disrelish.

The bleaching of indie rock

2007-10-23T02:14:00.000+02:00

In a New Yorker article, the music critic Sasha Frere-Jones writes about the caucanization of music. He postulates that 1. because a much wider selection of music is available on the internet, and 2. because of the recent trend towards political correctness, many indie musicians tend away from incorporating sounds and tropes from "black music" anymore. For example, both the Rolling Stones and David Bowie incorporated sounds from blues and rap in their music. Elvis is the classic example of musical mixing. Now people can have all of the authentic black music they want by just going to download it. They can hear, as a result of the Internet, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, African Juju, Southern Crunk etc., etc., the really good stuff, which they would never have been able to hear before, though wanted to hear, because it was good and authentic. Which is why, so goes the reasoning, white musicians Incorporated their sound into their music, because there was a demand for that sort of thing which wasn't supplied to the white audiences over the radio. But now everyone can hear anything, according to Frere-Jones, so why would any given person, he asks, wish to hear music that is filtered down through several levels of intermediaries. Furthermore, people tend to look at musicians who incorporate the "black sound" in their music as if they were putting on some sort of "minstrel show." That, he contends, is a result of a greater awareness of political correctness in the 1990s.

In short, Frere-Jones laments the loss of the musical syncretism that typified the last five decades. I can put his mind to rest. Musical mixing is fortunately alive and well. Think of TV on the Radio and The Rapture, for instance, two very popular bands. And, Animal Collective, really, that does not sound as white as Sasha-Frere alleges. He makes a good point. There should be as much musical mixing as possible, but it is not dead at all. I think it is a good thing that there are more musical styles, and that they are allowed to develop on their own. The different styles are highly expressive of groups and communities. They also provide a sort of protected space, à la bell hooks, where minority groups can determine a common identity as an oppressed group under themselves. This protected space is not cut off from other communities, it is just a grouping of people together with shared goals who can work out an identity and political goals.

They are like unions in a way. People who are being treated as second class citizens can band together, be it in churches or neighborhood groups, and gain more political power. They help each other when politicians fail them and when they have no voice in the newspapers, on the radio and on television. This is a good thing, the best possible solution in an imperfect world. This is what I see hip hop to be. But I think that hip hop has had a huge impact on white music, but, yes, I would like to see some more work in that direction. Hip hop lyrics are soooo much better than most of the indie rock lyrics, which tend towards preciousness and banality of observation.

Mozart

2007-10-21T15:43:00.000+02:00

Check out Mozart's Così fan tutte. A really well written, witty libretto with some of the most varied, stylized music you will ever hear.

The libretto author, Lorenzo da Ponte, lived an interesting life: Italy, Vienna, New York

The cracked lookingglass of James Joyce's grandson

2006-06-13T05:19:00.000+02:00

D.T. Max published a scathing article on James Joyce's grandson. According to Max, Stephen, grandson is responsible for philistinism and burning letters. He hates scholars, as well. In his opinion, they are ruining his father's work. He is of this mind, because his father was an outsider all of his life--a man who ran against the current. On top of this, he probably never really forgave the literary community's slight of him and his work at the beginning.

The article is excellent. Stephen is quite a character. Stephen maintains complete control over the Joyce estate and all of the works of James Joyce. Whenever anyone wants to have permission to read the manuscripts and letters that belong to the estate, the requests come through him. Most of the time he turns them down. According to Max, he is rather capricious about the way he goes about turning away scholars, whom he refers to as "lice":

In 2003, Eloise Knowlton, a Joycean and a novelist, asked permission to publish a fictional version of 'Sweets of Sin,' the risqué novel that Bloom picks up for his wife, Molly. Ulysses offers only a glimpse of its contents.) Stephen wrote back, "Neither I nor the others who manage this Estate will touch your hare-brained scheme with a barge pole in any manner, shape or form." When turning down a request for permission from an academic whose work was going to be published by Purdue, he said that he objected to the name for the university's sports teams: the Boilermakers. (He considered it vulgar.)

Mission (un) Accomplished

2006-05-16T19:14:00.000+02:00

The Dean of the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, Orville Schell, in the New York Review of Books writes his appraisal of the situation in Baghdad--or what he was physically able to see of it:

"It may well be that the besieged American press in Iraq will find that the main story is not about Americans fighting Iraqi insurgents, but Americans standing powerlessly aside in their armed compounds, Green Zone, and military bases, watching as Iraqis kill other Iraqis and the country disintegrates. It would be all too ironic if this were the result of the invasion of March 2003, which was promoted as a critical step in bringing peace to the Middle East."

(New York Review of Books, 6. April 2006)

John Kenneth Galbraith Has Passed Away

2006-04-30T15:00:00.000+02:00

John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the most important and novel voices in economics in the past sixty years has passed away at the age of 97. Galbraith was a major force in developing economic theories that demonstrated the value of benevolence in society. He developed theories that spoke against unfettered greed.

From the New York Times Obituary:

He strived to change the very texture of the national conversation about power and its nature in the modern world by explaining how the planning of giant corporations superseded market mechanisms. His sweeping ideas, which might have gained even greater traction had he developed disciples willing and able to prove them with mathematical models, came to strike some as almost quaint in today's harsh, interconnected world where corporations devour one another.

Update on Immigration Bill

2006-04-06T06:06:00.000+02:00

"Securing America's Borders Act" has made it out of committee, where it was heavily revised for the better and now it is up for a vote in Congress. There have been major changes to the language of the Bill, which is now listed as S.2454 (link to THOMAS Congressional information).

Looking back at what was proposed in the legislation and after talking to a friend of mine this weekend, I don't, in retrospect, think that the bill would have ever made it into law. There is no chance, number one, that it would have made it out of committee in the form that it was in, even if there were no large scale protests, and number two, Bush would have vetoed the bill anyway. Bush publicly stated, and I can't find the quote, but I know he said it, that he would never approve such a bill in the first place. That makes sense. He has far too many people too serve and more and more of them are Latinos. The days of the Democrats' monopoly on the immigrant vote is over.

Now, forgive my cynicism, it is something that I am constantly trying to struggle against, but I can't help asking myself if the proposal of this bill and its subsequent approval by the House, might have been some political ploy? How and why did this thing make it through the House, only to end up gutted in the Senate, and, furthermore, why did it make it out with no hope of approval by the President? I see it going down in this fashion: there were some Representatives who saw the legitimate need for new legislation. Then there were Reps. who wanted new legislation, but also had to raise their credibility as conservatives in their home districts. The group that wanted just the new legislation, knew that it would be gutted in the Senate, so why not vote on it anyway they thought. The second group, the people who provided the real impetus to push it through the House, thought, "great," it will get to the Senate and be gutted, "therefore I will not really be responsible for legislation that is both patently immoral and counterproductive to the harmony of races, but I will at least be able to blame it on those 'moderates' for not being able to take through on the Senate." something along the same lines occurred with the Civil Rights Act, where the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to kill the bill in the House, so they added language into the bill that created equal rights for the sexes. Later, they received the surprise of their lives when it passed! But I digress, and one can't deny, that there were those in the House, yes, there were some genuine Representatives whose lack of humanity caused them to genuinely push for the disenfranchisement 11 million residents and workers really causes the mind to reel.

Here's the New York Times' rundown on the compromise:

Â¶Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English, a senior Republican aide said. The aide said this group accounted for about 7 million of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living here.
Â¶Those who have lived here for two to five years, said to number about three million, would have to leave the country briefly before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. They would be allowed to apply for citizenship but would have no guarantee of obtaining it. Those who did not would have to leave after participating in the temporary worker program for six years.
Â¶The remaining one million or so, those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave. They could apply for temporary worker status but would not be guaranteed it. (NYT, Senate Republicans Strike Immigration Deal, 6. August 2006)

House wishes to sell off America's public oil at a loss to the public

2006-03-27T20:12:00.000+02:00

The New York Times is reporting that the House of Reps. is attempting to give breaks on royalties due from oil companies that are drilling for oil in unexplored areas. This is after the United States may be liable for $24 billion in royalties already. This is unacceptable.

If you are not aware of the story, back in the 90s, under the Clinton administration, the Energy Department was concerned that there was not enough exploration for oil in the United States, and that it was severly unable to deal with an energy crisis should one arise. Oil prices were so low back then, that the profits that they were to make on any oil, would probably be eaten up by the costs of searching and then drilling for it. So, in order to entice exploration for oil by oil companies, they said that any oil they were to find on federal, public lands would be exempt from royalties imposed on it by the federal government.

A couple of years later, oil prices skyrocketed and there was no longer a reason for the royalty releases, because the oil could fetch huge prices on the open market. The intelligent thing to do, according to one of the architects of the original royalty release under the Clinton administration would be to end the handouts. But the fantastically well-funded oil lobby is on the case and pressuring House representatives to continue giving away public oil while demanding less compensation for the American public, in return (Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil, NY Times):

"There is no cost rationale," said Shirley J. Neff, an economist at Columbia University and Senator Johnston's top legislative aide in drafting the 1995 royalty law. "It is astounding to me that the administration would so blatantly cave in to the industry's demands."

