The Interocitor

More about spyware & scamware

Suzi's Diary Date has some good info on detecting/removing spyware and other trojan software. She has a lot of good links. I've used both Spybot and Ad-Aware and recommend them. Besides the info sites that Suzi links to, I've found Doxdesk to be of use.

As Suzi and others point out, there are other products going around that are scamware disguised as scamware-busters, such as Spy Wiper. If in doubt, ask a knowledgable friend, read neutral review sites, and/or read the EULA.

Spam is not enough

Apparently, the folks that killed Usenet, and are trying their damndest to kill email, have a new method of attack -- the trojan program. See XRLQ for one example.

Unlike a virus, which can be detected fairly easily, a trojan is packaged with some other useful program that one might well want to install. One example is popupswatter which purports to kill popups, and possibly does. But if you read the End User License Agreement, you find the following:

ALL OF OUR APPLICATIONS COME WITH THE MYWEBSEARCH™ BROWSER PLUGIN -- A CUSTOMIZABLE BROWSER TOOLBAR WHICH PROVIDES END USERS WITH EASY ACCESS TO SEARCH RESULTS FROM THE BEST SEARCH ENGINES ON THE INTERNET IN JUST ONE CLICK AND ENHANCES YOUR BROWSER EXPERIENCE BY PROVIDING RELEVANT LINKS AND RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO MISSPELLED OR INCORRECTLY FORMATTED BROWSER ADDRESS REQUESTS.

THE APPLICATION ALLOWS YOU TO EASILY ACCESS ALL OF ITS FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY DIRECTLY FROM YOUR BROWSER. IT IS ALSO HIGHLY CUSTOMIZABLE AND ALLOWS YOU TO CREATE YOUR OWN BUTTONS AND LINKS.....

You further understand, acknowledge and agree that in consideration of the Applications, services and information provided to you by FWP, and in order to make our services functional and robust, the Application will communicate with our servers. Such communication may occur, for example, in connection with product updates and fixes, verifying and updating your settings, processing search queries or requests made by you through use of the Application and as otherwise required to maintain and operate the Application. The Application does not report back to FWP with information about the sites you visit on the Internet or collect any information that you provide you to any such web sites. If you wish to withdraw your consent to the communication and data usage as described herein, uninstall any and all Applications from your computer.

What this means in plain English is that in order to use FunWebProducts' "popupswatter", you agree to have your Windows search function, and possibly other web functions, hijacked, and that they may "update" this functionality and/or install further "applications" on your computer, without notice at any time. And you have agreed to it by clicking OK on that EULA you didn't read.

Other portions of the EULA state they are not liable for any problems you may experience from their software. If you choose to sue, you must do so in Westchester County, NY, although you have also agreed to binding arbitration, and waived any and all class action rights you may have. They may also change the EULA, without notice, and your continued use of any of these programs (inlcuding those you aren't aware of) constitutes acceptance of this new EULA once 14 days have passed.

(more)

A more famous name that does things of this sort is KaZaa (and other file-sharing networks are similar). Here is a choice portion of the KaZaa EULA:

9.1 During the process of installing Kazaa Media Desktop, you must install software from third party software vendors pursuant to licences or other arrangements between such vendors and yourself ("Third Party Software"), including without limitation those software components noted in Section 9.4 below. Please note that the Third Party Software may be subject to different licences or other arrangements, which you should read carefully. By installing and using this Third Party Software you accept these Third Party Software licences or other arrangements and acknowledge that you have read them and understand them. Sharman does not sell, resell, or license any of this Third Party Software, and Sharman disclaims to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, any responsibility for or liability related to the Third Party Software. Any questions, complaints or claims related to the Third Party Software should be directed to the appropriate vendor.

9.2 Sharman makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the quality, safety or suitability of this software, either express or implied, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event will Sharman be liable for any indirect, punitive, special, incidental or consequential damages however they may arise and even if Sharman has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages.

9.3 There are inherent dangers in the use of any software available for downloading on the Internet, and Sharman cautions you to make sure that you completely understand the potential risks before agreeing to install any of the Third Party Software. You are solely responsible for adequate protection and backup of the data and equipment used in connection with any of the Third Party Software, and Sharman will not be liable for any damages that you may suffer in connection with using, modifying or distributing any of the Third Party Software.

9.4 Embedded Third Party Software

9.4.1 Cydoor. The Software includes a Cydoor Technologies advertising delivery program, which may display web content such as banner ads, e-commerce offers, news headlines and other value-added content. The Cydoor component uses your Internet connection to update its selection of available ads and stores them on your hard drive. For information on Cydoor Technologies and their software, go to http://www.cydoor.com. For information on their privacy policy, go to http://www.cydoor.com/Cydoor/Company/CompanyPrivacy.htm.

9.4.2 Topsearch. The Software includes the Topseach software provided by Altnet. The Topsearch component regularly downloads an index of available Altnet content through your Internet connection. This index contains a list of available rights managed files which can be displayed in your search results. For information on Altnet and their software, go to http://www.altnet.com. For information on their privacy policy, go to http://www.altnet.com/privacy/.

9.4.3 Bullguard P2P. The Software comes with a virus protection feature provided by Bullguard Technology, which is designed to guard your computer from virus attacks by quarantining and deleting files downloaded via P2P that may have a virus. The BullGuard P2P component will update its virus definition file through your Internet connection. . For information on Bullguard and their software, go to http://www.bullguard.com. For information on their privacy policy, go to http://www.bullguard.com/privacypolicy.aspx

9.4.4 GAIN AdServer. Kazaa Media Desktop incorporates a software component called the GAIN AdServer, which is provided by GAIN Publishing. The GAIN AdServer software identifies your interests based on some of your computer usage and uses that information to deliver advertising messages to you. This software helps keep Kazaa Media Desktop free. The GAIN AdServer is provided pursuant to the GAIN Publishing End User License Agreement and Privacy Statement (located at http://www.gainpublishing.com/help/psdocs/kmd/privacy-help51.html), which you acknowledge that you have read and accept. If you would like to stop receiving advertisements through the GAIN AdServer, you will need to remove all GAIN supported software from your computer, including Kazaa Media Desktop, using the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel. For further information on GAIN Publishing and the GAIN AdServer, go to http://www.gainpublishing.com/.

9.4.5 PerfectNav. Kazaa Media Desktop comes with a software program called PerfectNav, which is provided by eUniverse, Inc. PerfectNav is designed to redirect your URL typing errors to PerfectNav's web page. This software helps keep Kazaa Media Desktop free. The PerfectNav software is provided pursuant to the PerfectNav End User License Agreement (located below as Exhibit A), which you acknowledge that you have read and accept. For further information on eUniverse, go to http://www.euniverse.com/.

10. Applicable Law

10.1 This Licence as well as all disputes arising out of or in connection with this Licence shall be governed by the laws of the New South Wales, Australia, without regard to or application of choice of law rules or principles.

Note that several of these programs have, themselves, further EULA's that you accept by accepting the KaZaa EULA.

Given enough of these trojans, nearly any Windows system will die. And guess who takes the blame for all this? KaZaa? FunWebProducts? Congress which has passed no law preventing this EULA abuse? No. Mr. Bill takes the blame, just as he does for most of my typos.

How not to fight terror

From the Wahington Post (via Drudge) comes this story of an Algerian Muslim who apparently tried to find political refuge in the USA shortly before 9/11. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong profession -- he was an Algerian Air Force officer. He's been held in solitary without charges -- the reason they give for holding him keeps changing, but they still hold him.

Benamar Benatta sits in a whitewashed cell, lost in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Jailed the night of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the Algerian air force lieutenant with an expired visa has spent the past 26 months in federal prisons, much of that time in solitary confinement -- even though the FBI formally concluded in November 2001 that he had no connection to terrorism....

The federal government has few explanations for what happened. In legal briefs, the U.S. attorney in Buffalo blamed some of the delays on bureaucratic wrangling between prosecutors and the U.S. Marshals Service, and the confusion that followed the terrorist attacks. But in the documents, U.S. Attorney Michael A. Battle of the Western District of New York ultimately acknowledged that such conditions could "not justify violating the defendant's rights."

