tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902159241736272372024-02-06T22:49:11.314-07:00Sua Sponte(sooh-uh spahn-tay) adj. Latin for "of one's own will." These are my own thoughts on the law and life.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-37770267177506235452017-12-05T16:46:00.001-07:002017-12-06T13:39:24.186-07:00Part 2 - No the FCC is not Repealing "Net Neutrality."Part I generated some feedback that I'd like to address. Sorry, this is a bit "outline-y" I didn't have time to fully flesh everything out. Primarily two points:<br />
<div>
</div>
<br />
<ol>
<li>With Title II gone, where else in the law is net neutrality protected?</li>
<li>Isn't the debate broader than just the legalities?</li>
</ol>
<br />
<div>
</div>
I think all sides agree that if there were a true free market for internet access, net neutrality would result naturally, and heavy regulation would not be necessary to enforce it. So....<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<b><u>Where else is net neutrality in the law?</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<div>
</div>
47 CFR Part 8 - <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-8">https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-8</a><br />
<div>
</div>
This is where Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is codified. This is the part of the regulations that the FCC's proposed order would modify. Part 8.11 would be removed. All the rest would remain, including:<br />
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li>Sec. 8.5 - No Blocking</li>
<li>Sec. 8.6 - No throttling</li>
<li>Sec. 8.9 - No paid prioritization</li>
</ul>
<div>
</div>
These still apply to ISPs relationship with end-users. ISPs are in a difficult position. The actually have two sets of "customers." End users on one side, and "edge providers" on the other (edge providers are Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc. - content companies).<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
47 CFR enforces net neutrality between ISPs and end users. That's not changing. The "little guy" is protected. Title II was an attempt to do the same between ISPs and edge providers. (See the discussion below about this issue). TL;DR - net neutrality is being co-opted by large edge providers to avoid having to invest in infrastructure.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<strong><u>Anti-trust</u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong>
<div>
</div>
Anti-trust law is well established with over 100 years of court precedents. The Title II reclassification barred anti-trust lawsuits against ISPs. This FCC change restores FTC oversight and makes ISPs subject to Anti-trust law again. Many of the provisions of Title II mirror Anti-trust law. This makes sense because Title II was designed to regulate a telephone monopoly. The following are prohibited by anti-trust law. But most importantly, they are illegal only when a free market does not exist. This is the proper way to punish exploitation and not innovation.<br />
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li><u>Price discrimination</u> - Charging different prices to different customers (in our case either end users or content providers like Netflix, or YouTube. (ISPs could charge more if it reflected increased costs, just as they can still throttle traffic under Title II for "network management")</li>
<li><u>Tying </u>- requiring the purchase of one product to get another. It's illegal if it harms competition.</li>
<li><u>Group Boycotts</u> - All ISPs couldn't get together and block Netflix for example. Or a monopoly ISP could also not do the same thing on its own.</li>
<li><u>Market division</u> - Charter and Comcast could not agree to divide the country (or a city, or state) between them to avoid competition, for example.</li>
</ul>
Quick read on Anti-trust: <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws">https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws</a><br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.</u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong></div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Section 706 allows the FCC and each state communications commission to promote a competitive market and spread of broadband access to all. Specifically, the FCC must:<br />
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.... encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.... by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
</div>
The "Advanced Telecommunications Capability" mentioned is defined:<br />
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The term “advanced telecommunications capability” is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.</blockquote>
<br />
<div>
</div>
So, the FCC has a duty to promote deployment of broadband that allows users to send and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology. Sounds a lot like net neutrality.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
In fact, the court in Verizon v. FCC struck down the FCCs original Open Internet Order, BUT agreed that the FCC has great authority under 706, and could promote net neutrality rules using 706 without Title II if done properly. The FCC began to craft such an order to comply with the court's requirements when they shifted gears and decided to use Title II instead.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
So this approach is court tested and approved. Title II classification is not. It could, and likely would be challenged by the ISPs.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>Other issues:</u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong>
<strong><u>Net neutrality will be ineffective anyway.</u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong></div>
<div>
</div>
Net neutrality is a lot like pure "democracy" or pure "libertarianism" - it's a great ideal and a very popular principle, but it doesn't survive contact with the real world very well.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
Title II contains a provision allowing throttling, traffic shaping and blocking for purposes of network management. Optimizing and maintaining service on the network. This exception is HUGE. Almost anything can easily be justified as necessary for network management.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
Consider Netflix and other streaming video services. They are the 800-pound gorilla in the net neutrality debate. On peak days, Netflix is 37% of all internet traffic in the United States. All other traffic will be crowded out if providers don't throttle or shape Netflix. Add other streaming video, and it's 70% of traffic. Throttling is happening right now, I guarantee. Title II and net neutrality allows that.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
More info on streaming video:<br />
<div>
<a href="https://venturebeat.com/2015/12/07/streaming-services-now-account-for-over-70-of-peak-traffic-in-north-america-netflix-dominates-with-37/">https://venturebeat.com/2015/12/07/streaming-services-now-account-for-over-70-of-peak-traffic-in-north-america-netflix-dominates-with-37/</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><u>Net neutrality is increasingly unnecessary</u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong></div>
<div>
</div>
The internet today doesn't operate like the internet of 15 years ago. Net neutrality rules are becoming less necessary.<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
In the past, The internet was largely point-to-point and unencrypted. Blocking Ted's website was a simple matter of knowing Ted's IP address. The rise of several technologies has made it nearly impossible for ISPs to block traffic in any granular way. The "cloud", VPNs, HTTPS, and CDNs (Content Distribution Networks).<br />
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li><u>The "cloud"</u> - many companies host their services on Amazon, Google, or Microsoft's cloud infrastructure. From the ISP's perspective, they see traffic from Amazon's cloud. They can't tell if it's Ted's website, or some other service. And they can't block it without affecting other traffic from Amazon.</li>
<li><u>HTTPS</u> - encrypts traffic between content providers and the end user. So the ISP can't tell if you're checking email, a website, or listening to audio. If you add a <u>VPN,</u> then your location is masked too.</li>
<li><u>Lastly, CDNs</u> - are similar to the cloud. An evil ISP can't tell what content you're downloading or from whom.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<strong><u>Other issues do remain unsolved, and are certainly open for debate.</u></strong></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<strong>The largest ISPs are also content providers.</strong> There is a conflict of interest there. What's the Net Neutrality answer: slow their own content? Do we separate ISP business from content? This is the real issue. Most examples of net neutrality violation I see mentioned are ISPs favoring their own content. I think it's a legitimate debate to have.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Are edge providers customers too?</strong> This isn't a typical two-party transaction. On the internet, the edge providers generate the demand, but don't pay for the traffic. The end users pay. This is why Google, Facebook, etc. favor Title II regulation. It allows them to keep access to the ISP networks without helping foot the bill. In a real sense, Facebook, etc. have gotten net neutrality advocates to side with them in the battle between massive corporate edge providers and massive corporate ISPs. Far from protecting the "little guy," net neutrality is a huge boon to Google, Facebook, Netflix, and other large content companies. It saves them from having to share infrastructure costs, despite being massive users of the infrastructure of others.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-75228370456235790612017-11-28T15:55:00.000-07:002017-11-28T16:08:44.796-07:00No, the FCC is NOT Repealing "Net Neutrality."<br />
