31 Jan 2007
School to test for students' weekend drinking

Lest you think I've been overreacting of late against perceived threats to our liberty, I offer the following tale.

How long before we institute a urine test for sexual activity, punishing the unmarried for their fornications? It'd sure fit right in with "abstinence only" sex-ed classes, eh?

So am I really making mountains out of molehills? Draw your own conclusions.

Some teenagers who drink over the weekend could be in big trouble come Monday morning: A New Jersey school district plans to institute random urine tests capable of detecting whether alcohol was consumed up to 80 hours earlier.

(link) [CNN]

23:37 /Politics | 3 comments | permanent link

Molly Ivins Is Dead at 62; Writer Skewered Politicians

While I can't say I agreed with her 100% of the time, whatever she said she said with style and wit and grace. She will be missed, indeed.

Molly Ivins was a liberal newspaper columnist who delighted in skewering politicians and interpreting, and mocking, her Texas culture.

(link) [NYT > Home Page]

22:49 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

Cold, Colder and Coldest

All of our water has turned to ice, and winter is really, really, finally here. The air temperature in the barnlot this morning was -7°F, and the wind was out of the west at a nice steady 15 mph. You do the math for the wind chill...

Brrrrrr....

22:45 /Home | 0 comments | permanent link

30 Jan 2007
Americans have Certain Unalienable Rights

Rarely have I ran across a piece (usually an editorial) that shows such a stunning lack of comprehension of the meaning of "rights", and indeed the entire concept of Liberty. The only problem here is "where to start". So how about at the beginning?

Americans are inclined to claim a “right” to participate in whatever behavior the government decides to restrict. Remember claims of a right to drive without a seat belt after laws requiring their use took effect? Even today, motorcycle riders in various states claim a right to ride without a helmet.

You know, this is true! Because Americans, by and large, still have an innate sense of what liberty actually means.

When members of the first Congress decided to enumerate specific rights of citizens, they were concerned about protecting Americans’ rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to be safe in their homes from unwarranted government intrusion, to a fair criminal justice system. They never had in mind guaranteeing a right to puff away in public or to maintain workplaces that endanger the health of patrons and workers.

Oh, really? Why did this bonehead stop halfway through the Bill of Rights? Keep reading, friend, until you hit Amendment Number 9:The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. They were certainly aware of, and concerned by, governmental intrusion upon the peoples rights.

In claiming such non-existent “rights,” local residents who complain about the new smoking laws governing Fort Wayne and Allen County diminish the true rights Americans enjoy and much of the world craves.

Note that he's simply dismissed the claimed rights to run your own business and travel without straps and helmets as "non-existent". No word as to why, other than that they don't appear specifically in the Constitution. Nice. Horses aren't mentioned in there, either, dipshit, but can you imagine an American Congress in the 19th century forcing hats off the heads of cowboys to be replaced by safety helmets? Didn't think so ... how about trying to elucidate some reason why you think these rights don't exist? Maybe he's sensed he's out of his depth, as he starts quoting law professors...

“Generally speaking, at least as a federal constitutional matter, our rights are enumerated and are mostly the right to be left alone by the government – that is, not to be searched, not to be censored, not to have our liberty taken without due process,”[Lauren]Robel[dean of the Indiana University School of Law] says.

Now this is scary: apparently the dean of our state law school has never heard of the Ninth Amendment. Or has conveniently forgotten it.

"'Rights' and 'entitlements' are often confused," says Leonard Harris, a philosophy professor at Purdue University in West Lafayette. “We have an entitlement to jog along a jogging trail at our local park, but we do not have a right nor do we have an entitlement to endanger other joggers by swinging a sword around as we jog. Entitlements are what we have at the park because the jogging trail is something we all can enjoy so long as others respect everyone’s need for safety.”

Ohhh, look out! A philosopher! But one who's apparently had his brains sucked out: we have an absolute right to travel, and in fact, to swing our sword around as we do so. Our fellow travelers have the right not to be sliced in half by our sword, however, and should we do so, we should expect to pay the consequences of our violation of their right to remain whole and intact via a criminal prosecution. The government does not grant us an "entitlement" to move about - our right to do so arises from Nature itself. Perhaps this philosopher has never read John Locke.