Two years after the attacks, federal Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. would examine Benatta's case and find a study in governmental excess.

Schroeder issued an unsparing report in September, writing that federal prosecutors and FBI and immigration agents engaged in a "sham" to make it appear that Benatta was being held for immigration violations. Prosecutors trampled on legal deadlines intended to protect his constitutional rights and later offered explanations for their maneuvers that "bordered on ridiculousness," Schroeder wrote. And he found that the government compounded its mistakes by failing to act once it was clear that Benatta was not an accomplice to terrorists.

Hopefully, this is an isolated case. But it's cases like this that undermine the case for holding the people you really want to hold. Somebody needs to lose their job.

Quagmire

So far in 2003, 128 police officers have died in the USA. Last year the total was 153, and the year before 237 (quite a few in NYC). (Source: ODMP)

It's time we admitted that the USA is a quagmire and got out.

Reaction to Bush in Iraq

At NRO, a couple items are posted about Bush's trip and its effects. First about Hillary

Sen. Hillary Clinton also is in Iraq. So far, at least, she’s not criticizing Bush. She’s not saying the war was unjustified or a plot hatched in Texas. She’s not dropping hints about how the U.S. could cut-and-run and make it look like an endorsement of the U.N. or of principled multilateralism.

Instead, she’s praising the troops. She’s praising the humanitarian effort. She’s praising Coalition efforts to assist an Iraqi “transition toward democracy.”

Then this from a GI:

I just wanted to drop you guys a note from here in downtown Baghdad where I interact with the local population on a daily basis. The President's visit was even more of a morale boost to the Iraqis than it was to the troops. When the President of the U.S.A. visits a place like this, it's like the most popular kid in school coming to a party hosted by the A.V. club. The Iraqis feel validated and Al Jazeera looked foolish in the eyes of the Iraqis trying to find a negative spin to the story.

And similar at the HealingIraq blog:

I watched it all on Al-Jazeera later, and as usual, they described it as a cheap attempt by Bush & Co. to boost American public opinion in his favour for the upcoming election campaign. You could easily detect the anguish in their anaylsis to the fact that Bush didn't go down to the streets or meet everyday Iraqis, or that Air Force 1 wasn't hit by an anti-aircraft missile fired by Iraqi militants. They were really frustrated. Their news have become so predictable. My father was peculiarly furious with one of these 'analysts', he almost kicked the tv. The guy was saying that this visit would practically achieve nothing, or to be more accurate "would trick nobody". He also said that it would have no effect whatsoever on morals of American troops...etc.

Well that's pretty clear. So what does the mainstream US press have to say? The AP reports

President Bush's surprise visit to Iraq was the talk of Baghdad's teahouses, kebab shops and mosques Friday, with many Iraqis asking why he didn't take advantage of his trip to see firsthand how his rule has treated them.

Hmmm ... yup, that's AP, not Al-Jazeera. What you want to bet the reporter never actually went to a teahouse, mosque or kebab shop?

Meanwhile, a U.S. soldier was killed when four mortar shells pounded a 101st Airborne Division base in the northern city of Mosul.

So, what does this have to do with Bush's trip? A cop was shot in Burbank last week, too.

Also Friday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jack Reed arrived in Baghdad a day after Bush's visit, saying it isn't too late to bring the United Nations back to Iraq.

Clinton and Reed said the expense and political burden in administering Iraq would be made easier with the U.N.'s stamp of legitimacy and help in transferring power to Iraqis.

"I'm a big believer that we ought to internationalize this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," the former first lady said. "I don't see that it's forthcoming."

But wait, I thought this is exactly what these patriots weren't saying. Is the NRO shilling for Clinton? Or is the AP putting words in her mouth? Or does she tell different things to different reporters? Or was this simply something else the AP cribbed from al-Jazeera?

At the same time, many Baghdad residents on Friday complained that Bush met with few Iraqis during his secret, two-hour stay Thursday evening and never left the grounds of a heavily fortified U.S. base. Several called the trip an electoral stunt, and took offense that he would use their country as his stage.

"He visited Iraq for the sake of the Americans, not the Iraqis. He didn't come to see how we are doing," Muzher Abd Hanush, 54, said in his barbershop. "To come, say hello and leave - what good does that do?"

Hmmm ... just what al-JaQaeda reports. Another coincidence.

But among Iraqis generally disappointed in the U.S.-led occupation [e.g. Saddam -ed], the trip swayed few opinions.

Some people applauded what they called a bold move and expressed vague hopes that it would help bring security, political stability and jobs to their war-shattered country. But they stressed it was results - not a photo opportunity - that would boost Bush's popularity here....

"He came for the sake of the elections," Kheiri said. "He never thought of the Iraqi people. He doesn't care about us. It was a personal visit for his own sake."

Never mind the tiring slant on all of this... the Iraqis had better care about the elections in the US. Because if Bush loses it will because the US gave up on Iraq.
(some links via Instapundit)

NY Times Spin

Good news, you would think. The economy grew at an 8.2% rate in the third quarter, certifying an end to the recession. But the NY Times' report finds plenty of dark cloud in the silver lining:

The economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the government reported this morning, a much more torrid pace than the 7.2 percent that was the initial estimate.

It is the fastest pace of growth since the first three months of 1984. While welcome, economists said growth at that level is not sustainable. Indeed, most expect the rate of growth is slowing in the current quarter.

The rest of the article goes on at length as to why this is probably not such a good thing.

In large measure, growth in the current quarter will probably slow because consumers will have less cash in their pockets.

"There will be a lot less growth in consumer spending," Mr. Resler said.

At the moment, Mr. Resler said he expected consumer spending to expand at a 1 percent rate in the fourth quarter. And he admitted that there will need to be "some improvement" in retailing activity this month and next to reach that level...

"We will not get all of those two million jobs we have lost back in the next 12 months," he said.

Going forward, "non-farm payrolls probably won't increase that much."

I'm waiting for Krugman and MoDo to find the truly awful news in this.

Dean attacks Ashcroft

Governor Dean today attacked "John Ashcroft's America" again, this time having to do with the Justice Department looking into the sponsors of several anti-Iraq demos. About time, too -- not Dean, but Justice.

Frankly, John Ashcroft's America doesn't worry me quite so much as Janet Reno's America:

Twenty-five children died in the fire. Wonder what Dean had to say about that?

Dean should disavow

Today, Howard Dean's website responds enthusiastically to an endorsement from Ted Rall. You would think they'd know better. This is like Bush accepting an endosement from Michael Savage's nastier brother. I fully expect saner heads to prevail and disavow, as this will be death with the center come the general election.

You don't have to be Roger Ailes to write the attack ad:

Scene: African-American soldier's widow being handed flag at military funeral. Taps is played and salute is fired. Over this is read choice sections of Ted Rall's call for Iraqis to kill Americans.

Tag line: "Shamefully, Governor Dean accepted this man's endorsement. Vote for America on November 2nd. Vote for George Bush."

See also Volokh

Doonesbury, then and now

Once upon a time, Gerry Trudeau was witty, ironic and insightful. Doonesbury was the best political comic strip ever done. These days, however, the strip is simply nasty and hateful. Compare these two strips, the first from Christmas, 1973, during the height of the Watergate scandal:

Note the humanity that Trudeau is able to grant to Richard Nixon, a man who was easy to dislike. Then compare that to the bile oozing from today's Sunday strip regarding Arnold Schwarzenegger, where he suggests Arnold can be summed up as a sex-crazed, power-mad Hitler idolator:

Time for another sabbatical, G.B.

Brooks on Marriage

David Brooks op-ed in today's NY Times is not only an excellent argument for gay marriage, but a call to arms for all that support the institution of marriage to oppose anything less.

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

He also quotes the strongest personal commitment found in Judeo-Christian Scripture, that of Ruth to Naomi, both women. Was it marriage? Probably not as such. But my wife and I used it in our vows, and it still feels so right:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried."

This is what marriage is about -- not just a temporary alliance of passions, but a life-long (and possibly longer) committment between two people. I really don't see where gender comes into it.