Yes, there is no economic rationale for this. Gale Norton, under the current Bush administration, continued the policy for 2004. Her decision was supposed to have saved $570 million for the public a year. But, there was never really a reason to add more incentives to drill, because oil prices were already high enough to provide a suitable incentive.

This is a huge swindle--the Neo-Teapot Dome (Wikipedia Teapot Dome Entry). Hopefully, thanks to the New York Time coverage of it, it will not be allowed to continue.

Marches throughout the United States in defense of immigrants' rights

2006-03-27T19:52:00.000+02:00

According to the New York Times, foreigen workers are mobilized in huge numbers against the proposed legislation that is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 500,000 in Los Angeles, 300,000 in Chicago. Protests in Milwaukee, New York, upcoming protests of millions in Washington, D.C. The Catholic Church is even a supporter of the movement. Let us hope that this legislation either dies in committee or is completely gutted. There is no way that we can exist as a country with 10.3 million persons (WaPo)--and the people who assist them--automatically turned into felons for no other crime than wanting to be in America to work. Most are even tax payers, who cannot reclaim the money that they are owed, because to do that they would risk detection.

It would be one of America's finest hours to see these protests finally bring about a change in the laws governing foreign, illegal workers. If you are contributing to America, in America, you should be allowed to continue being in America to contribute.

Party unity in immigration reform

2006-03-05T00:56:00.000+01:00

I can't believe what I am reading. There is absolutely no party unity in the Democratic Party! In the roll call for the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, there were 36 Democrats who voted FOR it! While only 17 Republicans voted against it, on the other hand. And there are less Democrats in the House than there are Republicans, so this represents a much larger percentage of Democratic dissenters. Brothers and sisters, we must stay unified! Where are the Democratic Party activists working for party unity? This is bad legislation. It's unclear, it is overly punitive and it will end up turning off more Chicanos from politics in general. Who can they trust if they can't trust the Democrats?

Lanham Act changes

2006-03-05T00:27:00.000+01:00

Okay, so the bill that was supposed to make revisions to the Lanham Act that I discussed earlier (1, 2) has been heavily revised when it was reported to the Senate. Now most of the sections have been struck out, and now the section that deals with the exemptions to the Lanham Act allows "any noncommercial use." I think most of the negative reaction to the bill were not warranted. It was a good bill in some cases, but it needed better language in the exemptions section.

Immigration law

2006-03-03T20:34:00.000+01:00

Well, what I failed to mention in the last post, was that being an illegal alien, being "unlawfully present," by the text of the bill, is enough to result in a felony conviction. Apparently, Sensenbrenner tried to amend the bill so that this would only result in only a misdemeanor, but it was struck down. A misdemeanor is bad enough, but to make this felonious that should be criminal in itself.

Here is a write up on the bill from the National Immigration Law Center.

[UPDATE: See how you Rep. voted!]

Being an illegal immigrant is similar to being a slave

2006-03-03T19:07:00.000+01:00

Well, it just hit me today. I was reading a New York Times article about illegals being shut out of most health care options. It hit me after reading that Arizona, Virginia and Maryland are shutting off benefits, not just health care, for illegal immigrants. Illegals are paid less than minimum wage, they work longer hours, they risk jail, the nature of their jobs is dangerous, strenuous, or both, and they are even the focus of armed vigilante groups. Plus, they are targets for exploitation by "coyotes," their handlers, who demand a portion of their income for finding them an illegal job in the United States. Once they are at the farms, things are seldom better for them.

And now the House of Representatives has sent onto the Senate a law that makes providing any sort of assistance to the illegal immigrants as being a felony and carrying a maximum five-year imprisonment as punishment. Now, the intent of the law is probably meant to cut down on so-called "human smuggling" and the sort of exploitation I mentioned before by business owners and coyotes, but a strict literalist reading of the law would result in individuals acting on behalf of, or with church groups, civic organizations and public-service organizations being punished with up to five years. And the sponsor of this bill is none other than James Sensenbrenner, who, if you will remember, acted unethically during the Patriot Act hearings (humble arbiter post about this).

I was friends with a priest who put up several illegal immigrants in the parish rectory office, on the couch. They were being pursued by a "coyote" who helped them into the country and had not been able to pay him back and their life was probably in danger. Under the terms of this law--without taking the intent into account--the priest's actions are considered criminal.

All of this draws stark parallels to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (text of law), which was part of the Compromise of 1850, made in order to appease the southern slave owning states when the north banned the practice of slavery in the newly formed western states. Henry David Thoreau said of it: " I hear a good deal said about trampling this law under foot. Why, one need not go out of his way to do that. This law rises not to the level of the head or the reason; its natural habitat is in the dirt."

And like the Fugitive Slave Act, there is also a section in HR 4437 that will withhold funds from states whose police officers do not act to enforce the statute.

The very same could be said about this law.

Here is the text in question:

`(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever--

`(A) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States, or to attempt to come to or enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the United States;

`(B) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether such person has official permission or lawful authority to be in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien;

`(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

`(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person's illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

`(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to be in the United States;

`(F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person outside of the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien in unlawful transit from one country to another or on the high seas, under circumstances in which the person is in fact seeking to enter the United States without official permission or lawful authority; or

`(G) conspires or attempts to commit any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (2), regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

`(2) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- A person who violates the provisions of paragraph (1) shall--

`(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (D) through (H), in the case where the offense was not committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain, be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;

Pretty amazing photos of civil rights movement

2006-03-01T20:54:00.000+01:00

The Birmingham Post has put up photos on their website that they found in their archives. These are some pretty amazing photos that really make the whole period of time come alive. These were completely normal people being forced down by equally normal people. I really wish I could have been alive during that time so I could have marched with them.

[The Birmingham News]: Unseen. Unforgotten.

Genetically modified food in India

2006-02-09T23:41:00.000+01:00

I have just seen a report on Arte about Vandana Shiva, a very passionate woman who is trying to ignite a desire for organic, traditional agricultural methods in Indian villages. In one scene, she was out in a field, in rural India, and she was pulling things out of the ground, and talking about the patents that were taken out on the chemicals inside of them.

The documentary was very well made, but it kept me lusting for more. I want to check some facts, and find out if she is speaking the truth. What is at stake is: 1. seed sovereignty, 2. food sovereignty, and 3. water sovereignty.

I would like to know more, so I think I am going to check out her book: Stolen Harvest : The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply.

Lamar Smith (R - Texas) sponsor of bill to change trademark law

2006-02-08T15:05:00.000+01:00

The sponsor of the bill that seeks to rewrite the Lanham Act, a central statute in intellectual property, is Lamar Smith of Texas. Lamar Smith received donations from Microsoft, Sony, and Eli Lily: three companies that have a vested interest in intellectual property laws that favor unfair controls on information and trademarks.

Well, attention needs to be paid to the bill, and there needs to be a serious look at what exactly is being rewritten as it makes its way through the Senate.

Breyer's talk on judicial activism

2006-02-08T02:59:00.000+01:00

One of my many minions attended Justice Steven Breyer's talk on Tuesday. Here is a rundown:

So I was asked to give a quick sum-up of my impression of Justice Breyer’s talk “Judicial Activism: Power without Authority?” So let’s give it a shot. But as a disclaimer, I will repeat what he said, that I’m not liable for misstatements or misremembrances. Apparently all of this is available in his new book, anyway. AND I am certainly not as natural a writer as the actual blogger; I’ve been indoctrinated with the memo style (make it short short short!)

-Part One: Is Judicial Activism Power without Authority: Answer? YES. Judicial activism is power without authority. There are four types of judicial activism [traditionally? historically?]

1.Judges shouldn’t use their position to forward social policies that are against Congress’ will. Supposedly the term “activism” came from a 1947 article in Fortune by an author [Schlessinger?] to describe the Supreme Court bench at that time, and divided them into three categories: the judicial activists vs. the champions of self-restraint. This meant that some justices are progressivists and some are reactionists – are judges supposed to progress or react to legislation?

2.Judges were moving into areas that were traditionally non-judicial areas. Justice Breyer’s example was desegregation. In accordance with his reputation as a pragmatist of sorts, he displayed pictures to show what judges were up against. Four pictures:

(a) a dining or outhouse of some sort directing African-Americans to go to the rear; (b) a school house for African Americans [separate but equal not working];
(c) a KKK gathering;
(d) and a group of protestors with signs reading “God is against integration”. He noted that the judiciary made a move when nobody else was – Congress wasn’t moving and it took Eisenhower to have the power to enforce the ruling. He stated that of course he picked more extreme pictures, but that this is what judges are up against; other examples included mental health institutions and prisons (a Puerto Rican case).

3.Judges that overturn prior settled law or precedent. Justice Breyer claimed that judges have always done this – if you’re going to say it of one court, it’s every court, including the Marshall era.

4.Judges overturning too many statutes as unconstitutional, therefore not giving the Legislature enough leeway. Another graphic: research done by a professor displaying the Supreme Court justices and their voting patterns over the last 10? years; who voted most for overturning a statute as unconstitutional? Scalia. The least? Breyer (so at least I’m not an activist here!) He then joked, that once he and Scalia were somewhere where he was giving a talk and used this graphic, then promptly forgot to turn it off so Scalia was staring at it for 30 minutes or so. Scalia later said, I though you overstated the point (in jest of course).

