GroupThinkTank
Revolutionizing the world, one "I agree" at a time
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
David Bernat, 1:25 PM:
An Editorial Cartoon I Like
I don't usually like Danzinger's stuff:
[NYTimes.com]
Unrelated: Hey, how long until they teach proper internet citations in high school?
David Bernat, 11:18 AM:
Friday, May 19, 2006
X-Pub, 6:14 PM:
I am on the internets!
I made it into espn.com!
So there is no way anyone will be close to as excited as I am by this, but if anyone ever reads Bill Simmons, they may note that "Eric Morganson from Mountain View, Calif." made it into his reader's email thing.
Woot!
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Mark Dixon, 6:15 PM:
Ray McGovern: Pubs may repeal Posse Comitatus
From AlterNet - "While some conservatives are joining civil liberties groups in expressing concern over the deployment [of National Guard troops at the Mexican border], the Republican leadership is reportedly pursuing another course: rolling back the protections of Posse Comitatus [Act of 1878] once and for all. Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the CIA who maintains close connections in the national security community, reports that, according to 'a credible source on the Hill,' the Senate 'is moving to amend [or] repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, ostensibly to allow greater options for National Guard troops on the border. The move would remove National Guardsmen from governors' authority and place them under the president.'"
If they gut or repeal the Posse Comitatus Act, they won't need martial law, the line between military and law enforcement will be essentially erased. That's a problem. As Reagan era defense wonk Larry Korb has written, the army "is trained to vaporize, not Mirandize."
David Bernat, 3:35 AM:
Not Even Negative Time Could Stop This
Strangely missing from the article, "One pair of fanatic local college students traveled all the way to Barstow for the 'furthest' Tommy's Burger after an all night study bender."
Tommy's turns 60
Also, no mention of a second order pole.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Mark Dixon, 10:40 AM:
FBI using Patriot Act to track journalists' phone calls
ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross said in an interview on Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now" that the FBI is using "national security letters", a strictly anti-terrorism provision of the Patriot Act, to track the phone calls of journalists. They discover the reporter's confidential sources in the government by tracking who they call or who calls them.
Ross says this is "how they essentially tracked down Mary McCarthy at the C.I.A. and got her in a polygraph and fired her based on who she was making contact with." The DOJ admits that the FBI "issued a total of 9,254 so-called national security letters last year, targeting 3,500 citizens and legal residents."
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
David Bernat, 2:31 AM:
In What Way Are Baseball Statistics Property?
You may have heard that a fantasy sports company is in court defending their right to use players' statistics without a license. MLB (rather, subdivision thereof) contends that statistics are property to be purchased, similar to names and team logos.
It seems to me that statistics should simply be the proprietary owner of the calculator. Why not?
The Article [NYTimes.com]
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Mark Dixon, 11:01 AM:
SCOTUS and the NSA phone database
Quoth the NYT:
"The New Jersey lawyers who filed the federal suit against Verizon in Manhattan yesterday, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, said they would consider filing suits against BellSouth and AT&T in other jurisdictions. 'This is almost certainly the largest single intrusion into American civil liberties ever committed by any U.S. administration,' Mr. Afran said. 'Americans expect their phone records to be private. That's our bedrock governing principle of our phone system.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/washington/13phone.html
Now, don't get me wrong, this NSA phone database troubles me as well. But looking at some past SCOTUS decisions I'm not sure Americans can really expect their phone records to be private. (Full disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. I just have a mouse and know how to click around on Findlaw.)
Smith v Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979) - "Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not 'legitimate.' First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. [...] Even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.' When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and 'exposed' that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information."
US v Miller, 425 US 435 (1976) - "All of the documents obtained, including financial statements and deposit slips, contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. [...] The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed."
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but these cases seem (to me, at least) to be on point here.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
X-Pub, 7:38 PM:
An Article that is Both Optimistic AND Appalling
Apparently Bush, while in Germany, said "I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court. And we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court."
After recovering from the absurdity of this quote (from the administration from whence the great "it's just like war except that we don't have to follow the rules of war becase the president says so and the courts have no juristiction" argument), I contined to read a pretty nice article on slate by Dahlia Lithwick (I've decided to give collumnists credit for their articles; it just seems polite).
Lithwick then enlightens me with a few other nice factoids:
250 detainees have been released without charges, trial or statement.
Only 10 (of roughly 760 at peak) detainees have been brought before military tribunals (with 0 receiving verdicts).
The existing evidence against most prisoners is considered "negligible."
Monday, May 08, 2006
stephen, 5:52 PM:
Sunday, May 07, 2006
David Bernat, 10:26 PM:
Yay, Liberals!
Ripped in its entirity from fark.com:
"Cambridge, Mass., declares illegal immigrants are welcome, health care and education are free and police won't harass them. Too bad the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,400 a month and immigrants can't afford to live there."
Article
Really, I haven't even read the article -- I'm in the middle of a seventy-nine hour Quantum Mechanics Final. And doing quite well, I believe. Hope you are all well, keeping track of your signs, your factors of two, and never setting h bar to one.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
X-Pub, 3:46 PM:
Mutual Funds For Evil!
So you guys may have heard of various "moral" investment firms. There are a bunch or environmental ones that invest most heavilly in companies that make an effort to be good to the globe. I have heard of Muslim firms that don't invest in alcohol companies (and assumedly a wider array of vice products), Christian funds that invest in Christian companies and a host of environmental and other lefty causes that push their own agendas. In general, I think this is a great thing. I think moral capitalism could be more influential nad innovative than government regulation in improving environment and social wellfare.
The Free Enterprise Action Fund disagrees. Essentially, this is an investment group that wants to promote a "pro free enterprise ideological benefit through advocacy that promotes shareholder value and defends the American system of free enterprise." They are really pissed off that people have social agendas when they invest or lead companies. So far, they have gotten mad that Microsoft switched to more ecologically friendly packaging, that GE supports federal emissions regulations and that Goldman-Sachs gave land to a Chilean conservation group.
I am just tickled that, in effect, this mutual fund is just finding people who are acting within their own idea of "good" and pushing them to do the opposite. They might be the most mustache-twirling evil things I have heard of. Also, apparently they have been performing much worse than the S&P 500.
Peace-out.