That wacky 9th circuit

Living in California, one is subject* to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which is seemingly dominated by crazy people. Their latest seems to assert that California law can be used to find damages against companies for actions that occur in other states -- essentially making people and companies in other states subject to California law. The fact that the issue at hand is guns makes it all the more likely that the rest of the decision is bullshit, too.

Clayton Cramer rightiously fisks the (2-1) 9th Circuit decision in Ileto v Glock in which Glock is lambasted by the court for its evil practice of selling guns to legal purchasers, such as police departments. Apparently, Glock fails to make sure that legal purchasers of firearms do not later resell them, through a chain of equally legal purchasers, to people who might later commit crimes. The court goes so far as to suggest that Glock should not sell guns to gun dealers if some guns previously sold to those dealers are used in crimes by 3rd parties.

These events happened in Washington State. The nutbar in question later drove down to California and killed someone and shot others. The victims and survivors are suing Glock for negligence in Washington State under California law (Washington's law was apparently not working out for them). The idiocies of this decision are many, too many to list here. Go read Cramer. Eugene Volokh also has a good half dozen posts on the subject -- start here. Professor Volokh also believes that the decision is both inane and pretty much unappealable.

*Subject: One who is under the rule of another or others, e.g. a British subject is under the rule of the British monarch.

Lileks fisks Salam Pax

To commemorate Bush's trip to England, the Guardian published a set of letters to Bush about Iraq. Salam Pax (the famous "Baghdad blogger") contributed a particularly snarky piece in which he compained about the "service" and diminished Sadam's terror:

Listen, habibi, it is not over yet. Let me explain this in simple terms. You have spilled a glass full of tomato juice on an already dirty carpet and now you have to clean up the whole room. Not all of the mess is your fault but you volunteered to clean it up. I bet if someone had explained it to you like that you would have been less hasty going on our Rambo-in-Baghdad trip.

To tell you the truth, I am glad that someone is doing the cleaning up, and thank you for getting rid of that scary guy with the hideous moustache that we had for president. But I have to say that the advertisements you were dropping from your B52s before the bombs fell promised a much more efficient and speedy service.

James Lileks just tears Salam a new asshole over this.

Let me explain this in simple terms, habibi. You would have spent the rest of your life under Ba’athist rule. You might have gotten some nice architectural commissions to do a house for someone whose aroma was temporarily acceptable to the Tikriti mob....

...The rug was soaked before we got there, friend. Cut the clever café pose; drop the sneer. That “Rambo” crap is old. Iraq needs grown-ups. Be one.

Lileks also disses Nightline for cancelling coverage of Bush's major policy speech on Iraq, and his trip to England, in favor of yet more mindless yap-yap about the Plastic Pedophile™. Go read the whole thing. Idiotarian blood everywhere.

UPDATE: Looking over at Salam's blog (which has been dead for a while), I note a few new posts. There's agood one from his friend "G" who also takes Salam to task for the ilk he is consorting with:

tell your friends in London that G in Baghdad would have appreciated them much more if they had demonstrated against the atrocities of saddam.
And if you could ask them when will be the next demonstration to support the people of north Korea, the democratic republic of Congo and Iran?

But then there's this from his other friend Raed:

... salam you cannot imagine the scene at AnNasryya, i mean .. It's not just about the italians' building .. It's about the entire neighborhood! Houses in the circle of 1000 meter are living without windows, without doors, and with cracks in their walls. The explosion was so huge that it blow off the doors and fences and trees of all the neighbours .. do u like more details? ok :) two people crossed the bridge with that very old water tanker (made in 1950s), and the man "with beard" sitting on the left went out from the window and started shooting on the italian guards and killed them, and the car went directly into the main door of the building killing everyone in the street and most of the italians, italian soldiers heads were found hundreds of meters away from he explosion! brrrrooohhh .. and some iraqi's were burned in their cars in the middle of the street. The "funny" thing that looting started five minutes later, all the machine guns and pistols disappeared in minutes and you can get a cool italiano pistol for $250 now in the gun markets of Nasryya. Abbas (u know him, the restaurant owner..) saw some people steeling a ring from the finger of a dead italian body with no head! brrrrroooohhh .. and ,, that's it i believe. (how can i start a new paragraph here?) ok .. (conceder this as new paragraph) .. i want a shoe (like the black one with a hole in its bottom that u used to have) and another couple of horny stuff.. i broke up with S. and feeling depressed .. mmm .. i bought a new Mercedes car (ML 430) .. call me .. bye

I've changed my mind. Let's leave now.

Bush in England III (Caption contest)

This photo from today's LA Times strikes me as odd. What is the queen looking at?

To me, it seems like she's waiting for a bus that's late to take them someplace. Other ideas?

Gay marriage and the "slippery slope"

I'm seeing a lot of "slippery slope" arguments regarding homosexual marriage: polygamy, polyandry, combinations thereof, legal incest, etc. Too many bloggers to link to individually, although of the neutral parties, Volokh is fairly representative. There may be good reason to suggest this, from some kind of legal point-of-view (or maybe it's that lawyers have a dim view of the law's common sense), but there is a very basic difference between all of these scenarios and the situation in which gays find themselves.

Biological need. Gay people are wired differently than straights. Some very large percentage of gays (possibly all) cannot pursue happiness under a heterosexual mandate. They must seek their relationships among their own gender. To deny gay people the right to seek this happiness, by barring them from the most basic of human institutions (one that predates agriculture) constitutes a discrimination that approaches that of Dred Scott. Even the laws against interracial marriage (voided 35 years ago in Loving vs Virginia) did not present this fundamental issue. One *could* find happiness with another, unjust as the laws were. But a gay person denied the legal right to marry the whole class of persons to whom they are attracted is utterly denied this basic human bond.

Andrew Sullivan likens interracial marriage to the present issue. He's wrong. No one needs, biologically, to marry a person of a different race -- there are alternatives. That restriction is wrong on other grounds, notably no-good-reason. Polygamy, incest, etc are also devoid of this biological need -- these are simply wants, and there are very good reasons to bar these unions. While a truly bisexual person may want to marry "one of each", they can marry one or the other, or remain single, as they choose. All married people struggle at times with monogamy -- this is simply a difference in degree, not in kind. Pedophilia and bestiality do not apply to marriage, for reasons of consent and permanence. If your "bright line" is biological need without alternative, there is no slippery slope with respect to gay marriage.

Having said that, I do understand why the Massachusetts court did what it did. Separate-but-almost-equal unions, domestic partners, co-habitation pacts, or whatever you call these insults to marriage, are not the same thing. Matrimony is a thing by itself.

Practically, however, I still feel the court (and/or the litigants) jumped the gun – especially since an initiative could have solved the problem. It may well turn out that this court’s action starts the final debate, and consensus is reached. I truly hope so. But I fear a freezing of thought (like Roe v Wade) and decades of pointless division if consensus is not reached before the change is imposed. Which is what legislatures and initiatives are for.

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling II

The Human Rights Campaign (a gay lobby which was somehow well prepared for this decision), reports that amending the MA Constitution is quite difficult and lengthy. Not so sure they are telling the whole story, but they assert it takes 3 years. They also assert that

59 percent [of Massachusetts voters] favor marriage for same-sex couples, and an even more impressive 77 percent either favor marriage equality or would not oppose a judicial or legislative decision extending marriage to same-sex couples.

If true, why not just pass an initiative and be done with it? Why the Rube Goldberg with no clear outcome?

See also Volokh and BoiFromTroy and scroll down on each for lots more.

Lead, follow or get out of the way

That's the advice Ronald Reagan had for Democrats when he came into office, and that's the platform Arnold ran on. Former Governor Davis couldn't lead -- or get out of the way -- and that's why he's the former Governor. Arnold promised results. Today the Democrats in the legislature served notice that they intend to stand in the way and do noting. As the California Insider reports

[Senate President Pro Tem John] Burton said he would oppose repeal of SB 60 [the illegal alien ID card bill] and would not look favorably on any proposal to borrow more money without a tax increase dedicated to repay it [now he gets religion -ed]. He also said he doubted the Legislature would approve Schwarzenegger’s request to give local government $3.2 billion to make up for the money they will lose because of his reduction in the car tax.