<strong>"Net neutrality" is not going away. </strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Net neutrality is, indeed, good for everyone. That's not really what the FCC is changing. A lot of the opposition to this change is really an overreaction. Some is spurred by misunderstanding, some by a reflexive anti-corporatism, and some is fueled by previous and current FCC commissioners who took regulatory control unilaterally, and don't want to relinquish it.<br />
<br />
<br />
As a lawyer who has also worked in IT for over two decades, allow me to try and clarify what's going on, and dispel some of the hysteria that's all over the internet these days - with references to the actual law, for those who care.<br />
<br />
<br />
What's being changed is this: Broadband ISPs are being re-classified as Title I entities instead of Title II under the Communications Act of 1934. Broadband ISPs were Title I entities from the dawn of the internet till 2015.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Title II classification is NOT net neutrality.</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Net neutrality principles are different. They existed and were enforced prior to this change in 2015. Neither Title II nor the FCC created them. They developed along with the Internet itself, and the government has endorsed them as guiding principles in regulation of the internet. They will continue to exist and be enforced after this change is done. Just not by the FCC using the tools in Title II. Enforcement has always been by a combination of FCC (under Title I), FTC, and Anti-trust law. That enforcement will continue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>A note about the examples currently circulating online of past violations of net neutrality by ISPs:</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
ISPs have only been Title II entities since June 2015. So, whenever you hear examples of what ISPs have tried to do in the past to violate net neutrality, remember that ALL of those situations were resolved by the FCC, FTC, and the courts enforcing net neutrality *before* they were classified as Title II entities.<u> In other words - after this change is implemented, we will still have all the same tools that solved all of those problems.</u> Anyone who tries to tell you that title II classification was necessary to solve any of these issues is lying, misinformed, or just giving in to the hysteria of others.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>History and effects of Title II classification:</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
The initial reclassification of ISPs as Title II entities was done at the urging of President Obama following a court ruling which struck down one attempt by the FCC to enforce net neutrality. The court decision offered another path to regulation besides making ISPs Title II entities. The FCC commission at the time chose instead, at the President's urging, to simply reclassify ISPs.<br />
<br />
<br />
Title II classification was one method of allowing the FCC to regulate ISPs and enforce <u>PRE-EXISTING net neutrality principles</u>. And a very heavy-handed method. It's akin to preventing speeding by placing every licensed driver in the country on criminal probation - with GPS tracking, and all the other restrictions and requirements that come with it. <br />
<br />
<br />
Remember, Title II was designed to regulate a government-enabled monopolistic phone company. <br />
<br />
<br />
Are there some positive provisions that mesh with the goals of net neutrality? - Yes. Title II does prohibit discrimination and preferences among users of the service. (47 USC 202). It requires safeguarding personal information. (47 USC 222). And it gives access to utility conduits in a uniform manner proscribed by the FCC. (47 USC 224). <br />
<br />
<br />
But those goods are paired with a heavy, intrusive set of requirements and grants of authority to the FCC. The requirements imposed on ISPs are neither simple, nor cheap - and go far beyond net neutrality, intruding into all aspects of the business. Sure, Verizon, or Comcast may be able to comply. But imagine the following list applied to small, local, or regional ISPs (XMission, Utopia, Rise Broadband, etc). Among other things, Title II: <br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Gives the FCC power to set and approve rates (47 USC 205)</li>
<li>Requires filing of fee schedules (47 USC 203)</li>
<li>Requires filing of all contracts with other carriers (47 USC 211)</li>
<li>Allows FCC to inventory and set the value of all corporate assets, and allows access to all corporate records and free access to all corporate physical property. (47 USC 213) </li>
<li>Requires prior approval of the FCC to expand ISP networks. (and they are only allowed to do so if it's in the public interest). (47 USC 214).</li>
<li>Gives the FCC power to modify or void contracts with equipment providers. (47 USC 215)</li>
<li>Gives the FCC power to intervene in corporate management and obtain trade secrets and new technology to make them "available to the people of the United States." (47 USC 218)</li>
<li>Requires filing of annual reports including: stock classes, values, and the names of the largest shareholders, corporate finances, corporate payroll info - including all employee salaries, value of all corporate equipment, etc. (47 USC 219)</li>
<li>Allows the FCC to create and enforce accounting methods and practices, including capital asset depreciation schedules. (47 USC 220)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<strong>Is it any wonder the ISPs oppose Title II regulation?</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Title II itself contains literally nothing about net neutrality as applied to a modern switched IP network. Such a concept didn't exist in 1934. What it does contain is massive regulatory compliance burdens for ISPs and sweeping powers for the FCC to violate traditional contract and corporate law principles. It will not be a big deal for the large ISPs and their large legal departments, but it will prevent smaller ISPs from forming or being successful.<br />
<br />
<br />
If we feel the system used to enforce net neutrality from the dawn of the Internet until 2015 is inadequate, Title II classification is a big, blunt hammer of a solution. Let's take the lighter-touch path, and have Congress address any problems that arise.<br />
<br />
<br />
Read the FCC Proposal here: <a href="http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Read the Communications Act of 1934 here: <a href="https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf">https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf</a>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-47262706810081928302017-10-04T22:05:00.001-06:002017-11-28T15:46:01.668-07:00"It"<h2 style="text-align: center;">
We all have our Boogeymen. </h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(With apologies to Stephen King)</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmd7LMEUIYZMTZCUrPsv5evQMNKxqZu48HNj6XLdq1ypiaTN5DD4BOWUlK0SFtgwp16PVoKnh7KUUzSiz4wm9MwLFWOElnCVQ-18Zb8CKvemBcdzpEVXEe1WYvyLt2lr9aMftcbTX8WWQb/s1600/it.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmd7LMEUIYZMTZCUrPsv5evQMNKxqZu48HNj6XLdq1ypiaTN5DD4BOWUlK0SFtgwp16PVoKnh7KUUzSiz4wm9MwLFWOElnCVQ-18Zb8CKvemBcdzpEVXEe1WYvyLt2lr9aMftcbTX8WWQb/s1600/it.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u>What is "It"?</u></b><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong><br />
<strong><u><br /></u></strong></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is a constitutional right, upheld by the Supreme Court - subject to a "balancing test" of competing interests.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is a personal right, and one's exercise of <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is no one else's business.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "sans" , sans-serif;">results in thousands of innocent deaths every year in the United States.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is seen <span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "sans" , sans-serif;">by its most extreme opponents as unnecessary violence, reckless, even</span> "murder" which should be banned.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> protects the individual's most private and fundamental rights from infringement by others. Hence, <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> should not be subject to ANY restrictions, according to its most ardent supporters.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"Its"</span> supporters worry that popular "reasonable" regulations and restrictions are a slippery slope, eventually leading to a complete ban.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is not seen as a serious concern in other developed countries. It is in the United States.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It,"</span> or one's support of <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span>, is seen as a litmus test in one of the two major U.S. political parties.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> inspires protests, marches, boycotts, prayer, and other collective action by both supporters and opponents. Supporters and opponents do not trust or believe in the good faith of the other side.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"Its"</span> leading organization for supporters has been promoting <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> for over 100 years. This organization rates candidates and spends millions of dollars every election cycle to promote <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It</span>."</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"Its"</span> providers are harassed, demonized and threatened at times.