-Part Two: Justice Breyer then proceeded to ask: what does judicial activism mean today? He found that the first three are not really a concern, but that the last one is still around. His real question was: how to interpret a statute sensibly but not subjectively? He wants to replace “activism” with “subjectivity”. How to be neither willful nor wooden (famous Brandeis quotation). He notes that all judges rely on the same sources: text, history, precedent, but they certainly have different motivations behind the sources, and can be divided broadly into two camps:

(a) the textualists, originalists, or literalists [although he noted that was somewhat perjorative] and
(b) the purposivists or intentionalists. Justice Breyer stated that he looked for the purpose of the Congress who passed the statute: he is interested in purposes and consequences. Two cases:

1. A case about the Federal Arbitration Act – the purpose of which was to prevent judicial protectionism by forcing courts to enforce valid arbitration clauses. There is an exception for seamen, railroad workers, and any other type of
employee…engaged in interstate commerce. Does a retail worker fall into that? Based on the text, NO, especially under the canon of construction ejusdem generis (that is, where general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration,
general words are construed to embrace objects similar in nature to preceding words; Justice Breyer: that was in Latin, but I’m sure that’s NOT how you pronounce it). However, he looked to the legislative history to determine what was the purpose. Apparently the amendment was added due to concerns
brought by a union – and the American Bar Association and Secretary of Commerce Hoover both agreed that the statute was really supposed to govern commercial cases, not labor disputes. I think this is Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams,
532 U.S. 105, but I’m not sure.

2.A case involving the display of the 10 Commandments in Kentucky and Texas concerning the Establishment Clause. What was the purpose? To dampen (lots of hand motions here – he was a very active speaker) social conflict over religious issues. So it was a close case in KY but not so close in TX (because it was put up by a non-religious group apparently to celebrate something related to Cecil B DeMille and had been up for a long time without any trouble).

-Somewhere in this section Justice Breyer made his disclaimer about not being responsible for misstatements or misremembering – as related to his views in the past or in the future.

-He then goes on to ask whether purposivism is the best/the right one, etc.? Not necessarily, but if one considers the alternatives…

-Part Three: So here was the last part: why purposivism might be better

1.Literalists are consequentialists too (that is, the consequences they are thinking about are things like predictability and stability in the judicial system, etc.)

2.Purposivists are still adhering to a standard (objective) – there’s something they’re going for, there’s a method, etc. and he claims that they are more transparent! so it’s easier to criticize.

3.Literalism has a subjective flavor; such as which canon of construction to choose (think Llewellyn’s article); Justice Breyer then said: canons on the left and canons on the right, an old criticism but a new joke! [We laughed.]

4.Literalism produces some harm: his point being that if one does so does the other.
All the justices agree that the judiciary should interpret what Congress puts out; there is no disagreement there.
And finally the question session:

1.Aren’t you being subjective anyway – maybe you don’t like the policies Congress passed? Reply: he is constrained to do what the law says (= what Congress wills) even if he doesn’t think it’s for a good purpose [My question: doesn’t this justify originalism anyway? What the very original drafters thought of the Constitution? but he says that a general purpose of the Constitutional writers was to have values in the Constitution apply even today in a changing society.]

2.Whether Chevron and the executive could be compared to the judiciary because both are not elected groups of people. Reply: Yes, but we have to look at whether Congress intended to give the executive power to interpret this – and it’s usually silent! But he still does so to hold the Legislator accountable. Agencies are good though, after all life is very complex – there’s the Internet and what-do-you-call-them…Blueberries?

3.Well what about politics. Reply: three ways to interpret that word:

a.think Republican, Democrat, who is popular, etc. He has only seen that in 1 case on this court [didn’t get to that].
b.ideologies: you mean Adam-Smith free enterprises vs. Marxist-strugglist-(pause)-freak…or whatever? Now there are reasons to worry but you have to be more cautious and take a step back.
c.my being: my thoughts on philosophy, life, and law, which is dependent on where I grew up, my legal training, etc. Several times he brought up the idea of how law is connected to life, how should it be, etc., but if a president thinks he’s going to get someone who’s just going to go along party lines, he’s wrong:

Teddy Roosevelt said of Holmes: I could have carved a justice with more backbone out of a banana. Having similar ideologies may help though.

Get involved, fight for your trademark rights! A novel solution

2006-02-06T22:15:00.000+01:00

Okay, here is how to help make the new trademark bill going through Congress protect your rights as an artist or author.

In my previous post on the new trademark bill going through Congress, I stated that the bill (HR683) that has moved through the House, and is on the way to the Senate, may not be as negative a step in legislation as originally belived. In fact, it may even be counter-productive to write your Congress(wo)man to demand a vague change in favor of "trademark rights" or something. (Remember, these people are not always the savviest people on the face of the earth: and, yes, staffers, don't pretend to look so innocent.) Instead, write your representatives and senators and request that they add "including by not limited to" and taking out "for" (right before "purposes of identifying and parodying"), in order to make favorable interpretation possible later.

Let me iterate my position once again, and after two analyses of the bill clarify what is or what is not at issue here:

Previous to this bill the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1125) exempts certain uses of trademarks:

(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

If the bill passes the Senate with no changes, then this section will read:

(c) Dilution by Blurring; Dilution by Tarnishment-

`(3) EXCLUSIONS- The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

`(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

`(B) Fair use of a famous mark by another person, other than as a designation of source for the person's goods or services, including for purposes of identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

`(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary

Now, far from taking away the ability of artists such as Warhol to create his Brillo boxes, as suggested by Don Stewart, it provides further protection. The issue is with the old language "noncommercial use of a mark" and the newer language "fair use of a famous mark by another person." The newer language actually protects artists, becuase sometimes art may be commercial, for example, when it is sold. The trick here is to let the courts decide what "fair use" means. Also, the lack of "including, but not limited to..." "...purposes of identifzing and parodying" etc. etc. may be tricky issue when it comes before the courts. Hopefully the suggestion I made above will help to reduce confusion later on when it comes before the courts.

Okay, so now we see that there are some new issues with interpretation that will exist once this bill passes. It is a shame that there is not more of an effort to determine what exactly "fair use" refers to, so that these issues can be cleared up in the open, and so there can be some public input on it. As it stands now, it seems the courts will have to decide, and public opinion will not play a role in such proceedings.

See also:
[Boing Boing]: Creepy bill creeping through congress limits artistic expression
[humble arbiter]: Scary trademark law not really so scary, maybe

Finally a reason to come out of exile!

2006-02-06T19:27:00.000+01:00

Now there is finally a reason for vegan political refugees to come out of exile (Washington Post article):

The marquee Senate contest this year is in Pennsylvania, where Santorum is being challenged in his bid for a third term by state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr. (D). Santorum's high-profile conservatism combined with Bush's flagging numbers in the Democratic-leaning state have given Casey a clear edge in polls the past six months. But Casey has yet to define himself as a Senate candidate, preferring to stay away from hot-button issues and focus on Santorum.

In fact, the Post reports that there may be substantial Democratic gains in the next round of elections, inshallah. This may not tip the balance of Congress, but at least it is something.

Please, let it come to frutition.

[Boing Boing]: Department of Homeland Security: ever-vigilant against vegan menace
[WXIA 11 Alive]: ACLU Releases Government Photos

Scary trademark law not really so scary, maybe

2006-02-03T01:47:00.000+01:00

According to a recent post at Boing Boing (referring originally to an article from Don Stewart) there is a new bill that has just passed through the House, and is on its way to the Senate. This bill is supposed to have very scary implications for bloggers and artists everywhere. But I think that perhaps it has been misread by Mr. Stewart. Here is Mr. Stewart's claim (from Boing Boing):

"HR 683 has just passed the US House of Representatives, and is now being considered in subcommittee hearings prior to presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This new law, if enacted, will severely restrict the rights of your readers to portray trademarked items and phrases in their work. Quite literally, if someone paints a picture of flowers in a Coke(r) bottle, they may be liable for damages under the proposed statute."

But the bill would seem to allow artistic use (would it not fall under fair use?), but the sentence in question is very convoluted, and open to (mis)interpretation:

`(3) EXCLUSIONS- The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

`(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

`(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Does anyone have an idea about this?

Germany is filtering my Google search results

2006-02-01T21:09:00.000+01:00

When I was studying in China, one of my acquaintinces couldn't access his American email account. He had to open another account on a site that was approved by the Chinese government; one which wasn't blocked by the "Great Chinese Firewall." His chose as his new email address: chinaiscensoringmyemail@domainname.cn.com.

Well, I just had my own experience with censorship. I am in Germany right now. Germany is requiring that some sites are filtered out of the general search results. The site in question is rotten.com. I determined this by using Tor and Privoxy to access an anonymous proxy server in America. The search in question is "brecht house unamerican committee." Hardly a search that should raise red flags in Germany, where the building in which I attend classes is named after him. Here is the page that was being filtered out by Google. Here is the accompanying report from chillingeffects.org that I received along with my report.

Should we post some screen shots just so we can see what censorship is like?