So, if this threat holds up, Arnold will have to go to Plan B -- initiative and referendum.

The illegal alien ID card bill is already the subject of one petition drive. Taking redistricting out of the hands of the politicians is the subject of another -- info here[PDF], here and here. Now, the financial restructuring and spending cap will have to be done by petition. Which is fine, as I'd prefer John Campbell's proposed strict spending cap over anything Burton, et al, might "add."

This will make the Democrats in the legislature look stupid and irrelevent. As they are. Those safe seats might not be as safe as they think if Arnold is seen as the solution and the legislature insists in being the problem.

Massachusetts Gay Marriage Ruling

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitution requires the state to recognize marriage regardless of the gender(s) of those involved. This is a mistake.

I say this not because I support the Federal Marriage Amendment (hardly), or oppose gay marriage (I don't), nor because I think that the court is fundamentally wrong -- Lochner and contract and all that -- but because I think that the last time a court did something this fundamental (Roe v Wade), it caused more problems than it solved.

Divisive social changes such as this cannot be made by judicial fiat. (Nor, by the way, can they be avoided by a blocking Amendment -- that's a mistake of an even higher order.) Changes like this fundamentally require broad public consensus before they can be accepted. Abortion was well on its way to being an accepted right in most, if not all, states when the US Supreme Court short-circuited the process and left the opponents no method of redress.

People can accept losing a legislative battle. It happens all the time. Taxes double, they still pay them. Anti-smoking laws pass, smokers grumble and go outside and smoke. But when a court imposes laws from the bench, this acceptance is generally absent. Only in cases where the general mood is either leading the court, or public opinion is irrevocably moving that way (e.g. African-American civil rights), can a court get away with supplanting the legislative process. Even then it's not the best idea.

Sucessful as the civil rights process was, the Brown decision was widely fought -- to the point of the 101st Airborne marching protesters off school grounds, literally at bayonet point. In the process, the public school system was greatly harmed as the dead-enders, or those wishing to avoid court-ordered busing, withdrew from the public schools. On the other hand, the civil rights laws passed by Congress (Public Accomodations Act, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Poll Tax Amendment) were accepted as legitimate by most, once the votes were counted.

This ruling is a mistake. It rushes something that is probably inevitable, but done in this way will have no closure -- and may prove counterproductive as the FMA portends. This must come from the people, and the people's legislature, or not at all.

UPDATE: After a bit of give-and-take with a gay blogger who strongly favors this ruling, I've come to the conclusion that

1. The Massachusetts legislature (or public) will promptly develop a ballot question to add a male-female-only marriage clause into the MA constituion.
2. That the MA Court would be bonkers to deny a stay pending the voter's decision (for the reasons above).
3. The results of the ballot question will, for MA voters, suffice as the legislative vote.

It is all or nothing, though.

CA Ruling on ISPs and libel (continued)

The same California Appeals Court that issued the Barrett decision (see below) has now agreed to reconsider their decision. SFGate, which has been following the case. has a good blow-by-blow

The three-member panel of the state Court of Appeal agreed this week to take another look at the ruling, the first by a California court on the question of ISP liability, but such reviews seldom change the results. An appeal to the state Supreme Court seems virtually certain, and the case could even wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which frequently steps in to resolve disagreements between lower courts.

Thanks to Denise Howell (Bag and Baggage) for the information.

Radical reforms

blogoSFERICS has a post about a Claremont.org suggestion for radical change in the CA Legislature -- Senators elected by county. It is, as he points out unconstitutional, however -- the Supremes tossed that out, specifically, in the 60's.

More useful however would be other radical changes:

1. Instead of splitting Senate districts into 2 Assembly districts, run one assembly election in each Senate district, each voter getting ONE vote, and send the top two finishers to the Assembly. Gives the minority a voice, even if they are both from the same party (e.g. south central LA), and makes gerrymanders harder.
2. Instant Runoff Voting
3. Abolish formal districts, and allow each voter to vote for one candidate from an at-large list, with the top 80 going to the Assembly (top 40 from a second list to the Senate). This way, most people will have someone in office they supported. If you really want to diminish parties, and end gerrymanders, this will do it. Note that this does not prevent geographic representation, if the voters want to gang up that way.
4. Ban lawyers from serving in the Assembly. Judgeships are limited to lawyers, this would balance out the profession's undue influence in government. This may be unconstitutional, but if so, why is it constitutional to limit judgeships to lawyers (it wasn't always that way -- Justices of the Peace could be laymen as recently as the 1980's).

UPDATE: I do realize that these ideas do not combine well.

Newdow Anti-SLAPPed

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-oriented legal defense fund, reports that Michael Newdow, the atheist who is trying to get God out of the Pledge of Allegience, has agreed to drop a libel case (that he couldn't win) in the face of what appears to be an anti-SLAPP motion by the defendant.

Newdow sued Assist News Service (ANS) because of a story alleging that Newdow committed perjury when he filed his case against the Pledge of Allegiance. The ANS story reported that Newdow did not have custody of his daughter, contrary to averments Newdow filed in federal court....

Newdow abandoned the lawsuit after ANS filed motion to dismiss that charged Newdow’s suit was frivolous and that asked for attorney’s fees.

And this guy is going to argue his own case before the Supreme Court. I want a tape, starting with "God Save this Honorable Court." The only question is which Justice says "Nice Doggie" first. (hat tip: How Appealing)

Addition: The suit was called Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow v. Chaplain Austin Miles, Assist News Service, and WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. -- apparently filed in Garden Grove, California.

Bush in England II

The London Times reports

Special Branch officers have ... warned the American Secret Service that a “mentally deranged lone fanatic with a fixation for George Bush” may be at large in the capital.

Meanwhile....

[T]he Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, branded Mr Bush as “the greatest threat to life on this planet” whose policies will “doom us to extinction”. The mayor also said that he did not recognise Mr Bush as a lawful president and he condemned America’s rapacious capitalist agenda.

I sure hope they identify the London lunatic before he gets close to the President.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan's London Times defense of Bush's Iraq policy is now up on his site. Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Plea to Microsoft

Steven den Beste has a long (even for him) discussion of what he doesn't particularly like about various flavors of Windows. I agree with many points. But I think he sums it up for many experienced computer users when he says:

What I really want, if only I could get it, is a single switch somewhere that said, "Please stop helping me. Please stop kibitzing. Please assume that I know exactly what I want, and please do exactly what I tell you to do." Please don't change my mouse-sweeps; I'll sweep the characters I want to sweep. Please don't change my directory views; I will tell you what format to use. Please stop being intrusive; please become invisible.

Everyone I know has gripes like these. For example, I would really like it if Word would stop changing my indenting every few paragraphs.

Infotel Demand Letter

XRLQ has posted Infotel's threatening demand letter to Justene Adamec and Calblog. In part, it reads:

Unless your message page is taken down by the close of business today, November 14, 2003, Infotel Publications and the individuals being harmed with [sic] file suit against you and your agents for invasion of privacy, misrepresentation, and interference with economic relations. My clients will also seek the imposition of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against you and your agents, in addition to punitive damages for ignoring my prior notice.

Attached to that is Infotel's "documentation" of the "actionable items" that appeared in the blog comment area. Such as other people expressing opinions:

"They've created a recording of a conversation we are sure never took place."

Now, there are problems with some of the posts -- anonymity seems to bring out the worst in some people -- but any open forum will have speakers like that. To avoid that would mean that blogdom would have to apply "speech codes" to all posts. "Frell that", as Chiana would say. One does need to stop personal data (e.g. home addresses, creditcard numbers) from being posted, or delete such as soon as possible (and Justene was ready to do that), but this isn't the issue here. The most objectionable post (to me) seems to have been an antisemitic comment. I'm sure that's a first for blogdom. Not.

What Infotel, however, had such a fit over was all the posters saying "Yeah, I had a run-in with these scumbags, and I didn't pay them, and you shouldn't either." Bullies never like it when the bullied threaten to fight. Considering the Better Business Bureau comments about the company below, seems like people are simply speaking truth, and, like cockroaches, Infotel doesn't like the light.