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is seen as sometimes necessary, even essential in some tragic cases, by most Americans. But most wish <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> were not such a "necessary evil." Most Americans are moderate in their opinions of "It."</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is a right most Americans never exercise.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is periodically thrust into the national consciousness by cases of horrific abuse.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> disproportionately affects those in poverty and minorities. Yet they are the most frequent users of <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It</span>."</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> is sometimes used by those who feel they have no other choice and who's life or health is under imminent threat.... however....</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">.... "It"</span> is more commonly used for less serious - some would say frivolous - reasons.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It"</span> has been the subject of numerous attempts by individual states to limit or restrict <span style="font-family: "gotham" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"It</span>." Most of these limits have been struck down in court.</div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, sans; font-size: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>"It" is the right to.....?</b></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Abortion?.... Yes.<br />
Bear arms?.... Yes.<br />
<br />
Each of the above statements is true of both those issues (and possibly others).</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
We all have issues that we feel strongly about. We all defend our view of rights, liberty, and personal privacy. Though we have (sometimes sharply) different ideas about right and wrong, fundamental liberty, and the role of government in enforcing or protecting our "rights" -- if we are passionate -- we often think about and categorize the issues similarly.</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
Hopefully, before we demonize those on the other side, we can stand back and understand how they see the issue.</div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: gotham, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
<br /></div>
Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-28405594454556588662016-07-25T14:26:00.002-06:002016-07-25T14:41:49.319-06:00A Little Careless?I've been seeing people post that Hillary Clinton was "a little cavalier about internet security."<br />
<br />
As a lawyer who also has 20 years of professional IT experience (including setting up and managing many email systems) I feel qualified to refute that. I can assure you she was not "a little cavalier about internet security."<br />
<br />
Let's count the careless here. This is from an information security perspective. Maybe you don't realized just how dangerous this was.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Hiring someone without security clearance to install a server and email software in her home. That person had full administrative access to her email for an unknown length of time.</li>
<li>Registering a domain with her name in it, clintonemail.com, and a public registration. (At this point, literally everyone on earth knows who's system it is, AND that it's used for email, AND what software and version is used, AND its rough geographic location, AND the ISP providing service, AND the type of internet connection used, AND that it doesn't have government security). This also tells us that she hired an idiot for step 1.</li>
<li>We have no idea whether she had a firewall in place. Her version of Windows, without a firewall in place is routinely compromised within minutes of being connected to the internet).</li>
<li>We don't know who her ISP was, what security they had in place, or whether they had access to the server at any point. </li>
<li>Repeating 1, 3 and 4 when she moved the server to a hosting provider.</li>
<li>We don't know the physical security of the server at her home, or at either of the ISPs. Was physical access restricted? Does anyone know?</li>
<li>We don't know who moved the server twice. All the classified information was put into the hands of unknown persons, multiple times for hours or days at a time. Was any other software installed during the move? Were any drives copied?</li>
<li>We don't know what remote management solution was used, how it was protected, who had access, and for how long.</li>
<li>We don't know what backup solution was used. Was there physical media? Stored offsite? By whom? Where is it now? If they used online backup, all the previous unknowns are duplicated for that service.</li>
<li>Did the staffer who installed the server do all the management? If not, others had administrative access to her email</li>
<li>Accidentally not turning the email over after she left state, and repeating 1, 3 and 4 again when she moved the server again.</li>
<li>She went through multiple servers, multiple wipes of the data, all deliberate, plus an unknown automatic purge schedule, an unknown number of manual deletions over the course of four years, unknown automatic routing rules, the main purge of over half her email as "personal", a purge of her, her staff's and her attorneys' mobile devices, "losing" the server until subpoenaed, and no archive or backup produced.</li>
</ol>
The above is why the FBI just assumes that our enemies have all her email. It also means that the email she turned over in no way constitutes a complete, reliable or authoritative record of her time at State.<br />
<br />
This would get anyone fired and prosecuted in the private sector - and has.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-69275503276426480892016-07-07T11:04:00.002-06:002016-07-07T11:04:40.823-06:00A "Top Secret" tale of two citizens.<br />
First, some background. Read these two FBI statements to get up to speed on both cases:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system" target="_blank">James Comey Statement on Hillary Clinton's email server</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials" target="_blank">FBI Press release on sentencing of Bryan Nishimura</a><br />
<br />
Both cases examined the "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material" Let's do a point by point comparison based on the FBI Nishimura press release:<br />
<br />
"In his role.... had access to classified briefings and digital records"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br /><br />"....[which] could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"....caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"....carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media at.... the end of his deployment [at the end of his/her authorized access]."<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"....continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check, and Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check, and Check</span><br />
<br />
".... admitted that... he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched [home/servers].... agents recovered numerous classified materials"<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"The investigation did not reveal evidence [of intent] to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />
<br />
"admitted to [investigators] that he had handled classified materials inappropriately."<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Check</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #cc0000;">NO. She still denies this. The FBI found that she did.</span><br />
<br />
Punishment:<br />Nishimura: <span style="color: #38761d;">Guilty plea, thousands in fines, loss of current and all future security clearances</span><br />Clinton: <span style="color: #cc0000;">None.</span><br />
<br />
Anything seem off about that to you?<br />
Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-46296609813333989492014-02-27T16:30:00.002-07:002014-02-27T16:31:57.390-07:00Religious Freedom and ArizonaI know this is not a popular point to make, but ....<br />
<br />Sad day for religious freedom. The governor of Arizona vetoed a bill that would have protected the rights of (among others):<br />
1. Jews to refuse to bake a Swastika cake for a Neo-Nazi celebration, <br />2. Muslim women to be covered in spite of company dress codes,<br />3. Black business owners to refuse to cater a KKK rally,<br />4. Catholic-owned pharmacies to refuse to sell condoms, and<br />5. Mormon landowners to refuse to rent their land to parties that will be serving alcohol at their gatherings.<br />
<br />
The law simply stated:<br />
<br />
"B. Except as provided in subsection C of this section, State Action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. <br />C. State Action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person's exercise of religion in the particular instance is both: <br />1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. <br />2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."<br />
<br />
That's the whole meat of the bill. The rest is definitions and remedies at law. <br />
<br />
The characterization of this bill as "anti-gay" in the media is dishonest and obscene. If this Bill is anti-gay, then the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as well. All the bill does is restate that amendment's protection for religion and the existing court test for when the state may lawfully infringe on religious practice. Gays are not mentioned, nor are Muslims, Mormons, Catholics or Jews. Everyone's freedom of conscience is protected. <br />
<br />
Let me repeat: All this bill would have done is restate current Federal and state law. Read it yourself if you don't believe me (the bill minus definitions is less than one page long): <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf">http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf</a><br />
<br />