Well, why not (click on the thumbnails for a more detailed view--I want to keep the page size as small as possible):

Here is the search from a German internet protocol (IP) address, notice the report from chillingeffects.org:

Here is how the search query looks from a German IP address, but this time, here is the top of the page:

Here is the same Google search query from an American proxy server. There was no report from chillingeffects.org

This is a search for "site:rotten.com" on Google without routing through an American proxy server to reach Google's query engine:

As the above screen shot shows, the Google is most definitely filtering-out rotten.com from all searches originating in Germany!

But the real kicker here is that rotten.com is still perfectly accessible directly from Germany! There is no need of a proxy server in a foreign country.

Looking for a Job

2006-01-24T22:23:00.000+01:00

Hey, I just wanted to tell you a little about myself:

I am a strongly goal-oriented, team-driven, responsibility conscious individual who aggressively thinks outside the box. In the interim period between university and my current status as a graduate student, I aggressively pursued mastery of a German language skill-set, empowering me to dynamically network and pursue synergies with individuals not in-the-moment mastering an English-language skill-set, translating in the real world into stellar business-to-business and surging business-to-consumer sales abilities.

I envision myself after a two year period working within the framework of an entry-level position that is strongly customer service oriented. It should be made known that my core-value base is mission-oriented and geared towards downsizing while in crisis-mode, thus I am able to strategically streamline business operations while providing solutions to my team. I understand the lay-of-the-land of today's exciting market-driven business environment; therefore, I hope for a fast-track position with a compensation package that fits my mission critical knowledge for exploiting emerging markets.

Thank you.

Attached, please find my latest headshot:

Literature Archive

2006-01-21T23:18:00.002+01:00

I was at the German Literature Archive in Marbach yesterday. I have been working there for the past couple of weeks, and attending a seminar taught there since November. Marbach is north of Stuttgart. It is a charming Swabian village whose claim to fame is being Friedrich Schiller's place of birth. The collections to be found there are truly overwhelming. They collect every imaginable book, article, picture, and sundry object, without any exception, pertaining in some manner to German literature.

They receive authors' manuscripts, as well as their personal libraries (if they are interesting enough). As far as the personal manuscripts (the so-called "Nachlass") are concerned, pretty much everything that they possess which is written is read by the experts at the institute. Well, 'experts,' in plural, is misleading. It is one man. (His knowledge of literature is seemingly limitless.) His duties include separating the wheat from the chaff of their collections, sorting the materials, and then cataloging them.

Then there is a newspaper section. As in the manuscript section, there is also only one man who is responsible for reading several major newspapers, I believe the number is around 70, and cutting out all the articles that relate to literature. Then he catalogs them and puts them in a box. His hands are covered in newspaper ink. His hair is wild. He wanders through the archive almost in a daze--I have noticed--though he handles his job with the utmost intelligence, passion, and professionalism. (Once, I was sitting in the cafeteria having a cigarette after it had closed down after lunch. He wandered into the area where usually only the operators of the cafeteria are allowed, and he was looking at the various candy bars available. One of the very lovely, matronly cafeteria workers came out and helped him. He then decided, after some initial vacillation, that he would rather have a yogurt.)

He is also responsible for cataloging the newspaper clippings that authors have made themselves that are contained in the Nachlass. The rationale behind this is to make available to researchers a method of finding out what articles have been read by any given author. They have Kafka's collection of reviews of his writings, which allows us to know what Kafka might have been able to discern to be the effects of his literature on his audience. (Unfortunately, I wasn't able to read them, but I am sure that someone has, and has written a book, or perhaps an article, or both and article and a book on Kafka's reviews, and that that book, too, is in the German Literature Archive!)

They also tape cultural programming that appears on television, as well as collecting art, photographs, and memorabilia (like Hermann Hesse's Nobel Prize, for example). Looking for book jackets? Well, they have a separate file for those. They have collections which are too numerous to list here, but which are to be expected at any serious archive.

To catalog all of this they have devised their own card cataloging system. The card catalog system is one of the best I have ever seen. It is almost magical to use it, but it does have a steep learning curve, as it is extremely complex and detailed. A user is truly able to find every book (in multiple editions), article, play, recording, painting, etc. ad nauseum ever made by or about the author in question, and you can also search that thematically. The instructions for using this come in a pamphlet that is not small, weighing in at around twenty pages.

What truly interests me is how the archive decides if an item is worthwhile to collect? How are they supposed to decide, for example, what manuscripts to keep? There is a deluge of materials in the manuscript archive that are just worthless now, but how do you know that in fifty years one of those worthless materials may provide the missing clue to piecing together the biography of an author?

Where the glut of materials is most evident is the section where they collect objects that have to do with authors. Most of the collection consists of theatre programs and playbills from productions written by German authors. They also collect the random "schwag" that they send out in press packs; so they have Peter Bieri's promotional rubber eraser (Bieri is a famous German philosopher who has recently made forays into literature), as well as some bags that the schwag came in. There was also a table with random ephemera all neatly arranged as would be found at a criminal forensic examination. How to catalog all of this? And what to catalog? There is so much detritus out there, and somehow, I'm sure of the fact, that if it is related to German culture, it will eventually find its way into the archive's catalog.

The institute is run efficiently, and I fell instantly in love.

(Image by Wikipedia user Mussklprozz, thank you! It is of the Friedrich Schiller statue in front of the National Schiller Museum. It is made of French cannon.)

Heathrow Airport Staff

2005-09-30T16:12:00.000+02:00

Long time since I posted, I know. But I've been preparing for studying in Europe, and have had to travel over there to hand in some paperwork.

Well, anyways, I flew with United to Frankfurt, with a stop-over in London Heathrow. There I noticed that everywhere there were signs that threatened passengers with fines and imprisonment should they use abusive language to any of the airport staff. Now, first off, I think this is a very good thing, nobody should use abusive language to the airport staff. But the staff should extend the same courtesy.

Heathrow is so poorly run you just want to cry. The signs are very unclear. To transfer for the flight, I had to wait until a gate was assigned for my flight. There were six passengers who were crowded around a monitor waiting for the gate to be assigned. Ten minutes prior to the the departure, there was still no information. Finally, though, I overheard two employees talking about the flight as they were walking by, and through it I managed to gather what gate I needed to be at.

I told the other passengers. Two of them didn't understand English, so I told one of them to follow me, the other one I told in German where she needed to go. So I walked into the gate with these people in tow. I immediately approached the desk where the two employees I overheard talking about the flight were not sitting carrying on about last night at the pub. I said "excuse me, is this the gate for Lufthansa 486?" One of them turned to me and said "the plane isn't here yet, sit down." This was very curt. Bastard. If I could have used abusive language without being fined or jailed, I would have let loose.

Arlen Specter's Op-Ed Piece

2005-07-24T22:26:00.000+02:00

Roberts' nomination doesn't look like the slam-dunk many think it to be. I predict a huge fight in the Senate, when people begin to figure out that Roberts is not exactly the most moderate of moderates.

Arlen Specter will be central in these proceedings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I detect a certain ambivalence with shades of apprehension about Roberts.

From Specter's Op-Ed piece:

The confirmation precedents forcefully support the propriety of a nominee declining to spell out how he or she would rule on a specific case. Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said pretty much the same thing: "We cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we would despise him. Therefore, we must take a man whose opinions are known."

[...]

He [Roberts] also emphasized the importance of stability. His focus on modesty and stability provide comfort that he would not be an activist but would respect Congressional action and judicial precedent. Whatever assurances may be inferred from those statements, our history is filled with Supreme Court justices who have provided big surprises once confirmed.

Roberts should not be appointed. He is against abortion, and he has time and time again proven himself to be a supporter of business interests over the rights of the people who work for them. His nomination would be a huge blow to both American workers and uteri alike.

Philip Glass Hip-Hop Remixes

2005-07-22T19:37:00.000+02:00

Wow, I just heard some Philip Glass remixes. They are fabulous. The minimal, hypnotic urgency of Philip Glass' music meshes well with hip-hop's gravitas-laden, deceptively simple Sprechgesang. Give them a listen.

[UPDATE: According to the creator of the remixes, he has been asked to remove the audio files, however, he added "they were very nice about it."]

Patriot Act Passed by the House

2005-07-22T18:45:00.000+02:00

The Patriot Act legislation has made it out of the House, and, in the wake of the bombings in London, the bill was easily passed. According to the Washington Post:

After a day-long debate, the House voted 257 to 171 last night to extend or make permanent the most controversial provisions of the law while adding a handful of new restrictions on the FBI. Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in approving the Patriot renewal bill. Other proposals for sharper limits were rejected.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the bill's author and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Americans are safer today because of the antiterrorism law. "The Patriot Act has proven itself over the past three and a half years as an invaluable tool against terrorists while remaining true to our strong civil liberty protections," he said in a statement.

Why is the Democratic party sabotaging itself in the House? The Republicans have the party spirit to get anything they want--within reason--passed. But the Democrats can't even seem to muster enough enthusiasm or sense of purpose to tie the laces of their shoes. No wonder the Republican party looks so "capable" to the NASCAR dads and Security Moms; when they say they are going to do something, they do it. Haven't the Democrats got it yet?--George Bush always uses the word "strength", and the White House spins things to make it look like the White House is exuding strength. The Democrats should attempt to beat the Republicans at their own public-relations game.