UPDATE: Right on the Left Beach has a lot of interesting info on what looks like Infotel's predecessor companies, along with suggestions for those who feel defrauded.

Lockerbie bomber's "prison" suite

Al Megrahi killed 270 passengers on PanAm103. He also killed PanAm, the airline, destroying lives that way, too. After many years, he was finally brought to justice, even though he had the protection of the terrorists that own Libya. In the USA, had he been tried here, he would have been promptly executed. Apparently not in Scotland, where he is living in what can only be called extreme luxury, given that he's in prison.

Megrani has a bedroom, full bath, computer room (and computer), an office, a lounge (with TV, stereo, satellite, DVD, VCR, books, CDs, etc) and a kitchen. He has unlimited telephone privileges and private access to the suite from the general prison area.

He gets vistors. Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela have visited. No reports if Ghaddafi, Mugabe or Chirac have dropped in, but that would be about par. He gets fresh meats and vegetables to prepare himself, and can request food "sent up." In short, he's got it better than many Britons.

Well, at least he's serving life in prison, one might say. One would be wrong. He's serving a maximum of 20 years, and a judge may reduce even that next week.

And they want the US to join the World Court. Morons. I hope to hell we catch bin Laden before the Euros do.

(via LGF)

Ballot Issues

Several bloggers (Election Law, Volokh, Anthony Argyriou) have noted that certain counties reported zero undervotes in the recall portion of the special election. The idea is expressed that some of the new voting machines might be a problem. All 3 counties named used machines from the same company (Diebold). However, as California Insider points out, the same counties did report undervotes for the replacement portion of the election.

I'm going to suggest simple error in the tabulation or canvassing of the ballots in those counties, where some supervisor disregarded the non-votes as "irrelevant." Or too much work. Never assign to evil what you can assign to human error (or sloth). There is good evidence for this:

If you go and look at older ballot questions, such as the 2002 State Assembly elections you will see that certain counties reported zero undervotes in all Assembly districts within the county. These counties include San Francisco, San Mateo, Sacramento, Kern, Santa Barbara, Orange and Riverside, as well as some tiny ones. In 2002 these counties used a wide variety of voting devices.

Yet, in the same election, these counties all reported sizable non-votes for governor. This makes human error by the canvassers the most likely explanation. Some people just don't see the need to count non-votes.

The Infotel Rap Sheet

If you've been following the Calbog/Infotel dispute, you might be intrested in Infotel's local Better Business Bureau listing. It's not very favorable.

The Bureau has received numerous complaints concerning this company's selling practices. Most complaints claim their business was billed for a directory listing which was never ordered, or that Infotel sales personnel claimed to be asking for a renewal of a listing when none existed.....

Number of complaints processed by the BBB in last 36 Months: 495
Number of complaints processed by the BBB in last 12 months: 66...

Consumers who wish to file a complaint can contact the Federal Trade Commission at 877-382-4357 and Phonebusters for Canadian companies, by calling 888-495-8501. (Phonebusters is the national deceptive telemarketing call center operated by the Ontario, Canada, Provincial Police.)...

This company has an unsatisfactory business performance record with the Bureau due to a pattern of complaints claiming deceptive selling practices, a pattern of complaints concerning credit and billing procedures, and for failure to eliminate the cause of those complaints.

(via Right on the Left Beach)

I wonder how many times Infotel has threatened to sue the BBB? Nah, nobody's that stupid.

UPDATE: Patterico has obtained what he says is the demand letter to Calblog. If so, it's worse than we thought.

Bush in England

Andrew Sullivan has a post (and a London Times article due Sunday -- check his site) regarding the Fascist Left's mobilization to "welcome" President Bush on his upcoming trip to London. From all accounts it will greatly resemble the Seattle WTO "demonstration." Andrew quotes an email from the "front":

...The BBC is working the country into a frenzy regarding the upcoming Bush visit. Personally, I would love to go up to London and hold a placard welcoming the President but I fear for my safety. The Mall looks great with all the flags but I have no doubt it will all be trashed. We're getting reports that anarchists will storm Buckingham Palace. The papier mache effigies of W are nearly complete...

Now, I was in England last February, during the Great Demos to save Iraq (from the clutches of Cheney and Haliburton, apparently). The BBC was no better then. That time around, when the organizers (ANSWER, SPECTRE, THRUSH, etc) were trying to influence public opinion, the demos were orderly, due to the numerous "civilians" present. This time it's going to be the dead-enders in a fit of rage, and I have great hope that they will wear out their welcome.

In any event, I'm going to enjoy comparing the Lunatic Left's tantrum to the reception Bush gets next, oh, September in Basra and Baghdad.

CA state ruling on ISPs and libel

Just as the Calblog thing heated up, SFGate reports on an October 2003 CA Appeals Court (1st District) ruling (Barrett v. Rosenthal #A096451) that finds ISPs and other web publishers can be held liable in certain circumstances for libelous comments by 3rd parties on message boards or mail lists. The test seems to be whether the host knows (or reasonably should know) the post to be defamatory.

The ruling creates an impossible burden for ISPs, said Cindy Cohn, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which promotes free speech on line.

"It's not part of their job duties to referee disputes and sort out what's defamatory,'' she said. "In order to protect themselves, they'll take down speech'' after receiving a complaint.

This ruling seems to contradict parts of the 4th Circuit ruling in Zeran v AOL, which upheld AOL's immunity even though AOL had been told that a post was resulting in harrassment of an uninvolved 3rd party. However, that ruling is not binding in California. Indeed, the CA Appeals Court says:

The view of most scholars who have addressed the issue is that Zeran's analysis of section 230 is flawed, in that the court ascribed to Congress an intent to create a far broader immunity than that body actually had in mind or is necessary to achieve its purposes... We share that view.

An appeal is certain, first to the CA Supremes, then to federal court, with a possible Supreme Court appeal.

CORRECTION and UPDATE: The Barrett ruling was in the First Appellate District of Calfiornia, not the "4th Circuit" which must have been on my mind regarding Zeran. Corrected above. The opinion is available here

UPDATE: After re-reading this decision, it looks as though it's not as bad as the press made it appear. The respondent was very active in promulgating an obvious factual fabrication, and the methods used and clear motive left the "ISP veil" extremely weak. This appears to be an exception-to-the-rule decision, not a new blanket rule, and since it disputes several federal decisions in several circuits (and may conflict with Batzel in the 9th Circuit), may not even stand up on that basis.

D-Day as seen by modern reporters

Hilarious sendup of the liberal establishment media's treatment of Iraq. Especially reminiscient of the "bogged down" articles we saw a few days before Baghdad was liberated. From Right Wing News.

Today’s costly and chaotic landing compounds the President’s already large credibility problem.

More darkly, this phase of the war, commencing less than six months before the next general election, gives some the impression that Roosevelt may be using this offensive simply as a means to secure re-election in the fall.

Underlining the less than effective Allied attack, German casualties - most of them innocent and hapless conscripts - seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that “the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war.”

"The news couldn't be better," Adolph Hitler said when he was first informed of the D-Day assault earlier this afternoon. "As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them."

As they say, read the whole thing.

Call for Blog Defense Group

Breaker at Right on the Left Beach responds to the SLAPP threat against Calblog by suggesting a legal defense group or fund for defending bloggers against these kinds of baseless legal threats. He points out, correctly, that, um, evildoers may well want to shut down a blog and might use legal threats to do it.

As a call to action, we bloggers, left and right, need to consider forming a non-profit lobbying and defense association to keep the blogosphere free. We may not agree with each other on substance but we should all agree on process that:

1. Bloggers should only responsible for their own content, not comments.
2. American bloggers should not be exposed to foreign judgments for speech codes that vary from American First Amendment standards.
3. Any suit against a blogger must be held where the blogger is located and decided under the laws of the blogger’s location.

Sounds good to me. I'd be interested in input from some of the more active comment-blogs, such as CalPundit.

Other comments on the Calblog matter are linked at blogoSFERICS.

Energy Crisis Over, Says Davis

The Bee reports:

California's energy crisis ended Thursday.
Gov. Gray Davis said so.