What the media have done is pick one possible scenario under the law, and convinced everyone that the bill was about refusing service to gays and lesbians. <br />
<br />
Everyone cheering this veto needs to think about this long term. Yes, you've prevented a possible outcome you find undesirable. But, what happens in the future when the KKK sues because they were refused service at a business because the owner felt conscience-bound to not promote their lifestyle? If you think other laws will protect them, or "that could never happen here, everyone agrees the business shouldn't have to..." just wait. Times change, and tactics used to promote views you agree with can just as easily be used to promote others you abhor. The only safe path is to strongly guarantee each of us the right not just to believe, but to ACT on our sincere beliefs in both the personal and public spheres..<br />
<br />
Failure to check the types of lawsuits that prompted this law is a two-edged sword.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-69008814018370535172013-12-27T12:04:00.000-07:002013-12-28T12:32:11.215-07:00The Utah Gay Marriage Ruling is Judicial Activism, But Not Because of the Decision....Conservatives are quick to label Judge Shelby's decision a case of "judicial activism." But, what does that mean?<br />
<br />
I'm not going to criticize the ruling in this post. I am going to argue that regardless of your opinion on gay marriage, this decision is not the way we want decisions to be made.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>The Decision was Issued at the Wrong Point in the Case</u></strong><br />
<br />
Judge Shelby decided the case by ruling on a motion for summary judgment. He essentially ruled that there are no disagreements of fact. That is patently untrue and he made the ruling without hearing the facts in dispute.<br />
<br />
Motions for summary judgment are made at the beginning of almost every case, by both sides, as they were here. In these motions, each side makes a BRIEF summary of their case focused on why there doesn't need to be a trial. The goal is to convince the judge that there is no real chance the other side can win. <br />
<br />
There are no witnesses called, and only limited written and oral arguments are heard in support of a motion for summary judgment. Neither side presents all their evidence.<br />
<br />
That's the key point - Neither side presents all their evidence.<br />
<br />
This case will have a huge impact nationwide, not just in Utah. If judge Shelby's ruling is eventually upheld, ALL state laws and constitutional amendments will be invalidated, not just Utah's. His ruling really is unprecedented. <strike>No other</strike> Only one other gay marriage law has ever been found to violate the Federal Constitution. **<br />
<br />
In this type of case I want all the evidence to be heard. I want to know that the judge has heard all the arguments for and against amendment 3, not just a summary focused on criticizing the other side's case.<br />
<br />
Judge Shelby pointed out that the state didn't ask for a stay with their motion for summary judgment. The state didn't move for a stay at the time because no one expected the case to be decided at this point. The Plaintiffs did not move for a stay either, for the same reasons.<br />
<br />
<em>If judge Shelby had ruled for the state, proponents of gay marriage would want all the evidence heard. They would feel that the ruling "short circuited" the legal process - and they would be right. Summary judgment is not appropriate in a case of this magnitude.</em><br />
<br />
<strong><u>Not Staying the Decision Pending Appeal Means the State Can Never Win</u></strong><br />
<br />
In addition to not hearing all the evidence, by not issuing a stay of his decision (allowing the status quo to remain) while the State appeals, Judge Shelby is ensuring that even if Utah wins in the Appeals court, or the Supreme Court, the couples suing the state still win. <br />
<br />
He is harming Utah's position on appeal.<br />
<br />
Let's imagine another case. In this case two parties dispute ownership of land. One side has been recognized as the undisputed owner, and has kept he land as undeveloped wilderness for over 100 years. The other party recently discovered that they may, in fact, be the true landowner, and they want to build a skyscraper on the lot.<br />
<br />
The party wishing to build on the land sues the other party, and both sides submit motions for summary judgment. Both sides, and the court, know that the losing side will appeal the ruling.<br />
<br />
Let's assume that the judge finds that the skyscraper team owns the land, and rules for them, and allows them to start building the skyscraper immediately. The losing side has substantial evidence to present, and asks the judge to stop construction until they can appeal the ruling.<br />
<br />
The fair outcome in this case would be for the judge to halt construction until the case has a final decision. If she does not, and allows construction to begin, the skyscraper team wins anyway, no matter what happens on appeal. If the original owner wins in the supreme court 3 years later, it doesn't matter, the building has been built. It would be expensive and unjust to tear down the building and return the land to its original state - who would pay the costs to clear it, and who would compensate the developer for the time and resources spent to build the skyscraper?<br />
<br />
That's the position Judge Shelby has put Utah in. By not staying his decision, the Plaintiffs get everything they want while the appeal is ongoing. If Utah wins on appeal, the "damage" is done. the definition of marriage in Utah has changed because hundreds of gay marriages have been performed, joint tax returns filed, death benefits collected and so on. It would be unjust and expensive to allow Utah to keep traditional marriage. The longer gay marriages are performed, the more parties would be harmed by a ruling in favor of the state. Appeals courts consider this kind of harm when ruling, as they should. <br />
<br />
Leaving the law in place during appeal does not impact either the state or same-sex couples in Utah, and would not harm Utah's chances on appeal. That would have been the fair way to handle things.<br />
<br />
<em>In summary, judge Shelby did not have all the facts when he ruled. He alone invalidated the marriage laws of 33 states without hearing all the evidence from both sides in even one of those states. He seems convinced that no evidence could possibly convince him, the 10th circuit, or the U.S. Supreme Court to rule otherwise, and thus will not stay his decision. The fact that he chose not to leave the status quo in place while the state appeals means that Utah loses, and the plaintiffs get what they want, even if the state wins in the appeals court.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>That's what we mean by judicial activism</strong>.<br />
<br />
** (A reader pointed out to me that one other Federal District judge has ruled on 14th amendment grounds - Judge Vaughn in the California Prop 8 case. His is the ruling that still stands after the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit decision. However, this decision will not be appealed again, and can't be used to strike down marriage laws in other states -- It's complicated).Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-62750648778804617522013-10-22T17:11:00.001-06:002013-10-22T17:11:24.088-06:00The Russia Left Behind.... The Role of Civil InstitutionsThe New York times has a fascinating article on the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/13/russia/" target="_blank">deterioration of Russia outside of large urban areas.</a><br />
<br />
Things are much the same in the rest of the former USSR. People in the former USSR have completely lost the very concept of an organization not associated with the government. It's had terrible consequences for their society. Any Libertarian leanings I have, I gained in Ukraine.<br />
<br />
What are missing in Russia/Europe/Socialism in general are civil institutions between the individual and the state. The more robust these institutions are, the less the state has to provide. And, the less disruptive it is when the state runs out of money - which will happen here too.<br />
<br />
Such institutions include: families, churches, local governments, professional associations, service clubs, non-profits, charities, credit unions, labor unions, neighborhood committees, the ACLU, and yes, corporations both small and large.<br />
<br />
These play a major role in American society. We have been "joiners" since the founding. DeTocqueville commented on this. Our first instinct when we see a problem is to organize a group to solve it. Local groups for local issues, state groups for state issues, etc.<br />
<br />
We seem to be losing that tendency. To many people, everything is a Federal government issue, requiring a Federal government solution. The more government solutions we have, the more power is concentrated in a system which can be manipulated by those in power.<br />
<br />
As the old adage has it: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Decentralized government and less federal control over everything is one answer to the corruption of both government and corporate power. You can fight Walmart or your school board in your neighborhood and win, but try winning the same battle in Congress fighting corporate tax breaks or the common core.<br />
<br />
To those who say "the systems seem to work to sustain that status quo."<br />
<br />
Yes, exactly. Shrink the system, and you shrink the influence that can be wielded by manipulating that system.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-78071482283370376232013-09-04T14:42:00.000-06:002013-09-04T14:50:01.817-06:00Religious Freedom, Gay Marriage, and Name Calling.<div class="tr_bq">