Democrats tried to say things like this ("A stronger America needs stronger leaders") in the Kerry-Edwards election, but when it came down to it, the Republicans won over with their swinging-dick politics. The Republicans' image seems to be that of a stern father figure, who is cooly calculating and willing to go to any length to protect his family: though, for the most part, it is a sham. The Democrats' image is much more Sturm-und-Drang: they are so anxious to do the right thing that they constantly question themselves, but when the time comes to vote, the two wings of the Democratic party split.

The Republicans use "talking points" to muster their party's strength. The Democrats have begun to use them as well. But now is not the time for talking points, now is the time for vigorous campaigning. Talking points are morally bankrupt and self-defeating. How soul-crushing it all is, to see the niveau of the debate drop to bland yet terse statements; as Wonkette so distinctly puts it:

Basically, by reducing their arguments to note cards, Democrats managed not to lose to the Republicans. Winning will take reducing their arguments to pointing and grunting. Or just give Kerry a lobotomy.

Jesus, guys, get it together. I'll not abide by having my library records looked at by federal investigators, even if they do have a "signed" (read: "rubber-stamped") mandate from the director. And I hate writing pep-talks, mostly because I know no one is reading this damned blog.

[WaPo]: House Passes Patriot Act Legislation

John G. Roberts, Jr.

2005-07-20T02:54:00.000+02:00

John G. Roberts, Jr.--let's, just for fun, examine the briefs bearing his name and find out for which people or organizations he was arguing:

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Appellant v. Tommy G. Thompson, in his official capacity as, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Appellees) [EDWARDS, Circuit [**2] Judge: Appellant Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ("PhRMA"), an association of drug manufacturing and research firms, challenges a Medicaid demonstration project administered by the State of Maine under the auspices of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary" or "HHS"). Maine's program offers low-income citizens a discount on prescription drugs, which is funded in part by manufacturer rebates and in part by a 2% state subsidy. PhRMA claims that the Maine program mirrors a demonstration project that was implemented by the State of Vermont, approved by HHS, but then declared unlawful under the Social Security Act ("Act") by this court in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Thompson, 346 U.S. App. D.C. 158, 251 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("PhRMA I"). The District Court rejected PhRMA's challenge and granted summary judgment for the Secretary.]
Fox Television Stations (FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., PETITIONER v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS; NATIONALASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, ET AL., INTERVENORS) [Argued for Fox against the FCC and the NTSO Rule. Fox wanted to own more than one type of media outlet in a given area, and the NTSO Rule was getting in the way: "The NTSO Rule prohibits any entity from controlling television stations the combined potential audience reach of which exceeds 35% of the television households in the United States. As originally promulgated in the early 1940s, the Rule prohibited common ownership of more than three television stations; that number was later increased to seven. The stated purpose of the seven-station rule was 'to promote diversification of ownership in order to maximize diversification of program and service viewpoints' and 'to prevent any undue concentration of economic power.'"]
American Council of Life Insurance (American Council of Life Insurance, Appellant v. Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency, et al., Appellee)
Southern California Edison Company (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION)
Alaska (ALASKA v. NATIVE VILLAGE OF VENETIE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ET AL.) ["The Tribe's land is not 'Indian country.'" Right for tax proceeds from the reservation for the tribe denied.]
National College Athletic Assc. (NCAA, Petitioner v. R.M. Smith) [a "Title IX" sex discrimination suit]

F.B.I. Loves to Surveil the A.C.L.U.

2005-07-18T05:28:00.000+02:00

For some reason there are 1,173 pages of documents pertaining to the F.B.I.'s investigation of the A.C.L.U., according to an article in the New York Times. This is somewhat disturbing to the A.C.L.U., who are real prigs when it comes to civil rights. They are filing a lawsuit against the federal government to demand an explanation for the glut of paperwork.

To put it into perspective what 1,173 pages is in terms of F.B.I. files: Adolf Hitler's file numbers 867 pages, L. Ron Hubbard's and Scientology's number 2,862, La Cosa Nostra numbers 1,200, and Walt Disney's numbers 570 (J. Edgar Hoover was very upset about the portrayal of F.B.I. agents in a Disney feature, That Darn Cat. Yeah, I hate Disney as well).

Here it is:

"I'm still somewhat shocked by the size of the file on us," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U. "Why would the F.B.I. collect almost 1,200 pages on a civil rights organization engaged in lawful activity? What justification could there be, other than political surveillance of lawful First Amendment activities?"

Protest groups charge that F.B.I. counterterrorism officials have used their expanded powers since the Sept. 11 attacks to blur the line between legitimate civil disobedience and violent or terrorist activity in what they liken to F.B.I. political surveillance of the 1960's. The debate became particularly heated during protests over the war in Iraq and the run-up to the Republican National Convention in New York City last year, with the disclosures that the F.B.I. had collected extensive information on plans for protests.

In all, the A.C.L.U. is seeking F.B.I. records since 2001 or earlier on some 150 groups that have been critical of the Bush administration's policies on the Iraq war and other matters.

The Justice Department is opposing the A.C.L.U.'s request to expedite the review of material it is seeking under the Freedom of Information Act, saying it does not involve a matter of urgent public interest, and department lawyers say the sheer volume of material, in the thousands of pages, will take them 8 to 11 months to process for Greenpeace and the A.C.L.U alone. The A.C.L.U., which went to court in a separate case to obtain some 60,000 pages of records on the government's detention and interrogation practices, said the F.B.I. records on the dozens of protest groups could total tens of thousands of pages by the time the request is completed.

What is even more frightening is that the F.B.I. used grand jury subpoenas preemptively to call organizers of protests to the stand before the protests. And what's this about the excuse not to expedite the records being not of "urgent public interest"? If it's not of "urgent interest," then why investigate at all?

Connection Between Philosophy and Fascism

2005-07-06T01:11:00.000+02:00

I'm back into the Musil again, and there was something that caught my notice. Musil proposes a connection between philosophy and fascism:

Philosophers carry out violence. Because they have no armies they use their philosophy to imprision the world in their systems. Perhaps that is the main reason that the greatest philosophical natures existed during the times of the greatest tyrants, while in the age of democracy and advanced civilization a convincing philosophy never quite made it into the light of day...

hmmm...

Senate Committee Releases Documents Pertaining to Abramoff

2005-06-23T03:34:00.000+02:00

Today's Washington Post has an article, and two PDFs (1, 2) of recently released evidence from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee: emails, incorporation documents, completed post office box registration forms, and even some flow charts for the kids. Yes, it's all here. There is enough to bury everyone this thing touched.

It's amazing to learn that Jack Abramoff actually believes in something noble. Yes, it's true, it turns out that he believes in the State of Israel. Mr. Abramoff used some of the money from the Choctaw tribe to provide for a stipend and for expenses of a friend who was training snipers to protect Israeli settlers. I'm surprised that he feels strongly about something ideal. While some may have hoped that Mr. Abramoff didn't use the money he received from perpetually oppressed groups in America to fund another perpetually opressed group, others are just left saying: "All's fair" as they gaze up from their Ayn Rand novels. But I'm left thinking that there is a remote possibility that the crimes he committed were all for a purpose that he considered noble.

I mean, say what you will about the contentious issue of Israeli settlements, but at least the stated end of those who support settlements is trying to build a peaceful homeland for the Jews. That's a noble goal. I'm sure that this wasn't a tax write off either. I mean, is that an acceptable write off, funding the training of foreign troops? I'm neither an attorney nor an accountant, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say: "No, that's not deductible." It follows, then, that he found the situation of the Jewish settlers significantly compelling enough of a reason in-itself to steal money from Native Americans and he did so with forethought.

In any case, what a complicated story. I really want to hear what Jack Abramoff has to say about all of this. It's just too bad that he's invoked his right not to incriminate himself, because that means we won't hear him talking at all.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff's Film

2005-06-23T02:31:00.000+02:00

According to an article in the Washington Post, Jack Abramoff produced films prior to becoming a Washington lobbyist, and, yes, even before he began extorting Native American tribes. But one group of people he never defrauded were cinema lovers in need of a ripping good show. I ran a search in the Internet Movie Database for "jack abramoff" and found a listing for a production and writing credit. the film, replete with the nordic, B-movie action star Dolph Lundgren, is what most would call over-the-top. But it makes you wonder, and I was curious. So I looked.

It consists of an KGB agent who is sent to Africa to kill a revolutionary who's fighting the Communists. After the agent arrives in Africa and surveys the socio-economic condition of the people he then begins to sympathize with the anti-Communist revolutionaries. Because I haven't yet seen the film, I don't feel that it is ethical for me to review Mr. Abramoff's film. --Huh, 'Abramoff' and 'ethical' in the same sentence. That's novel.