In one of his last official acts, Davis proclaimed an official end to the crisis that marked the beginning of his political downfall.

"I'm pleased to declare California's energy emergency over," he said in a prepared statement.

So now if the power goes out, it's Arnold's fault. And you know what? I bet the power doesn't go out. The problem has been removed.

Arnold Elected: News at 11

Kevin Shelly has officially certified Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Goveror-elect. He will take office on Monday. Details at California Insider.

Technical Note

Bloggers who use Movable Type (or other Perl-based blogging software) AND who are hosted by Cpanel-type hosts may wish to note that an update today to Cpanel buggered many ISP's Perl installations. Details here.

I was unable to update Interocitor for a few hours today due to this. If you hit the "Comments" or "Trackback" link on an MT site, and get a long perl error message instead of what you expect -- or can't log in to post to your own site -- this is what is going on. Apparently, the ISP needs to rebuild each domain's Perl modules to fix the CPanel screwup.

Bear Flag member threatened with SLAPP lawsuit

Justene Adamec over at Calblog has been threatened with a defamation suit due to some of the 3rd party comments on one of her posts. Apparently, she had a run-in with a telemarketer who asserted that she had ordered a business directory from them, and was billing her for the unwanted, and says Justene, unordered book.

Then the message-board posts came in. First a number of other people who also had similar issues with the same company posted their experience. Then one or more individuals who claimed to be former employees of said telemarketing firm posted rather negative comments about the firm, using bogus email addresses. [Note: Movable Type, which Justene and I both use, does not validate the domain names (let alone email addresses) of posters. I'd like to see DNS checking, MT.] THEN a person purporting to work at said company (also using a false email address) flamed the other posters. Then things got out of hand.

Now the telemarketing firm thinks that they can sue Justene, who doesn't need this level of tsuris. Go read the posts here.

Findlaw is a wonderful service with a poor search engine. But two cases stand out: One is a 9th Circuit case affirming the availability of an anti-SLAPP defense (Batzel v. Smith AKA Batzel v. Cremers) (via Patterico) and the other is a 4th Circuit case (Zeran v America Online, Inc) affirming the immunity of message board providers against responsibility for 3rd-party defamatory comments on their boards even if they are informed by the allegedly-defamed party that there are problems with a particular post and do not remove it. The governing law is apparrently the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA") -- 47 U.S.C. § 230.

Gold stars to anyone who can find more. Send info to Justene at her blog. She'd especially like to hear from lawyers with experience in this area.

See also XRLQ

UPDATE: Justene has decided to delink the comments to the post in question, as she is going out of town and wants to avoid an ongoing problem while away. But the thread in question is reposted in full on XRLQ's post above.

It's official

The Senate has now added Janice Rogers Brown to the list of filibustered judicial appointments. According to this article, more may be added today.

This is getting out of hand. The Senate Democrats have decided that they are going to use this filibuster on anyone their pressure groups don't like. Which is to say, nearly everyone that Bush appoints from here on out. As usually happens when ***holes abuse rules, the rules have got to change.

A serious discussion is erupting in blogdom on the ways and means to change these rules. Lawrence Solum discusses the constitutional issues of the Senate refusal to vote on appointments, with an eye to court challenges. Others argue that legal efforts to change the rules will fail, and suggest that the Senate needs to change its own rules, if that's what's needed (although not everyone arguing this point feels that the rules need changing).

Another tactic suggested is using recess appointments. I kind of favor the nuclear recess appointment idea: appoint (or threaten to appoint) people who are more objectionable than any of the current nominees (Libertarians, for example), to give a sense of perspective. This idea was proposed some time ago by Randy Barnett, who would be a great interim judge. He suggested that a filibusted Supreme Court vacancy be filled by Robert Bork, and that the mere threat of such an appointment could well jar things loose in the Senate.

Then again, electing 8 more Republican Senators would work as well....

UPDATE: Go read Lileks' take on all this:

...The spleen, she hurts. I think it had to do with listening to the Senate debate, if that word applies, and wondering: are they always this banal? This condescending? Are bloviating prevarications the rule rather than the exception? In short: is the world’s greatest deliberative body really filled with this many dim bulbs, card sharps and overstroked dolts who confuse a leaden pause with great rhetoric? ...

Legal marijuana?

Maybe not yet, even in California, but this 9th Circuit decision declares that Congress cannot outlaw possession of home-made machine guns. The state can ban possession, and Congress can ban sales, but simple possession of a machine gun you make yourself seems beyond the reach of the Commerce clause. So, what about home-grown pot used for medical purposes in California? Legal Theory Blog has the details on United States v. Stewart and its implications. As he says, Wow!

Then again, it's the 9th Circuit....

Boondoggle, Aloha!

The Sacramento Bee (and California Insider) report on an upcoming Thanksgiving weekend "seminar" on CA's budget woes. It will be held at the Sheraton Maui, and paid for by the prison guard's union. Some legislators, in a fit of "ethics", will pay for the trip (with the wife and kids) "themselves" -- using campaign funds. The guest list is bipartisan.

Wientraub suggests that this apparently annual event may have a higher profile this year. Go figure.

Phoney Filibuster

The Senate "leadership" has scheduled a "debate" for today and tonight, to publicize the Democrats' mendacious filibuster of several appellate judges. But the way they are doing it will only serve to keep a few senators sleepless (if that), and has utterly no hope of ending the filibusters.

For 30 straight hours -- from Wednesday evening through midnight Thursday -- Republicans and Democrats will condemn each other in 30-minutes face-offs over four filibustered U.S. Appeals Court nominees: Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Mississippi judge Charles Pickering and Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada.

What rubbish. Do this the old fashioned-way. Bring the confirmations to the floor, and let the Democrats talk as long as they can (or dare). Days, weeks, months, whatever, 24 & 7. Stop all other business until it's resolved. Painless, gentlemanly filibusters are a recent, bad, invention, allowing too much business to be stopped by a minority. Make them work for it.

But this grandstand act, which will gain the Republicans only bad publicity (for not being serious) is useless. I put the odds at about $1000 versus a jelly doughnut that nothing changes. Utter waste of time.

UPDATE: Looking over at Lawrence Solum's excellent Legal Theory Blog, I note that Senate rules require a quorum to force a filibuster to continue, and only requires one opposing Senator to be present to prevent a vote. This makes breaking a large-minority filibuster impossible, since the filibustering side (alone) gets to use a tag team. Suggested fix: 2/3rds of a quorum be made sufficient to end debate, without wating for members to return to the chamber. Failing this, end the filibuster rule, at least for nominations. Maybe it's time to end it for good.

Boondoggle, Ho!

The LA Daily News reports:

Despite a budget crisis, Los Angeles Unified officials spent $16 million on conference centers and top hotels for training and seminars in the last fiscal year rather than using dozens of available district facilities, the Daily News has learned.

At least half the money was spent locally and the rest, including $2.5 million for air fares, hotels and car rentals, on out-of-town programs, according to LAUSD officials.

Probably needed to go to a series of conferences in Maui and Vail on "Why Budgeting Difficulties Are All Bush's Fault"

Arnold, Sprawl, and L.A. Reality

The LA Daily News reports that the Governor-elect is opting for several "smart growth" initiatives that may alienate some of his backers.

Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger could become the nation's newest Republican governor to try to curb suburban sprawl in favor of rebuilding existing cities, experts say, a path certain to rile some California builders and real estate interests who contributed $2.5 million to his campaign

Schwarzenegger, who took his campaign cues regarding growth from an environmental group, has projected a bent toward "smart growth" which favors transit, rebuilding existing cities and slowing development on vacant farmland. His Web site has pledged wholesale restoration of declining urban environments, criticized "fiscally unsustainable sprawl" and promised new incentives to build homes on blighted, bypassed land in older cities.