Freedom of belief and thought are beginning to come under attack by the forces of "tolerance." We conservatives have been ridiculed for warning that legalization of same-sex marriage, and the inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination statutes would erode religious freedom. There's no question anymore - those warnings were prescient.</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
The erosion started in 2006 when Catholic Charities of Massachusetts faced a stark choice: Violate their religious convictions or cease to facilitate adoptions in the state.</div>
<br />
Catholic Charities ceased adoptions.<br />
<br />
The assault continues today, especially against small businesses. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/" target="_blank">A Bakery in Oregon has been forced to close in the face of threats, boycotts and an investigation by the state.</a><br />
<br />
In addition to this bakery being investigated the article lists more lawsuits and investigations:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Just last month, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said the photographers were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” </li>
<li>Denver baker Jack Phillips is facing possible jail time for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint against Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. A hearing before the state’s civil rights commission is set for later this month.</li>
<li>In Indianapolis, a family-owned cookie shop faced a discrimination investigation after they refused to make rainbow cookies for National Coming Out Day.</li>
<li>A T-shirt company in Lexington, Ky. found itself at the center of a Human Rights Commission investigation after they refused to make T-shirts for a local gay rights organization."</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The message being sent is: you can believe anything you want, but you can't act on it. Keep your thoughts to yourself. (And the message from New Mexico is that we have a human right to a wedding photographer ??)<br />
<br />
One definition of a religion is: "a system of beliefs which lead to actions which improve the believer."<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
<b>Freedom of religion is meaningless if it's all in our heads. Beliefs that don't influence the way we live don't mean much. If you aren't allowed to act in accordance with a belief, then the belief is rendered meaningless. </b></h3>
<br />
<br />
If homosexuality wasn't involved, these lawsuits would be dismissed quickly: Would people sue a halal butcher shop if it refused to slaughter and sell pork? How about an LDS owned business that closed on Sunday? We even routinely send police to protect KKK marchers exercising their rights.<br />
<br />
What makes homosexuality so different? Why is the belief that homosexual conduct is wrong vilified as homophobic, and worthy of state coercion and re-education?<br />
<br />
One last point: the term "homophobic" is a slur designed to marginalize and belittle people. It's designed to cut off debate. We don't call atheists "Deiphobic" or pagans "Christophobic" Principled disagreement is not a phobia, and those who disagree should be persuaded and debated civilly, not dismissed and belittled by name calling.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-54105353154843509812013-06-07T12:39:00.002-06:002013-06-07T12:41:56.943-06:00Government "spying" on citizens is not as sinister... or as new... as you think<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I'm not going to talk about the legal issues surrounding the
government monitoring of major online services. That's a topic for another
longer, more technical post. I want to tell a story:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">(Keep in mind - I'm not a cop. That's why this post reads
like a poorly written episode of Dragnet).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Imagine it's 1965. You're a cop in New York City. You're
assigned to monitor the local mob hit man. You know your hit man’s a small piece of a much bigger organization. They are seriously bad people, killing others and terrorizing the city. You know a partial name, where he
eats dinner most nights, and you generally know what kind of activities this
guy is involved in. What do you do first?<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You probably start by watching the restaurant where he eats.
You get to know the regulars, and you start building a picture of everyone who
comes and goes from this place. You pay special attention to anyone who talks
to your target - any of his "friends."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You'll want to know where else this guy goes to so you get a
description of his car. You may even follow him and find out the other places
he hangs out, night clubs, etc. Then you repeat the restaurant scenario. You
watch everyone and find out who knows who.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">All this is hard work. It just so happens that this guys is
really popular. He talks to everyone. It takes a lot of man power to keep track
of all those people. You can't tail them all. You and your squad have to sleep
sometime.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">There's got to be an easier way... finally you have an idea.
You talk to the managers of the restaurants and nightclubs and tell him what
you're looking for. Being upstanding citizens, they give you whatever
information they can, and they don't tell your hit man anything about it.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">All this is done in public, so you don't have to get
warrants. You can watch him and tail his car all you want on the city streets.
In fact he knows he's under surveillance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You need to watch the larger organization. But how can you watch 100 guys? 1000? You have serious
manpower limitations. If only you could put up camera's and tape recorders
everywhere. If you only could get a bug on one of his friends, then you'd
really have what you need..... but, it's 1965. You don't have the technology.<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<u><strong><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let's fast forward 40 years or so..... </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Same story, but make the following substitutions in your
mind:</span></strong></u></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mob hit man = Al Qaeda terrorist</span>
</li>
<li>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Restaurants and nightclubs = social media and email</span>
</li>
<li>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Restaurant managers = Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.</span>
</li>
<li>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Hit man’s car = terrorist's cellphone</span>
</li>
<li>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Stakeouts and tails = NSA monitoring</span>
</li>
<li>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">L</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">arger mob organization = Global terrorist network (Al
Qaeda, for example)<o:p></o:p></span>
</li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now we do have the technology to watch thousands, even millions, of people
at a time. We don’t need to follow them physically – no one conspiring to harm
others has physical meetings anymore. All the planning is done online. We don’t
have to watch 1000 different restaurants with 100 people per location. Facebook
is a global meeting place. It accommodates over 1 billion people. We don’t need
to listen to conversations from the shadows - Gmail and Hotmail host
conversations for 1 billion plus users. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The managers of these meeting places have
perfect memories, and “eyes-on” coverage of every part of their establishments.
People voluntarily post their action and locations regularly – complete with
pictures. They carry tracking devices in their pockets (cell phones) or cars
(OnStar) voluntarily – and even pay for the privilege. We don’t have to track
down their friends – They list and categorize them on Facebook. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">From the perspective of the authorities, monitoring this makes perfect sense. They've been doing the same thing for decades. Same methods, new location.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><u>Ponder these questions as you read about the scandal in the
coming weeks and months:</u></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">We wouldn’t question the actions of the cop in 1965, why do
we question the actions of the “cops” in 2013? </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The cop in 1965 wasn’t out to “spy” on innocent Americans,
why do we assume cops in 2013 are?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And the question that gets to the heart of the matter:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;"></span></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Everyone involved in my story in 1965 - criminal, cop and bystander - knew their actions
were public and observable, and the cop didn’t need a warrant, why have we
forgotten that in 2013?</blockquote>
<o:p></o:p></span></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Facebook, email, Google, et al are private entities, but
they are “open to the public” just like a restaurant or bar. <strong><u>You should not
expect<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ANYTHING you do on the internet
to be private.</u></strong> Interactions on the internet are the equivalent, privacy-wise,
of meeting in the middle of Times Square at rush hour.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Jason Perlow at ZDNet.com provides <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/nsa-all-up-in-your-privacy-junk-since-1952-7000016512/" target="_blank">the unapologetically pro-government position</a>, and explains why this isn’t a new issue at all. He
also has good links to additional reading.