Maybe you want a little taste of Mr. Abramoff's dramatic brilliance, here are a few lines (from IMDB):

Dewey Ferguson: Man, what I'd give for a bacon-cheeseburger right now. Wash it down with an icecold glass of beer. Fuckin' A.
Kallunda: When we arrive at Porto Silva, there will be a celebration, and much feasting. Beer too.
Dewey Ferguson: Fuckin' A!
Lt. Nikolai: Do the americans all swear so much as you do?
Dewey Ferguson: As a matter of fact, in America, an american can swear whenever, wherever, however much he or she fuckin' well pleases! It's a little something we call freedom of speech, which I'm sure you russians aren't real familiar with!
Lt. Nikolai: We are free to swear.
Dewey Ferguson: Well yippee dee *fuck*! Guess I've got you bastards figured out totally wrong after all! I'll take the first watch. Shit!
[He walks away]
Dewey Ferguson: Shit! Shit! Shit!
Lt. Nikolai: Noisy little fuck.

The dialogue creates in me this uncanny feeling that I've seen something like this before. But where? Where have I heard, or read, something like this before. Oh, wait! In the excerpts of his emails in the Washington Post! That's it! How could I forget those? It was just gold when Jack Abramoff writes to Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, that he has "to start humping in corporate accounts" and how they should get together to "chat" about the accounts involving their "mutual friends". And how exciting it was to see the email exchange evolve from simply talking about "accounts" into a full-fledged plan to defraud the Choctaw Indian tribe!

I was on the edge of my seat through that exchange! But the suspense was interrupted--thank God!--by the two discussing golf in their boyishly arch way; just like Jack Abramoff through Dewey Ferguson while discussing first-amendment rights! Right on, we can say fuck wherever and whenever we want. That was great! Abramoff, I smell an Oscar!

It's just too bad Mr. Abramoff isn't somewhere right now where he has free time. If only he could be somewhere where he didn't have to lobby so much. Like somewhere where Mr. Abramoff wouldn't have anything to do except mine that great, infinitely deep brain of his. It should would be a shame to lose such a great lobbyist on the hill. Congress will have to begin pulling out those frequent flyer miles again to pay for their travel.

German Criminal Profiler Stages Classic Violent Dramas Using Toys

2005-06-14T21:31:00.000+02:00

Der Spiegel photo

An article in the cultural section of the German magazine Der Spiegel tells the story of a criminal profiler who acts out murders in classic dramas with toys in order to gain insight into the minds of criminals. He has been invited by a German theatre to carry out one of his performances, which are an explosive mixture of "irony and deep seriousness."

Translated from the article:

Thomas Muller is the epitome of an actor. He grimaces, clenching his teeth together through what he's reading simultaneously fiercely and gracefully, he makes his cues with perfect timing; his gestures are few but perfectly chosen for achieving the maximum effect. However Thomas Muller is not an actor, he is a profiler. A profiler that interprets some of the most twisted and heinous plays involving murder. Trained as a criminal psychologist, for his day job he chases serial killers, murderers who rape, assassins, and the demonically insane.

At his performance in the Kampnagel-Fabrik [the name of the theatre] in Hamburg he himself plays the profiler in the series entitled "Theatre and Science," only this time on the stage the characters out of Schiller's Robbers and out of Shakespeare’s Richard III are on the on the autopsy table. "Theatrical Perpetrators" is the name of his performance, and as a security precaution, Muller made the evildoers very small: he makes small, toy figurines murder and develop intrigues; he shows how high they can climb, and then he lets them fall, showing us in a subtle way the consequences of their striving. It is a fact that most prefer to use distanced irony in the script and staging, thus sacrificing full expression of the cruelty inherent to the plays.

Der Spiegel photo

The reviewer goes onto say that the main weakness of the play is that it focuses "more on the action and less on the dialogue that made the plays famous in the first place." All's well that ends well though, because it's a chance to have insight into the human mind from one who has seen pretty much everything horrible having worked for the police, the CIA, and Interpol.

MORE: Actually he's Austrian. And he has a best-selling book out called Human Beastie.

Fear, Loathing, and Betrayal in Texas

2005-06-13T22:26:00.000+02:00

In today's NYT, Fox Butterfield describes wrangling over an Indian tribe's casino in Texas, which was allegedly shut down by then Texas governor Bush because of the lack of proper political connections. After it was shut down, Jack Abramoff, the powerful Republican lobbyist who is suspected of wrong-doing in other matters, and helped shut the place down in the first place, turned around and demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations from the tribe that owned the casino.

By 1999, Mr. Abramoff, the lobbyist, had hired Mr. Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, on behalf of the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana, which had a casino in Louisiana near the Texas border and wanted to block competition in Texas. Mr. Reed was to drum up support among conservative Christians for Mr. Cornyn's legal attack on the Tigua casino.

Mr. Senclair has a file folder with 250 e-mail messages from Mr. Abramoff; his partner, Michael Scanlon; Mr. Reed; and others that he says outlines tactics for closing the Tigua casino and, after it was closed, for getting money from the Tiguas to win its reopening.

The messages were provided by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which has been investigating whether Mr. Abramoff and others defrauded Indian tribes. The committee plans to hold hearings this month on its findings, said Andrea Jones, a spokeswoman for the committee chairman, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

In one message dated Feb. 11, 2002, the day of the court ruling against the Tiguas, Mr. Abramoff wrote to Mr. Scanlon: "I wish those moronic Tiguas were smarter in their political contributions. I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah!! Oh well, stupid folks get wiped out."

Four days later, the Tigua leaders say, Mr. Abramoff arrived in El Paso with a plan to reopen the casino by getting a powerful Republican congressman to insert an amendment in an unrelated bill.

The cost was $4.2 million paid to Mr. Scanlon, $2 million of which he sent to Mr. Abramoff, according to the Senate investigation. The Tiguas were also told to make $300,000 in political contributions to Republicans in Washington or to their political action committees, which they did, Mr. Senclair said.

"Stupid folks get wiped out." Does "stupid" imply allowing emails describing extortion to end up in the hands of attorneys and the New York Times? Oh, well, it does.

[NYT]: For a Tribe in Texas, an Era of Prosperity Undone by Politics

Republican Plan to Strangle Democrats' Funding Sources

2005-06-12T15:19:00.000+02:00

The Republican party is attempting to fill all the major corporate lobbying firms with only Republican supporters in a bid to obtain the exclusive rights to corporate money. The lobbyists are the pipeline for major corporations' money into the hands of those with political power. Some corporations don't care who they give their money to, as long as their money is not going to waste. Now if all the lobbyists eventually all were to become radical Republican political idealogues, then they would probably take the corporate money and give it solely to fellow Republicans. This would put the Democratic party at a marked disadvantage when it comes to funding.

Is this happening? Yes. Who says? The liberal media? Yes, they say it, but it must be said that they are quoting Grover Norquist:

"There should be as many Democrats working on K Street representing corporate America as there are Republicans working in organized labor and that number is close to zero." He wants the project to include not just the top jobs in K Street firms, but "all of them including secretaries." (NYR of Books)

Let's just clarify who Grover Norquist is, here is a short introduction from the Nation [in the interest of balance here is his biography from his staff biography from Americans for Tax Reform, of which he is the president]:

A Harvard-educated intellectual and self-conscious student of the left, over the past decade Norquist has eclipsed such older stalwarts as Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation to emerge as the managing director of the hard-core right in Washington.

The most shocking thing about the Right's campaign is perhaps what they have achieved. Elizabeth Drew:

Last year retribution was taken against the Motion Picture Association of America, which after first approaching without success a Republican congressman about to retire hired as its new head Dan Glickman, a former Democratic representative from Kansas and secretary of agriculture in the Clinton administration. Republicans had warned the MPAA not to hire a Democrat for the job. After Glickman was hired, House Republicans removed from a pending bill some $1.5 billion in tax relief for the motion picture industry. Norquist told me, "No other industry is interested in taking a $1.5 billion hit to hire a Clinton friend." After Glickman was selected, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported last year, "Santorum has begun discussing what the consequences are for the movie industry." Norquist said publicly that the appointment of Glickman was "a studied insult" and the motion picture industry's "ability to work with the House and the Senate is greatly reduced." Glickman responded by hiring prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert's former spokesman, for major MPAA jobs.

Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform, keeps watch on other K Street firms and calls attention on its Web site to the ones that are out of line. According to a report in The Washington Post in 2003, an official of the Republican National Committee told a group of Republican lobbyists that thirty-three of the top thirty-six top-level K Street positions had gone to Republicans.

Norquist believes that the beleagured Democratic party "is toast." "No brag. Just fact." (Washington Monthly) Well, I think that an investigation into the ethical practices of the Republican party will signal the beginning of the reversal of the damage wrought by more than twenty years of altering the political landscape of this country for the worse. That's no brag. That's fact, as you yourself so eloquently put it, Mr. Norquist.

[New York Review of Books]: Selling Washington by Elizabeth Drew
[PBS Transcript]: Now with Bill Moyers, interview with Grover Norquist
[DailyKos]: Poll: Bush is out of touch

John Kenneth Galbraith

2005-06-12T14:31:00.000+02:00

John Kenneth Galbraith is one of the most influential--and controversial--economists of the 20th Century. He is a strong supporter for Keynesian price controls on goods. His address to the Yale graduating class of 1979 is challenging and inspiring.

In searching for the article I stumbled on something that occured in the aftermath of the speech. Stephen Kezerian, the Yale public communications news bureau director writes into the New York Review of books, who published it in the first place, and correcting a mistake the NY Review made:

In your July 19, 1979 issue you reprinted a speech given by J. Kenneth Galbraith at Yale. You incorrectly indicate that this was the Commencement address. It was an address at the Class Day of the Yale College graduates. Yale University has no Commencement address.