"Consider what a right is,” says Clark Butler, a professor of philosophy at IPFW. A right, he says, is the ability "to do something that is socially recognized in your community as legitimate."

Then people in Iran or Afghanistan have no right to be a Christian (or a heathen) - and the society has every right to put them to death for even thinking about it. Need I continue?

Many people would agree they have a right not to be exposed to secondhand smoke against their will. As the recent debate over smoking has shown, some people also believe in a right to allow smoking in the business they own. When people claiming opposing rights butt heads, "That’s when you say, 'I need a lawyer,' " says Herman Belz, a professor of history at the University of Maryland.

You don't need a lawyer for this - you need a basic understanding of property rights. Nobody need be forced to smell second hand (or first hand, or third hand) smoke any more than they need be exposed to public nudity: if you don't like smoke or boobies, don't go into places where smoke is in the air and boobies are floppin' around! Simple, really! And this system has worked quite well.

Clearly, government has long had the power to pass laws and issue regulations to protect the safety of Americans – in workplaces, in public places, even in their homes. The federal government, for example, has essentially forced states to require seat-belt use and to establish a minimum drinking age of 21. Local laws require smoke detectors in homes.

Having the power to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it.

The authority that allows the government to prohibit smoking over a restaurant owner’s objections is the same governmental power that regulates working conditions in factories and coal mines. Such regulation has saved countless lives.

Statistically speaking, most violent crime is committed by young black males. If we simply placed all of these "high risk" individuals into (concentration?) camps, we'd undoubtedly save countless lives... does (potentially) saving lives justify the obviously gross violation of their human right to liberty? According to this editorial, apparently so.

I'm going to stop now before I get sick. I'm ashamed to be an American and a Hoosier when I read tripe like this presented as a serious discussion. The saddest thing is that most folks will silently shamble along this path, until one of their rights disappears into the maws of the Safety State. If we do not stop these encroachments, and indeed roll them back, we will not remain a free nation for much longer.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.-- Ben Franklin

Opponents of recent moves to restrict exposure to secondhand smoke have angrily criticized local officials for tampering with their “right to smoke.” Restaurant owners have claimed a “right” to decide whether to permit or restrict smoking in their businesses.

(link) [Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette]

via Masson's Blog

23:54 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

Patents for dynamic Web pages to get another look

Patently ridiculous.

Patent Office will revisit two patents that critics say might imperil any site that employs a search feature or generates custom Web pages from user input.

(link) [CNET News.com]

06:52 /Copywrongs | 0 comments | permanent link

BeOS: the Mac OS X might-have-been

Who remembers BeOS? Well, I do, for one. An interesting system - certainly technically superior to the Windoze of it's day (95 and 98), but marketed by morons. More proof that mere technical superiority is not enough. Money, panache and marketing mojo are also required if a product is going to fly.

As World+Dog gets its head around Windows Vista, let's look back at an operating system that might have been a contender, very nearly becoming Apple's next-generation OS and, but for Linux, almost certainly the key alternative to Windows in the x86 world. Ladies and gentlemen, who remembers the Be OS?

(link) [The Register]

06:51 /Technology | 0 comments | permanent link

29 Jan 2007
A Weekday Blog?

Hmmm, I seem to be noticing a pattern here. I just missed two days of blogging here, and have missed at least one day a week for the past couple of weeks. Very unusual for me, but I just can't seem to bring myself to sit down at the computer for extended periods of time on the weekends. At least not now that I'm sitting at one for at least eight hours every weekday.

Maybe I'll get back into the swing of it as time passes, but for now, well, let me just apologize for the lack of postings and promise to try and do better.

07:23 /Home | 0 comments | permanent link

Who Killed the Webmaster?

Colonel Mustard. In the library. With the wrench.

With the explosive growth of the Web in the previous decade, many predicated the birth of a new, well-paying, and in-demand profession: the Webmaster. Yet in 2007, this person has somehow vanished; even the term is scarcely mentioned. What happened? A decade later I'm left wondering: Who killed the Webmaster?

(link) [Slashdot]

07:15 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

26 Jan 2007
Jan. 26, 2006: End of an Era

I'm not sure there'll be many mourners at this funeral. But still, a noteworthy event. I wonder if tehre are any "classic" messaging companies still operating in the Third World?