</span>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-7156818997257528322013-05-24T15:49:00.000-06:002013-05-24T15:56:55.606-06:00When is Cloning not Cloning?<span style="font-family: inherit;">Scientist successfully cloned a human being last week. Didn't hear that? You're not alone. Few people heard about this. The news was underplayed in most media reports. News stories often acted as if the experiment merely turned "unfertilized eggs" and skin cells into embryonic stem cells.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(See, for example: </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/human-stem-cells-created-by-cloning-1.12983"><span style="font-family: inherit;">http://www.nature.com/news/human-stem-cells-created-by-cloning-1.12983</span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> - titled "Human Stem Cells Created by Cloning")</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348721/coming-human-cloning-controversies-wesley-j-smith?utm_source=feedly" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Wesley Smith in National Review</span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> analyzes the reasons for the inaccuracies in the reports:</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
First, we just went through a very busy news week. But I think the primary reason is that the scientists and media pretended that this wasn't really human cloning for political reasons; just a step in that general direction. </blockquote>
</span>I would add the more charitable possibility that journalist simply don't understand the science, and the scientists aren't eager to explain it -- possibly because cloing humans is illegal in many places.<br />
<br />
But the process was exactly the same as the one that produced "Dolly" the sheep. Smith continues:<br />
<blockquote>
Just like Dolly the cloned sheep was a cloned sheep embryo before she was a born lamb, these human embryos were nascent human beings created through asexual means. They were not implanted into a uterus, as Dolly’s embryo was, but destroyed for their stem cells. <strong>Indeed, they were created precisely to be destroyed. That is a very big moral deal.</strong><br />
<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #333332; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 23px; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">... a huge deal, opening up the possibility of genetic engineering of embryos, creating custom made fetuses as organ farms, and the birth of a cloned baby...</span><br />
</blockquote>
The scientists and the media owe us an accurate explanation. If we don't know what's happening, we can't properly consider the moral implications.<br />
Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-65461858677101117382012-11-30T11:14:00.002-07:002012-11-30T11:16:23.777-07:00Why Can't Wal-Mart be more like Costco?There's been a lot in the news recently about how well Costco employees are paid, particularly when compared to competitive chains - Wal-Mart in particular.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-walmart-be-more-like-costco.html" target="_blank">In this article</a>, Megan McArdle points out that Wal-mart is really in a different industry, and their labor structure shouldn't be compared to Costco.<br />
<br />
Some thoughts:<br />
<br />
I just posted this because I have also wondered why Wal-Mart couldn't be like Costco. This article at least shows that, as Wal-Mart is currently structured, it is financially impossible. The profits per employee are too small.<br />
<br />
The author is a bit snarky, but it's the numbers I'm looking at (pay rates from the paragraph right after the chart in the article):<br />
<br />
Wal-Mart: 10/hr * 160 hrs = 1600/mo = 19200/yr<br />
Costco: 19/hr * 160 hrs = 3040/mo = 36480/yr<br />
<br />
So, even if Wal-Mart gave all their profits to employees in higher pay (7428/emp.) they can't match Costco wages, let alone benefits.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean they couldn't pay a bit more, but their industry is so labor intensive that their costs won't let them match Costco (operating in a different industry - another point the author makes)<br />
<br />
Wal-Mart has many employees who are necessary but who do not generate much revenue. Whether they could restructure and match Costco is another question. It would be interesting to compare Wal-Mart and Target. Or Costco and Sam's club.<br />
<br />
I also think that Wal-Mart has optimized about as much as possible. If they could make as much with fewer employees (more profit per employee) they would. If they could increase revenue by raising prices, they would. After all, they are a greedy, soulless corporation out to maximize profits and minimize costs.<br />
<br />
I say that half in jest, but I do think they would do either if they could make more money that way.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-28857258187307155792012-08-24T16:32:00.001-06:002012-08-24T16:32:57.527-06:00Top ten things that would-be foreign policy wonks should studyGood advice for anyone who wants to understand the world. Even if we just pontificate safely from other fields of endeavor....<br />
<br />
<a href="http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/23/top_ten_things_that_would_be_foreign_policy_wonks_should_study#.UDgA8Fn4Zq8.blogger">Top ten things that would-be foreign policy wonks should study | Stephen M. Walt</a>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-43296512448810757432012-07-14T13:01:00.000-06:002012-07-14T13:05:20.676-06:00Language Abuse and the Federal BudgetSometimes people use misleading titles to try to make an assertions that is not supported by the facts. Shocking, I know.<br />
<br />
This article in Forbes - <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/" target="_blank">"Who is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?</a>" is a good example.<br />
<br />
<b>The phrase "Smallest ... spender" gives the impression that less money is being spent</b> under Obama than under any other president since Eisenhower.<br />
<br />
BUT<br />
<br />
<b>What he's actually talking about is the percentage change. </b>The title is misleading. It should be "Who increased government spending least over his predecessor's last budget."<br />
<br />
Percentage change tells us nothing about how much was spent, or how much was added to the deficit.<b> </b>All this is saying is that Pres. Obama thinks that post-stimulus spending level, and trillion dollar deficits every year are almost enough, he only increased spending a little.<br />
<br />
Because each of Obama's budgets has been larger than any Bush budget, but only a little larger than the last Bush budget. <b>He also doesn't point out that the 2009 budget, the last under Bush, contained the $787 billion stimulus, and was a bipartisan panic reaction to the financial crisis.</b><br />
<br />
The key in the article is the second paragraph:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion."</blockquote>
The author assigns that increase to Bush, not Obama. (it was passed under Pres. Bush -- For the record, Bush requested 3.1 trillion, Congress passed 3.52. <b>The blame for all budgets should rest on Congress, not the president</b>).<br />
<br />
<b>So the current president hasn't had to increase spending much. It was done for him by Congress in 2008</b>. He just maintained that level, and added a bit here and there. The raw numbers show this:<br />
<br />
2006 - Bush - $2.66 T.<br />
2007 - Bush - $2.73 T.<br />
2008 - Bush -<b><i> $2.9 T</i></b>.<br />
2009 - Bush - <i><b>$3.52 T.</b></i> (stimulus and financial crisis)<br />
2010 - Obama - $3.72 T.<br />
2011 - Obama - $3.63 T. (he asked for 3.8)<br />
2012 - Obama - 3.79 T.<br />
<br />
A bipartisan panicked 18% increase in 2009 has been expanded still further. So <b>2009 is the pivot point where the "new normal" level of spending was established.</b> All the talk of "cuts" in spending are referring to the base level of the previous year (which is at least 600 billion higher than natural growth would have been).<br />
<br />
What we really need is cuts back to the levels of spending before 2009, before the various stimuli were passed. <b>Cuts need to be on the order of 1 trillion dollars every year, not the 4 or 5 trillion over 10 years people are touting as "big cuts"</b>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-32694532464987010832012-06-27T17:36:00.000-06:002012-06-27T17:38:51.137-06:00Alternative Energy and the Importance of ScaleIt's vital to have the right perspective on any problem you face. It's especially important to grasp the scale of the problem. Otherwise you end up either "using a wrecking ball to hammer a nail," or "drinking from a fire hose. A more everyday example would be something like driving 20 miles (using a $3 worth of gas) to save 5 cents on toothpaste.<br />
<br />