John Kenneth Galbraith, apparently sensing a subtext, cleverly and sardonically replies:

My address to the graduating class in New Haven, for those who did not hear or read, was on how, in these days of deeply thoughtful self-concern, Yale graduates could serve themselves and the rich while persuading themselves, and perhaps even others, that they are compassionately on the side of the masses. Never ask for more pay or lower taxes. Instead speak reverently of the need for greater incentive for investment and job creation. And so on. When I saw that the editors had given my homily the seemingly official sanction of the commencement address, I thought that the University would be pleased. Here was proof that the liberal ambiguities of the Brewster years were at an end. Money could now flow in. A rich and literate Yale man did write to tell me how much he liked my new design for self-interest, but the University, as we see, protests. Its unfashionable and unsophisticated commitment to the masses is unshakable, at least in that most strategic (and tautological) of sanctuaries the office of University Communications and Information. I underestimated you, Mr. Kezerian, and I am sorry.

NYT's Sensenbrenner Story

2005-06-12T11:59:00.000+02:00

Preston Brooks beating Charles Sumner unconscious on the Senate floor while debating slavery

David D. Kirkpatrick from the NYT weighs in with this:

A hearing on the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act degenerated into chaos on Friday, as Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. called Democrats "irresponsible," gaveled the session to a premature close and stormed out of the room.
"I think this hearing very, very clearly shows what the opponents of the Patriot Act are doing," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "They will talk about practically everything but what is in the Patriot Act," he said, before closing: "Thank you all for coming. The committee is adjourned."

Representative Jerrold D. Nadler, Democrat of New York, protested, "Point of order!" as the Republican committee members filed out of the room; the staff eventually unplugged his microphone. "Even though the chairman is not going to listen," Mr. Nadler continued, "those of us who question some of the actions of the administration are seeking to make sure that our tradition of liberty and freedom is continued unsullied."

After Mr. Nadler spoke, one witness, Dr. James J. Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, continued to testify, but about the hearing itself. "As we are lecturing foreign governments," he said, "I am really troubled by what kind of lesson this is going to teach to other countries in the world."

The hearing had grown heated well before Mr. Sensenbrenner pounded the gavel. After Chip Pitts, chairman of Amnesty International, said the detentions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, were "the gulag of our time," Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, called the comparison "anti-historical, irresponsible and the type of rhetoric that endangers American lives."

In a statement, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the minority leader, said, "The Republicans' abuse of power reached a new low this morning."

[NYT]: Hearing on Patriot Act Ends in an Angry Uproar

Mike Allen Article About Sensenbrenner's Conduct

2005-06-12T11:44:00.000+02:00

Yesterday, WaPo's Mike Allen filed a story about the Sensenbrenner debacle:

Democrats charged that the episode was another example of Republicans abusing their control of Congress and trying to stifle dissent over Bush's approach to counterterrorism. During the two-hour hearing, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) accused Amnesty International of endangering U.S. soldiers because a top official of the group had called the prison at Guantanamo Bay a "gulag." Sensenbrenner did not allow a group official who was testifying, Chip Pitts, chairman of Amnesty International USA, to respond until Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) raised a "point of decency."

C-SPAN2 continued televising the proceedings for six minutes after Sensenbrenner had departed, with lettering on the screen explaining the strange circumstances.

Maybe it wasn't Hostettler who didn't know about the torture memo, maybe it was actually Mike Pence. All I could remember is that it was an Indiana-boy. There's no way for me to listen to the audio on the CSPAN2 video, I don't have headphones.

[WaPo]: Panel Chairman Leaves Hearing

New Proof that the US Gov't "Fixed Intelligence" to Bolster Support for War

2005-06-12T09:47:00.000+02:00

The so-called Downing Street Memo was published in the Times of London:

According to this memo, dated July 23, 2002, which was distributed to the highest ranking officials in Britain by Matthew Rycroft, the Bush administration was recognized to be: 1. "fixing intelligence," 2. didn't care about making a legitimate case, and 3. already had no clear plans of what to do in the reconstruction. Here is the second paragraph:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC [petronius: National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Give it a read.

Sensenbrenner Being Insensible: Possible House Rules Violation Alleged

2005-06-11T05:27:00.000+02:00

F. James Sensenbrenner (R - Wis) is being accused of violating House rules by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D -Fl). Sensenbrenner is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and from the impression given by watching his performance on CSPAN-2 as he presided over the Judiciary Committee's hearing over the Patriot Act reauthorization, an all-around jerk when debating civil liberty questions.

The questions raised by the detractors, I found to be legitimate. Especially the issue raised by Jerrold Nadler (D - NY) about the sensibility of one of the provisions of the Patriot Act that in essence allows legal alien residents to be held indefinitely by the immigration authorities-- which is now part of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Then, and here is the kicker, if his/her detention is found to be unlawful by a federal judge and ordered to be released, the prosecutor may have the decision of the deciding federal judge overturned in order to allow for further questioning to be held to decide if there is any intelligence value to what the detainee. This makes no sense, because, for the most part, the definition of who can be held is too broad, and in practice is being used to perform a dragnet--rounding up everyone who matches a very broad criterion--: a Middle-Eastern descent. Unfortunately, the government is no longer releasing information on these detentions. At one point, though, records show that thousands of people were being rounded-up and held without having access to attorneys, according to testimony by James Zogby of the Arab American Institute.

There were many valid points brought up yesterday, but nothing that was valid according to Sensenbrenner's point of view. He continually questioned the relevancy of the questions and the testimony. Stepping on many a toe in the process, most notably the committee's rookie, the Hon. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, who presciently declared, before all hell broke loose yesterday, that the proceedings were "a trial by fire" for her, because this was her first time she sat over a Judiciary Hearing.

Click here for information from the House Judiciary Committee’s website, as of yet there is no transcript; the best bet is the video from CSPAN-2. It was the minority's turn to hear testimony. They called witnesses from Amnesty International, the American Association of Immigration Attorneys, the US Law and Security Program, and the Arab American Institute. Several sections of the American Patriot Act (HR 3162) are up for review. Republicans want to renew and expand several sections, but the Democrats on the committee are staunchly opposed to any broadened powers afforded by the reauthorization and for the repeal of the "sunset provisions"-- a sort of expiration date on the most controversial elements of the Patriot Act. The reason they were sunsetted was because there was a huge public backlash against those elements that almost held up the bill in November, 2001. If the public didn't want them then, they don't want them now! This bill is being rammed through committee.

John Hostettler (R - Ind.) took issue at one point with the witness from Amnesty International, when it was suggested that the United States allowed torture in it's internment camps. But the witness was quoting almost verbatim from two memos (September, October) written by Ricardo Sanchez and 30,000 pages of documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, previous mention of which he apparently hadn't heard.

Then at the end, Sensenbrenner stated that he would like to see some abuses of the library provision put into writing and then banged his gavel and walked off with the gavel in tow! Sensenbrenner's last words were a direct challenge to the proceedings. He thinks alleged human rights abuses are outside of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and should not be discussed there. Technically speaking he was out of line there. There are several civil claims in the works right now that seek redress from the United States for wrongful death and cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Judiciary, the scope of jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee includes both: "measures relating to claims against the United States" and "civil rights issues." Nothing that was being discussed yesterday fell outside of that scope. Sensenbrenner was being unfair and petty: and a discussion of that falls within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee.

After the meeting was adjourned, the supporters of the reauthorization followed Sensenbrenner, but the detractors stood behind and continued to have their say--even after the opposing side cut the microphones. There was a round of applause for Sheila Jackson Lee, when said she felt that there was an injustice of gigantic proportions being perpetrated by governmental authorities against Arab Americans; and stated that there is currently a prevailing trend by many in power to ignore their pleas for fair and equal treatment. This was the third time that the room applauded.

This is not "business as usual" in the House. It'll surely be a close vote when it comes before the House, because the new expansions aren't just cosmetic. There are also new broad powers that will be gained by governmental investigatory bodies. The supporters of the reauthorization and expansion of the bill are on the run here. When they listen to reasons why some parts of the bill don't make sense, or have caused huge amounts of harm, they can say nothing in the face of the facts that make sense even to themselves. Please take a look at the video and listen to the criticism presented by the witnesses. It's a vital document.

Robert Musil

2005-06-05T01:58:00.000+02:00

I'm inching my way through Robert Musil's Man without Qualities right now. The writing is chock full of analogy and metaphor, and at times it can be slow going. But his depth of description and his original style make it all worth while. I've written some thoughts on Musil. Please click through to read it, it is pretty long but doesn't just concern itself with Musil...

For example, the beginning of the book is a highly technical description of the weather. It was put there in order to parody the style of scientific literature. It lends to the novel a perfect description of the climate, so much so that you can almost feel yourself there, if, of course, you can manage to relate the technical description to your feelings. The uniting of a scientific consciousness with that of a literary consciousness--i.e. of feelings--is one of the central themes in this behemoth of a book, something which Joyce explored in the "Oxen of the Sun" epsiode in Ulysses.