In the years before spam, the Western Union telegram becomes a backbone of fast communication over long distances. Not anymore. Compiled by Tony Long.

(link) [Wired News: Top Stories]

07:02 /Technology | 0 comments | permanent link

Brain's 'addiction centre' found

Ha! If you don't smoke, you're brain damaged ....

Individuals with brain damage who easily give up smoking could help towards a 'cure' for smoking, say scientists.

(link) [BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition]

06:54 /Humor | 1 comment | permanent link

25 Jan 2007
Cabbies refuse customers carrying booze

OK, this got me steamed. Just like the pharmacists who refuse to provide birth control, these boneheads have confused the ideals of religious freedom with the idiotic notion that the world owes them a living on their terms, no matter what.

Applying a bit of reductio ad absurdum might be instructive: Pentecostal cabbies won't have to haul folks from dances and not have the company can'em. Christian Scientist cops won't have to call the paramedics and they'd still be walking the beat. Hindus could demand jobs at McDonalds even though they refuse to touch the beef ...

It's one thing to own your own business and refuse to serve somebody: Hel, I've done that! And that's my absolute right - it is, after all, my business. But for an employee to think they should keep their job for after refusing to perform their assigned duties (be it hauling fares or selling pills) is moronic. If you don't like what your job requires you to do, find another job. And if you you don't do your job and get fired because of it, don't come crying about "religious freedom" ... you're just belittling those who really are persecuted unfairly for their beliefs.

In the past five years, 5,400 would-be taxi passengers at the [Minneapolis-St.Paul] airport were refused service for this very reason, said the Metropolitan Airport Commission, or MAC. Last May, passenger Bob Dildine says he waited for 20 minutes, and five cab drivers would not give him and his daughter a ride. He was carrying wine he bought on vacation.

(link) [CNN.com]

20:35 /Politics | 3 comments | permanent link

Premises registration will minimize losses, says Knight

Note that there's no explanation of exactly how NAIS is going to stop disease, only the bland assurance that it will "help". How? Sarpy Sam did a great little riff on this fallacy the other day.

As for the simplicity of premises registration, well, the government already has my premises "registered": I file farm tax forms every single year. The county health department issues me a license. The Indiana State Egg Board issues me a license - and I always have to list my address. Do I really have to fill out another form ...

Well, maybe not - according to Mr. Knight, it's all "voluntary". I just wonder if the USDA's definition of that word matches the IRS's. Betcha it does.

Bruce Knight, USDA undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, urged livestock producers attending the American Farm Bureau Federation s 88th annual meeting to participate in a voluntary nationwide program that could help prevent an animal disease outbreak from becoming widespread.

(link) [The Prairie Star]

07:17 /Agriculture | 0 comments | permanent link

iPhone trademarks: the real issues

A really good primer on the vagaries of trademark law, and why Apple may have a case after all.

Apple's iPhone announcement and Cisco's iPhone trademark lawsuit has brought the iPhone moniker into the spotlight. But other companies also own and use iPhone trademarks, and market and sell their iPhone products. Mark Rasch explains how U.S. trademark law works and the real issues at play in this highly publicized trademark dispute. This is sort of 'reverse trademark confusion'.

(link) [The Register]

07:05 /Copywrongs | 0 comments | permanent link

24 Jan 2007
Chinese Official Vows to Purify the Net

Just what we need: a "purified" Internet. Why is it we go to war over some tin pot dictator in the Middle East, and then grant this tyrannical behemoth "most favored nation" trade status?

China's Communist party leader, Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

(link) [Slashdot]

21:38 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

Boy's screaming kills chickens

We've had a few kids visit us that I'm sure could kill chickens with their screams. However, as we have all free range birds, there's no single target to concentrate on, and hence our birds survive!

But somehow your friendly farmer always seems to end up with a splitting headache after one of those tours....

Hundreds of chickens have been found dead in east China -- and a court has ruled that the cause of death was the screaming of a four-year-old boy who in turn had been scared by a barking dog, state media reported on Wednesday.

(link) [Yahoo!News]

via Secular Blasphemy

21:37 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link