While it is good to see that Arnold is independant of his contributors, this kind of thing hasn't worked well in Los Angeles. This problem is not that it's a bad idea, as such, but that there is large opposition from the LA City Council. Any number of developers have attempted to rebuild parts of downtown LA, particularly the blighted areas on the south and east, but the city keeps putting such onerous conditions on them that they give up. To build in these areas requires destroying a lot of low-cost housing -- single-room-occupancy "hotels" and other tenements -- and doing so forces people out of LA or onto the streets. So the "homeless" advocates and the "affordable housing" folks beat each proposal to economic death in the city council, planning commission or courts. Additionally, certain businesses that depend on low-cost space (notably the garment industry) naturally resist these "blight-reduction" measures, as to them "blight" means "good value."

Somehow, I don't think the way to deal with this is more government involvement. If you want the inner city rebuilt, try letting people rebuild, without having to give half the property away to political cronies and their constituents. This isn't a planning problem, it's a red tape and baksheesh problem. Adding committees and master plans won't help. Getting out of the way just might.

LA Times and reform

Sunday's LA Times brings us a prescription for fixing California government. As usual, it is a few good things mixed in with the usual liberal wish list.

• Enhance the workers' compensation revisions that the Legislature started last year, to lift a crushing, unpredictable cost burden that dampens job creation. By doing this first, the Legislature would give business more confidence in wider reforms.

The devil is in the details, of course.

• Fix the campaign finance system to greatly reduce special-interest clout with elected officials... The state should consider public campaign financing to return power to voters without opening new loopholes.

Yawn. Public financing again. How many times does this have to get killed at the polls? Killer questions: Does a Libertarian or Green candidate get the same funding as a Democrat or Republican? How about 3rd party primary candidates? What about independants? What about self-financed candidates -- or can you tell people they can't spend their own money for political speech? And why worry about new loopholes -- the old ones are big enough.

• Lengthen legislative terms to 12 years in each house, six two-year terms in the Assembly and three four-year terms in the Senate..

I could live with this, IF it was made very clear that the limits were retroactive, and did not restart the clock on anyone. The current limits were set short to clear out the careerists, but don't make a lot of sense going forward.

• Turn over redistricting of legislative seats to an independent commission — possibly made up of retired judges — overseen by the state Supreme Court..

Good idea. Costa is doing this. The Times will likely find a way to be against it, come election time, after the Dems give them the party line.

• Reduce the margin needed to pass a state budget and any other spending bill. In 47 other states and in Congress, a majority suffices. The two-thirds rule in California ties up budgets for weeks or months beyond the deadline.

Note that they NEVER mention that these proposals would also remove the 2/3rds requirement for tax increases. Boo. Hiss. I say make it 3/4ths.

• Increase the signatures needed for initiatives and recalls. A measure to reform recalls has been introduced in the Legislature and should be broadened to both.

The Times has opposed the initiative, recall and referendum for about 100 years -- against them when Hiram Johnson proposed them, against them now. Some things never change. The recall replacement ballot eligibility may need some work, but the rest of it works just fine.

• Review the tax code to level out revenue spikes and plunges. Revise Proposition 13 regulations so business properties are reassessed for property tax purposes when ownership changes. The sales tax could be reduced if it were extended to services such as dry cleaning and legal work, reflecting the state's modern economy. The overly volatile income tax should be flattened slightly, even if the middle class pays slightly more. Combine with overhauled spending limits.

God knows that CA's tax system is way broken. No tax money is spent by the body that collects it. Everything is moved from county to state to city to county again, until a Byzantine bureaucrat would be mystified.

Bring everything possible back to counties and cities, overturn (or reinterpret) Serranno and let counties run the schools instead of the state. The Times' idea of fixing Prop 13, sales tax and income taxes to make them "fairer" probably means I'll pay more, so I'm against on general princples. Reinstituting spending limits is a good idea. How about repealing the repeal of the old Gann limit, and going back to the original 1970's basis? That would fix the budget in one shot.

Adtually, I'm impressed. The Times has managed to come up with a reform list that isn't entirely impossible, and actually will annoy the Left. There may be hope for them yet.

Refusing to let the government move in

Baldilocks explains why she's not a single mother. This connects to Kim du Toit's recent rant about what Philip Wylie called "Momism" back in the 50's, as well as echoing Justice Brown's oft-quoted "slander" on the state. Baldilocks has this odd notion that men should take responsibility for their children and that women should rather insist upon it. But read the whole thing.

"Where Government moves in"

Justice Brown is derided by liberals for saying that "[w]here government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our destiny atrophies", but this graphic from Aaron's Rantblog shows that she's on to something.

According to Aaron, when you take each state's per-capita charitable donations, normalize them by the state's per-capita income, and then correlate the result by the red-blue map of states that voted for Bush or Gore, the top 20 states in generosity ALL voted for Bush.

MTA strike and the future

LA Mayor Hahn, after hiding out for the first several weeks of the MTA strike, has now thrown in with the mechanic's union. Not only is siding with these holdup artists shameful, but the timing of his sudden involvement sucks.

The MTA board, of which Hahn controls 4 seats, has made a final offer to the union, on which they are voting today. The union boss, Neil Silver, has recommended a NO vote, and wants to force the MTA to enter binding arbitration, so as to split the difference up from the MTA's 5th offer. The MTA says no. Now Hahn comes out, at the last minute -- against the board of which he is part -- and backs the union demands.

Hahn is not alone. Other Democrat politicians, notably Herb Wesson, Assembly Speaker, have also announced support for the MTA unions. Given a choice between working-class people and entrenched (engorged?) public-employee unions, it's interesting to see what side Dem politicians are taking. When push comes to shove, they seem to be breaking for the unions. The bus riders apparently don't vote all that much, and certainly don't write checks to politicians.

I believe that this is the tip of the iceberg. Come Nov 17th, when the new governor is sworn in, we're going to start seeing more of this. Schwarzenegger has made it clear that he thinks that the public-employee unions are the biggest back-room special interest in the state. Which is true, of course. They are also the biggest component of the Democrat machine, providing it both money and manpower every election. When Arnold goes after the crass contributions-for-raises deals that Davis cut, the unions are going to scream, and we may possibly see many more of these hostage-strikes like MTA.

This may get very ugly, but I think that for Arnold (and the Republicans) to side with the recipients of government services (and taxpayers) over the bloated employee unions is a smart move. If the case is made that either wages & benefits must come down or services must be cut, few will sympathize with the unions. The only alternative, which the unions will offer, is to raise taxes. But Bustamente lost. Can't see a lot of folks voting raise their sales taxes, or bus fares, to give their bus driver free total family medical, and the right to retire at 45, when they don't have anything like that themselves.

In other news, Gov Dean is picking up the endorsements of the public employee's unions. That may hurt him in California come November.

UPDATE: According to the Times, the MTA mechanic's union, with less than half its members voting, utterly rejected MTA's "last, best offer." The MTA board then said it would not proceed with its threatened replacement-worker plan. This may be related to a judge today waiving ethics rules and allowing board members who have taken union money to rejoin the negotiations. I now expect the MTA Board to cave, and enter arbitration. The rest of the unions will follow. Look for fare hikes in the spring.

George Stephanopolous meets Dick Clark

Mickey Kaus points out that George Stephanopolous is not exactly a youth magnet.

Could ABC News executives really have thought making George Stephanopoulos host of This Week would attract young viewers to the show? Did they actually talk to any young viewers? Stephanopoulos is transparently an old person's idea of a young person...

One wonders if Stephanopolous is planning on following Dick Clark's career path, eventually becoming an ancient young person.

I'm a tool of the RNC

Apparently I, and all the other bloggers, Drudge, the New York Times, etc, are simply minions of the Republican National Committee. At least that's what the DNC says about CBS cancelling the "Reagans" mini-smear. The DNC is upset. Now, a less generous person than myself might ask, "Why are they upset?", or wonder what horse they had in the race, but I won't [hat tip: Al Gore].

Anyway, the DNC ranted at some length, as reported at Powerline

CBS has decided to pull its miniseries about Ronald Reagan after a Republican National Committee-organized campaign complaining that it didn't lionize their favorite president enough.

CBS's decision is — to put it mildly — disturbing. Essentially the network has given the ruling party veto power over the content it puts on the air.

As Powerline notes, it's nice to see the Dems admit they're on the "outs", but this is news of the first order if they also feel that the RNC controls the media.