The novel's main character is Ulrich. He is a mathematician, but previous to that, he had two other careers: first, he was an infantry officer before switching to engineering. He abandoned his career as an officer, because he saw that there was no way that he could really become "important" in such a field. Engineering, as a field, presents a problem for Ulrich, in so far as the engineers, well, they only talked about one thing: engineering. And Ulrich is a passionate man, who thinks deeply. (I am not trying to denigrate engineers here though: for christ's sake I seem to know so many of them: I love you guys! yeah! engineering). This is a man who designed all of the furniture in his house, just because he thought that his surroundings should be expressive of his inner consciousness.

Musil's attitude towards Ulrich, reducing him to the "man with no qualities", is ambivalent. On one hand to have no qualities is a bad thing. But on the other hand, to not have any qualities is what lends Ulrich the ability to question the world around him. It imparts to him drive and vigor and no fast connection to any tradition: it makes him original. And it is also worth mentioning that the author's own resume (or CV, whatever) resembles Ulrich's own to a "t".

It is clear that "qualities" are central to the entire story. And where there is ambivalence, there is generally a question that is worth considering, using it as a leverage point to get at the central themes of any given story. Doubtlessly, because the title reverberates again and again throughout the actual body of the novel, this is something that should be investigated. I continually find myself asking the questions about qualities: what does it mean to have no qualities? What are qualities? Is being a 'qualitied' person a good or a bad?

Well, first off, let's answer what Musil means when he speaks of a person having no qualities. To have no qualities is to live without any absolutes. Any given thing cannot be either good or bad without absolutes. Lacking qualities, one decides on whether something is good based on the context that any given thing finds itself in.

The [human] spirit [Geist] has experienced that Beauty makes something good, bad [literally: "schlect,"which is different from evil, which is "boese": this requires a will], dumb, or enchanting. The spirit separates a sheep from a penitent, and finds in both meekness and patience at the same time. The spirit studies a substance, and finds that in great quantities it is a poison, in small quantities it finds it to be quite tasty. Spirit knows that the mucous membranes on the lips are structurally the same as the mucous membranes found in the stomach, but also knows, that the lowliness that these lips force someone down towards is the same as the meekness of the saints. The spirit confuses things, takes things apart, and puts them back together in a new way. Good and evil [boese], over and under are for the spirit not just skeptical-relative conceptions, but are actually elements in a function; they are values that are derived from a relationship of which they are members. The spirit has through the centuries come to realize that vices can become virtues and virtues can eventually become vices, and finds it to be merely a lack of skill if they don't fully complete the transition; because, in a lifetime a criminal can become a useful individual. The spirit doesn't recognize anything as being either permitted or forbidden, because everything has its own quality, with which something can have part in a greater, new relationship. The spirit secretly hates like the death everything that acts like it stands forever unchanging: the great ideals and the great laws along with their fossilized impressions: the character that is sure of itself. The spirit holds no thing as being unchanging, no one ego, no one way of ordering the world, because our cognitions can change any day; the spirit doesn't believe in any obligation, and everything posesses the value that it has before the next act of creation[Schoepfung], like a face to which one speaks that at every moment changes its expression at the hearing of each new word.

Ulrich is filled with Spirit, with intellect and knowledge, but he lacks anything that (as Musil puts it in regard to Ulrich's counterpart, who is a man with qualities named Paul) "defines the borders of his thoughts," say religion, specifically catholicism, from which a stable thought can be built, provided one holds to the presuppositions that are laid out by the church in the form of dogma.

This forms the driving force of the novel. The whole question is the danger and the alienation that Ulrich's "borderless" subjectivity brings. Look at it in terms of the question that Musil also presents in the story: there is a mentally ill man who kills a prostitute in the story, because he felt that she was going to bring him to sin. On one hand, his heart is in the right place, he only wants to do good, but the way he contextualizes himself in the world is off. The killer's problem rested with the blending of subjectivity, his inner mind, with the rules of the "real" "objective" world. The question is, if someone thinks in his mind that he is truly doing good, should he be punished for his actions? Well, the law would say "yes," but with a caveat: the person still murdered, and they should be punished for it, provided that this person is truly ill. But Musil pushes the question further, and asks us: if one is 60% of the time capable, and 40% of the time incapable of telling right from wrong, should this person be declared capable? Should the courts even be deciding? Why not leave the matter to the psychiatrists to decide? Even if we would leave the decision for the experts to decide, though, the courts would have the ultimate say.

I read a case in which a man killed two lesbian women who were having sex in a tent on a public campground. This man was so offended by their love-play that he shot both of the women, one of them eventually died, and his case came before court. The court finally found the man guilty of murdering the women in the first degree, rejecting the man's arguing that he experienced sexual trauma in prision and that his mother may have been a lesbian, to get his punishment knocked down to the second degree. The court just didn't buy it. But, Musil's Ulrich would probably respond to their decision with the question: "Isn't any man who would kill two complete strangers because they were practicing lesbian sex findamentally insane?"

There is a story (in German) written by Schnitzler about a mother whose son attacked her with an axe. Everyone was surprised at this, because the mother treated the boy very well, even despite his gambling and carousing. She would always give him money, even out of her meagre savings, or borrow from others for this ingrate. The mother eventually died, but before, she begged her doctor to advocate for her son, because he was not responsible for his actions she said! According to the mother, right after he was born, she was overcome with hate for him, and decided to smother him with a pillow. She stopped herself though, and he was alright, but she convinced herself that through all these years her son remembered that look in her eyes. She was consumed with guilt through all those years! The doctor in the story assures her that the boy couldn't have remembered, and that a lifetime of coddling and loving the boy undoes a momentary lapse in judgement, but the mother refused to believe him. She knew he remembered, and that the reason he turned out the way he did was because of that.

Schnitzler leaves it open in the end: the doctor himself is thrown into doubt.

Are there remembered fragments from the first moments of our being that refuse to be wiped away? Those memories that we just can't put our fingers on that just don't simply disappear without a trace? Is perhaps a ray of sunshine that comes through our nursery window the primary source of a lifetime of happiness? And when a mother's first glance is filled with love and sweetness, don't these things eventually reflect themselves in the glance of the boy as he grows? ... just imagine when a child's first night in this world is spent in a horrible fear of death. I have decided to go to court, because how can one say whether what we do is a result of what we want to do or what we must do.

The nature of free will is called into question by both Musil and Schnitzler. Although many think that we have these questions answered with the exhortation "let the courts decide!" we just can't shove the blame from off of ourselves. There's an imperative present in both of the stories to advocate for a victim before a public who holds this person for being absolutely guilty and in complete control of him/herself. But if someone can emphasize with these people, if someone can feel what they feel, then this person must be able to feel that this person doesn't have the faculties to choose between right and wrong. The question that the courts attempt to answer in order to arrive at a judgement is how much the person's actions are able to be controlled. If a court finds that they can control their actions they are usually put in prison or sentenced to death, if not, then they're sent to a mental institution. But what about those who are mostly in control of themselves, who've shown themselves to be perfectly rational people in daily life, but who end up killing somebody in a grisly fashion merely because of some horrible trauma in his/her life? They can't be held to the same standard as a person who kills someone else in a robbery. Can they?

There are people out there who talk about personal responsibility like it is some magical force that we are all capable of. That is all well and good. A child would most likely grow up to be a very poor adult if s/he didn't recognize the ramifications of his/her actions. If s/he was simply told by his/her parent that his stealing candy that s/he didn't need was not his/her fault, because he was overcome by his animalistic desire for sweets, then the child might not at the moment lose all sense of personal responsibility. But imagine if this were done over a period of years, in a myriad of ways. There are people like this around. There really are.

But can we blame these people? The very same people who blame everyone else? If we just continually blame them for our poor economy, because these people are most often seen as being lazy and being goldbrickers and living off of welfare, if we point our fingers at them, and say that they are the cause of all of our problems, then aren't we also guilty of an injustice, for the simple reason, and here is the crux of this: because we know better. They should know better, but they don't, though that's no reason to punish them. Or is it? Punishing somebody who doesn't see and who isn't brought to see his/her fundamental problem is not right, because they're not acting with a clear mind. Simply to say that there are people out there that have brought themselves to "see the error of their ways" isn't enough, because there are plenty of people, even more people, who just don't. Can we blame anybody?

Just look at Iraq. Yeah, a part of me said: "Great, unseat Saddam, take care of this dictator once and for all." But another part of me was screaming: "No, be cautious, there will be huge civilian casualties, wanton destruction, and looting of the country by the victors." This side eventually won out, because I realized that we were going into the thing for all the wrong reasons. The troops who were sent there, the vast majority of them probably believed that the Iraqis were responsible for Sept. 11, and so does/did the vast majority of the American population, according to several polls. Because we went into this thing with the wrong intention and for the wrong reasons, even though the country may be objectively better in the end, doesn't that make it wrong? If we asked this question, though, we would never reach any conclusion. There would be no wars, but there would also be no peace.

We need to prove to the world that our intentions are clear. We need to intervene in Sudan. We need our actions to fall into line with what we are saying. We justified Iraq in the name of justice. But it looks a lot like it was actually for oil and for more control in the near east. Our problem is just that we don't even think that we need to prove that it wasn't.