A person, group or country can make great progress and produce impressive results in pursuit of a goal, and yet not realize that they are losing ground. It's the classic "Can't see the forest for the trees"<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304069/economists-without-calculators-robert-bryce" target="_blank">This article at National Review</a> provides the "forest-level" perspective that I haven't seen discussed in the context of wind and solar power. For all the progress they've made, and the impressive amounts of energy produced, you never see the scale of the problem. They aren't keeping up with the yearly growth in electricity use:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Between 1985 and 2011, global electricity generation increased by about 450 terawatt-hours per year. That’s the equivalent of adding about one Brazil (which used 485 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2010) to the electricity sector every year. And the International Energy Agency expects global electricity use to continue growing by about one Brazil per year through 2035.<br />
How much solar capacity would be needed to produce 450 terawatt-hours? Well, Germany has more installed solar-energy capacity than any other country, with some 25,000 megawatts of installed photovoltaic panels. In 2011, those panels produced 18 terawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, <b>the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s total installed base,<i> and it would have to do so again every year.</i></b></blockquote>
<br />
Another way to look at it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To keep up with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy alone, the global wind industry will need to cover a land area of some 35,000 square miles — about the size of Indiana — with wind turbines. And it will have to do so every year from now through 2035...<b>.the wind industry would have to cover 96 square miles every day with wind turbines.</b> That’s an area about the size of four Manhattans.</blockquote>
At that rate, by 2035 additional area in use by wind farms (and, therefore, not used for anything else) is 805,000 square miles. That's the same size as: California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming COMBINED.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8YecCV-dASoexnmXLptLQLWsv5QcAxq6zr0UtTNaizvKrAjW_fArKh8v-A6vqoypSfLeGLpQk4sZ7Q0K6gImFlxfuR0Ce_Cx_BOekF_NvYC8LAIhleAExk-rxTqIQeNkw2FMdQZG_bwHj/s1600/wind+land.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8YecCV-dASoexnmXLptLQLWsv5QcAxq6zr0UtTNaizvKrAjW_fArKh8v-A6vqoypSfLeGLpQk4sZ7Q0K6gImFlxfuR0Ce_Cx_BOekF_NvYC8LAIhleAExk-rxTqIQeNkw2FMdQZG_bwHj/s320/wind+land.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Additional land needed for wind power to cover growth in demand through 2035.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Finding that much land close to where the power demand is (can't put it all in the Sahara) is.... well..... impossible. Some can go offshore, but that's expensive.<br />
<br />
In terms of power per acre, nuclear, coal and oil are a much better bet. We should focus on cleaning the supplies that will work rather than subsidizing technology that can't keep up with demand.<br />
<br />Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-78472591957145795632012-06-14T14:02:00.000-06:002012-06-14T14:12:23.473-06:00ObamaCare and the Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month on the constitutionality of certain parts of President Obama'a Healthcare reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (or ObamaCare for short).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://economics21.org/commentary/preparing-supreme-courts-obamacare-decision" target="_blank">This analysis of 4 possible outcomes</a> is very interesting. It's written from the perspective of an opponents of ObamaCare, and includes advice for how opponents of the law should react to each of the scenarios. In brief, the 4 possibilities are:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The Court rules that the individual mandate is constitutional. ObamaCare remains the law.</li>
<li>The Court rules that only the individual mandate is unconstitutional.</li>
<li>The Court rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that certain other provisions depending on that mandate should be struck down.</li>
<li>The Court rules that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and ObamaCare in it's entirety should be struck down.</li>
</ol>
<br />
(There is a fifth option, which is very unlikely given the circuit split. The Court could decline to issue a ruling, and let all lower rulings stand).<br />
<br />
It's interesting to note that three of the four likely outcomes are not good for the Obama administration. If I had to bet, I'd bet on option 2 or 3. The Court is likely to make the ruling as narrow as it can to get a majority to agree.<br />
<br />
I do think it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision. That's unfortunate, because those decisions usually are narrower, and are interpreted by the press as having less authority than unanimous (or nearly unanimous) decisions.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-5483584805226577612011-10-18T16:51:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.085-07:00Utah Redistricting 2010All you people who are angry at the map. I hope you submitted your own during the many weeks the public was invited to do so? No? hmm. Utah's population patterns are unique. Some thing to keep in mind before you dismiss the whole effort:<br /><br />1. The districts have to have equal population, Geography is secondary.<br />2. Salt Lake county has to be split at least in two. There are too many people to have it in one district.<br />3. The districts have to have both urban and rural, That's just how the population is. All the districts need part of the Wasatch front in order to have enough people. All counties in the state except the 5 on the Wasatch Front (SL, Utah, Davis, Weber, and Cache) put together do not have enough people for one district.<br />4. More than just SL county must be split. Utah county is too small. Davis and Weber together are too small, Cache and Washington are too small. The only other way to do this is to have 3 mostly urban districts along the Wasatch front and one containing the rest of the state plus chunks of the Wasatch front counties adding up to about 50,000 people. Having 4 urban/rural districts is at least as logical as having 3 urban and one rural with selected chunks of urban gerrymandered in.<br />5. There aren't enough Democrats living close to each other to have a safe democratic seat. So, even if that was a valid concern, it just isn't possible.<br />6. There aren't enough Democrats in the legislature, and they aren't united enough to make a difference. That's why the map from the Rep. caucus was passed, all they need are most of the Republican votes.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-77245135588490170822011-03-31T15:10:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.100-07:00Conservative MulticulturalismNo, it's not an oxymoron. In <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263479/multiculturalism-or-against-eugene-volokh">this article</a>, Eugene Volokh perfectly captures the way our country has benefitted from multiculturalism, and how it's written into the Constitution.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-12974403989646331972010-08-06T12:05:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.063-07:00I Wonder Why People Mistrust the Government?Maybe because some governments (Multnomah county, Oregon) threaten 7 year-old girls with a<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/oregon-county-apologies-year-old-girl-saying-lemonade-stand/?test=latestnews"> $500 dollar fine for running a lemonade stand without the proper permit.</a><div><br />Darn kids, always flouting regulations, that's what's wrong with young people today . . .<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>But, you say, "the county apologized, and no real harm done, right?" (except for fixing permanently in that girl's mind a terrifying first impression of government - oh, wait, that's not harm, sorry). Yes, this was a mere county government worker just acting "by the book." It was easily cleared up by Jeff Cogen, chairman of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. </div><div><br /></div><div>(By the way, when you need a board to manage all your commissioners, doesn't that tell you something?)</div><div><br /></div><div>But this was one smallish county in a meduim sized metro area in a smallish state. Very few levels between the health department employee and Mr. Cogen. Imagine the same quick corrective action happening in LA county, or New York City . . . yeah, I can't either.</div><div><br /></div><div>County regulations are simple when compared with State regulations, and nothing compared to the massive and ever-expanding river of regulations continually spewing from Federal agencies.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Wd6eCgPH9trAGez08sRllw83unLM2FIc_v0Xf8XtuygHrHzS0d7923WeSGMeAWwoAI-1MByvLe1WTckPVwhz2_sAx4D5gGnEpvZg0mhlcJ-ZpY3zDIyt5JNwfCsnHqsX3Q634V4IByk/s1600/Codeoffederalregulations.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Wd6eCgPH9trAGez08sRllw83unLM2FIc_v0Xf8XtuygHrHzS0d7923WeSGMeAWwoAI-1MByvLe1WTckPVwhz2_sAx4D5gGnEpvZg0mhlcJ-ZpY3zDIyt5JNwfCsnHqsX3Q634V4IByk/s320/Codeoffederalregulations.