If true, someone should get over to NBC and make some changes on West Wing. Maybe something with an intern.

UPDATE: BoiFromTroy suggests the intern. Not exactly what I had in mind, but hey....

Active Oxymoron

This isn't irony, exactly. But this story from the LA Times detailing how politicians are paying their fines for "campaign ethics" violations with campaign funds is just too choice a reducio ad absurdum to not be something like that. Since "campaign ethics" is itself an oxymoron, I coin the term active oxymoron for this particular practice.

Commissioner Bill Boyarsky, a former [LA] Times editor ... said of the current policy. "I think that really defeats the purpose of the law, that you have broken the law and you are fined, and then you go out and have a fund-raiser with the very same people."

Well, d'oh. In fact, the fine may even be paid from the funds that are in question.

Which brings one back to the ancient argument that political ethics laws are useless -- if you elect crooks, they will behave like crooks, and will find a way around whatever laws that exist. It would be better to have no laws, full disclosure, and an active press willing to fairly "out" the crooks come election time. But in this town expecting an honest press might be tougher than finding an honest policitican. So it goes.

CBS Cancels "The Reagans"

NY Times

Under pressure from Republican and conservative groups, CBS is expected to announce as early as today that it is canceling its plans to run a two-part mini-series in November deconstructing the Ronald Reagan presidency, two people close to the decision said last night.

More here. Apparently advertisers bailed and now it will run on commercial-free Showtime. Apparently the show was pitched as depicting the love story between Ronald and Nancy, but became, in the hands of people who hated the both of them, a libelous screed. I bet Showtime puts it on the 12th of Never.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Judging from the news from Iraq, the Sadammist-al Queda alliance is gaining momentum. Meanwhile the US response seems to be guarding strong points, restoring infrastructure and "winning the hearts and minds." I'm not one of the quagmirists, but this does have a ring of deja vu. We need to get serious about quashing this resistance now, and quite violently.

Some questions:

• Why is there any power, water or fuel being delivered to the Tikrit area? We ended the Kosovo war by turning off the lights in Belgrade (dropping aluminum chaff into power plants). McCain's idea, as I recall. This time we control the switches. Turn them off. Let it be known that the lights/fuel/water stay off until all of Saddam's people are captured.


• What are we doing taking prisoners? I thought, under martial law, that really rude things happen to people raising up arms against the military authority. Why bomb 50,000 Iraqi conscripts into jelly and then quail at shooting willing fascist guerrillas? Let people compare their $500 bounty against getting taken out and shot. I doubt the other side is taking prisoners, and the Geneva Convention does not apply to guerrillas anyway.


• Where are the trials? Justice delayed is justice denied. The thugs that tortured children in front of their parents, or shot unarmed civilians as examples should be tried, and if found guilty, hanged. This will upset the French, but for some reason, I don't care much.

Our unwillingness to confront this challenge only encourages more. We're being tested, and by our enemy's medieval rules, we are found wanting. It's only a matter of time, they figure, until we cut and run.

They may well be right.

Will the real Janice Rogers Brown please stand up?

A Sacramento Bee article today discusses which person -- the public speaker or the judge -- is the "real Janice Rogers Brown." Apparently some fear that she may have a strong Libertarian bent. One can only hope. It wasn't always the case.

She said in a Bee interview she was "almost a Maoist" in college but came to see certain leftist views as "crazy." The political shift accelerated during a series of state legal jobs -- the final one as legal affairs secretary to Gov. Pete Wilson.

Much is also made of her choice of words in both opinions and speechs -- Brown tends to use phrases designed to rattle rather than soothe. She does not seem to be an avid seeker of compromise. In short, she has standards and ideals. The CA Chief Justice is bothered by this, but

Several current and former colleagues said her dissents have been appropriately designed to draw attention to her ideas and reflect no personal animosity.

It seems, though, that Brown's real offense was not issuing a strident defense of affirmative action in the Prop 209 case. Instead she called affirmative action to be impermissable discrimination and wrote the scathing majority opinion (with concurring opinions by all the court) that sustained the people's vote against affirmative action.

"Let's be honest," said Arthur Scotland, presiding justice of the Court of Appeal in Sacramento, "Janice Rogers Brown is being opposed by some not on the basis of her qualifications, but because they perceive the strength of her intellect and the quality of her character as a threat to the implementation of their political views.

"It is a sad day in America when such a brilliant and humble person as Janice Rogers Brown is vilified for political purposes."

[hat tip: How Appealing]

MTA Strike Debate

The LA Times Sunday Opinon features dueling artciles by Zev Yaroslavsky for the MTA Board, and Neil Silver, president of the mechanic's union. A number of things stand out.

First is that the mechanic's union "offer" to submit the last MTA proposal to binding arbitration is a sham -- they can only gain ground by splitting the difference up from the final offer.

Second is that the mechanics have, already, some of the best benefits of any public employees. Better than, say, police or firemen (who cannot strike). Example:

Mechanics can retire with a full pension after only 23 years of work. One of the most generous benefits given to MTA employees is the "23 and out" provision, which allows an employee who begins work at age 20 to retire at age 43 with a full pension. These retired MTA veterans can then start a second career with the MTA or elsewhere while drawing a full pension...

They are squabbling partly about whether these retired 43-year-olds get lifetime full medical guaranteed.

Third is that the health benefit trust fund, managed by the union and funded by the MTA, which is at the heart of the strike, is, in part, underfunded because the union has been transferring funds from the medical trust fund into its operating account.

The MTA has now made a fifth and final offer, ended negotiations, and threatens to hire replacement workers if the strike continues. I'd go further: they need to fire anyone who does not report for work on a day certain. Reagan's firing of PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981 ended the long series of strikes like this against the federal government. Let this be our PATCO.

More on Janice Rogers Brown

Two great op-eds on CaliforniaRepublic.org on Justice Brown. The first, by her former chief-of-staff, tells of Justice Brown's background. Perhaps her lack of prep-schools and a Harvard education offends the old-boy network:

Janice Brown grew up in the segregated South, the child of sharecroppers. Coming to California with her parents, she received an undergraduate degree from Cal. State and went on to law school at UCLA. A widowed single parent, she took her son with her to law school classes and worked nights. She later remarried and continued in government service in Sacramento, in time rising to become California Governor Pete Wilson's chief legal adviser. From there, the Governor nominated her to serve on the Third District Court of Appeal. With its proximity to the seat of state government, this court is not unlike the federal District of Columbia Court of Appeals to which the President has named her.

Gov. Wilson's 1996 nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to a seat on the California Supreme Court sparked outcries from the infamous JENY commission, a quasi-public body that evaluates judicial nominees. They called her "unqualified" to serve on the high court, saying she was too "opinionated." However, her sterling track record impeaches every word pronounced on her by the liberals at JENY. Janice Brown is a hands-on workhorse, who has consistently authored more opinions each year than any other member of the California Supreme Court.

The second op-ed is by Bob Parks, a black conservative. Parks lists all the liberal trash-talk about Brown (by the likes of Senator Schumer and Reps. Dianne Watson and Eleanor Holmes Norton) and fisks more than a few. My favorite is this one by Schumer:

“The cases say what they say. She wants to turn back the clock, not just a few years, but by a century or more.” -- Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

If I may butt in for a second, what is Schumer talking about? Aside from the focus-grouped jargon that is known to grab the attention of tuned-out blacks, who has not turned back the clock, but just unplugged it? It’s been Schumer, Holmes-Norton, Watson, and their liberal cohorts who see blacks as stray pets.

Conservative blacks have been trying to "turn back the clock" and give parents the same choice liberal blacks (and rich whites) have, by freeing their kids from public schools through the vouchers they beg for -- but are denied by black Democrats who sell out their people for teachers' union money.

This confirmation is going to get very, very dirty.

UPDATE: David Bernstein over at Volokh has some comments on the Lochner case, which Justice Brown is incorrectly accused (by a very rude and transparently idiotic Sen Schumer) of supporting. Bernstein also links to several cases decided under the Lochner precedent (which would have been horrors had they gone the other way), along with an analysis of Brown's views on Lochner by Clayton Cramer.