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5502372278163970466" /></a><div><br /></div><div>The photo above is of titles 12 to 26 out of 50 titles of the Code of Federal Regulations. Yes, that's only about one fourth of the Federal Regulations out there - and this is before agencies start creating regulations for "Health Care Reform." (the bill itself was 2000 pages, but it left most of the rule-making to Federal agencies. 2000 pages? That's nothing compared to the regulations that will come out of it - wait and see).</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/fedregulations_2.htm">This site</a> gives some scope to the problem:</div><div><br /></div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. [Note: 10% or 13,458 pages are IRS regulations alone]. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.</div><div><br /></div><div>The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million.</div></blockquote><br />134,723 pages?!?! A person could literally be crushed by the weight of Federal regulations, ha ha . . . . sorry bad joke. But seriously, if you could read 1 page a minute, 24 hours a day, you'd finish reading it in a little over 93 days.</div><div><br />There are entire paid publications dedicated entirely to informing industry attorneys that a single Federal agency is going to change regulations. There are currently about 14,800 notices, rules, or proposed rules open for comment on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">regulations.gov</a>. According to that site, "On average, federal agencies and departments issue nearly 8,000 regulations per year." (Double what they issued in 1996 - 1999).</div><div><br /></div><div>But why fear the government? Those 134,723 pages of regulations (plus 8000 new regulations per year) plus all the state and local regulations would never affect the average person, would they?</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets ask the little girl from Oregon . . . </div>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-8286557662088528622010-07-03T16:04:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.107-07:00Happy Independence Day<p>"All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re- appearing tyranny and oppression."</p> <p>-- Abraham Lincoln</p> Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-53772500804476509642010-05-06T09:37:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.076-07:00And the Award for the "Most Appropriately Named Head of State" goes to . . .<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8664150.stm">. . . Nigeria's new president, Mr. Goodluck Jonathan.</a><div><br /></div><div>Given that Nigeria faces a crumbling energy infrastructure, epidemic corruption, and Muslim-Christian division,</div><div><br /></div><div>And given that he is a Christian taking over for a popular Muslim president who was elected in the first peaceful electoral transition in Nigeria since independence,</div><div><br /></div><div>And given that he and his cabinet are accused of using the former president's illness as a political tool to seize control . . . </div><div><br /></div><div>I think we can all join in wishing Mr. Jonathan Goodluck</div>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-20098667342503100562010-04-29T16:49:00.000-06:002012-02-19T21:31:03.070-07:00Can Anyone Still Take the U.N. Seriously?No, it is not April Fools Day, and <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/29/elects-iran-commission-womens-rights/">this story</a> is not a joke.<div><br /></div><div><div></div><blockquote><div>Without fanfare, the <b>United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women</b>, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."</div><div><br /></div><div>Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, <b>which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,"</b> according to its website.</div><br /></blockquote><br />Apparently this move was unopposed by everyone, including the United States. Nice job standing up for human rights.</div>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-102363256578147192009-12-17T15:19:00.000-07:002012-02-19T21:40:46.573-07:00Never Thought I'd Say This......and get ready for Hell to freeze over ... but <a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=11534">Keith Olbermann makes an excellent point.</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, you read that right. The guy is a raving left-wing loon, but he is right about the senate healthcare bill, specifically the requirement that all Americans purchase government approved insurance. He lays out what it will cost the President:</div>
<div>
<br />
<blockquote>
[T]his bill costs you the [support of the political] left —and anybody who now has to pony up 17 percent of his family’s income to buy this equivalent of Medical Mobster Protection Money.</blockquote>
<br />
Olbermann continued:</div>
<div>
<br />
<blockquote>
The mandate in this bill … must be stripped out...It is above all else immoral and a betrayal of the people who elected you….</blockquote>
</div>
<br />
And this sounds awfully rebellious:<br />
<div>
<blockquote>
<br />
I am one of the self-insured, albeit by choice. And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health care reform. Pass this at your peril, Senators, and sign it at yours, Mr. President.<br />
I will not buy this insurance.<br />
Brand me a lawbreaker if you choose.<br />
Fine me if you will.<br />
Jail me if you must.</blockquote>
<br />
Wow, I couldn't have said it any better myself. What a weird feeling to agree with him...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Granted his reasons for opposing it are much different than mine, as you can see reading the entire post. He's ticked that it is not fully socialized. But I understand his dislike of the mandate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? . . . well, maybe not quite yet.</div>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-73504323328698647552009-11-19T11:49:00.000-07:002012-02-19T21:31:03.093-07:00Why Trying the 9/11 Terrorists in NYC is a BAD IdeaAn <a href="http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.4800/pub_detail.asp">excellent analysis</a> of why trying Khalid Shiekh Mohammud in New York is a colossal mistake. The legal jargon is a little dense, sorry.<div><br /></div><div>The writer is an attorney who lays out how the trial will inevitably play out. I think he's exactly right. We've seen this already in the trial of Zacharias Moussoui (however it's spelled), the alleged 20th hijacker. In short it will be a massive media circus, cost incredible amounts of money, give the confessed terrorists an international platform and publicity, and require that the U.S. disclose our secret intelligence gathering techniques. Not to mention setting the defense attorneys up for life financially, and ruining the reputation of the U.S. legal system.</div><div><br /></div><div>He also speculates on the President's motivations for bringing the trials here, and concludes that it is part of a sinister left-wing plot. On that point I think he gives President Obama too much credit. A plot requires competence and planning. I'm not sure it's a plot, so much as just plain stupidity, naivete, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the world and of human nature coupled with a disdain for any policy or measure enacted by President Bush.</div><div><br /></div><div>I never thought I'd say this, but I'd rather see them tried at the International Criminal Court. It's reputation has no where to go but up, and when the terrorists are all freed, it would help cement public opinion against international institutions, and strengthen faith in America. All the opposite outcomes of a trial in NYC.</div>Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-290215924173627237.post-90098072822071681712009-11-16T13:49:00.000-07:002012-02-19T21:31:03.123-07:00Random Quote:<p class="blog_title_holder"><span class="blog_title">From a National Review Blog:<br /></span></p><p class="blog_title_holder"><span class="blog_title">This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism—November 12</span> [<a href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/author/?q=MTUwOA==">Ed Whelan</a>]</p><strong>1908</strong>—In Nashville, Illinois, the human fetus to become known as Harry A. Blackmun emerges safe and sound from his mother’s womb. Some sixty-five years later, Justice Blackmun authors the Supreme Court opinion in <em>Roe v. Wade</em>. (See This Day for <a title="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI2ZTA4ZDExODlkMzY0YTFmMTJiMTJjYjA2MTRkNmQ=" href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTVmNjVjZjIzODg4Mjc5MDg0YTQ4YmNhMjk4N2JlZWU=">Jan. 22</a>, 1973.) Somehow the same people who think it meaningful to criticize Justice Thomas for opposing affirmative-action programs from which he putatively benefited don’t criticize Blackmun for depriving millions of other unborn human beings the same opportunity that he was given.Chris Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06640422846685877717noreply@blogger.com0