« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »
Netflix is close to launching their movie download service, says Engadget. Sounds good. How much, I wonder? Given that the main limiting factor on their existing service is the speed at which you can turn the mailers around, I'll be interested in seeing what the pricing model looks like...
Reading this article, doesn't it seem like the writer, Melissa Nelson, thinks her story is about how mean our immigration policies are? Based on the information presented, it appears to actually be about a group of illegal immigrants who endangered their own children, some as young as 3 months old, by lying to federal officials.
The new US trailer for upcoming Joss Wedon ubermovie Serenity is online.
I've got a really good feeling about this picture.
(Via Whedonesque.)
Residents in two boring Kansas communities are angry about it. Or something like that. To be honest, I sort of dozed off while reading the article.
Joking aside, I can't say it's exciting, but I do think Cawker City's giant ball of twine is kinda cool—even if Weird Al chose to sing about the one in Darwin.)
Boy, am I relieved [that the Screen Actors Guild has voted to approve a new contract covering voice over work in video games]. Now Scarlett Johannson and Ewan McGregor will be able to do the voice-overs for that hotly anticipated video game version of The Island. In the game, Johansson will scream and run around, while McGregor attempts to save Dreamworks exec Steven Spielberg and director Michael Bay from sinking [into] a giant pit of quicksand with a rope made of dollar bills tied together...Hey, that's just mean. (In case you didn't hear, The Island was a financial disaster in its opening weekend: it earned only $12.4 million against its $122 million budget.)
Bush and the rest of the Rep's were able to squeak through Congress with CAFTA, even though only 15 Democrats voted for the bill.
You know why I still consider myself an independent, refusing to accept the label "Democrat"? Because of stuff like this. I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, "Tariffs suck." (I might be paraphrasing a bit.)
Is it sad when people lose their jobs? Yes. Should it drive policy? No. In fact, if we can't compete against Guatemala, then we should, quite simply, be ashamed of ourselves.
You might think this is in conflict with my support of a minimum wage. It is not. I also firmly believe that if we can't compete against Guatemala and still provide our workers with the means to live in circumstances not describable with the word "squalor", then we should be even more ashamed of ourselves.
Some few activities of our culture are best regulated by government -- roads, the making of laws, national defense, etc. Textiles, not so much.
REPORTER VOWS TO 'KILL SELF' IF CHENEY RUNS FOR PRESIDENTHe doesn't even have to win, he just has to announce??
Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.
Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.
This question from the Political Typology from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press is a fascinating study into the mentality of Liberalism.
It is, actually, a perfect question. It lures Liberals to agree strongly with its siren song. It is marvelously worded.
What is interesting is its implication: that America is relying on its military force to defeat terrorism.
America relied on military force to defeat the al Qaeda organization in Afghanistan. And relied on military force to defeat the Hussein regime in Iraq.
But in reality, what is America's strategy to defeat terrorism?
Democracy. Clear and simple. Military force is simply a tactic to achieve democracy.
I wonder what sort of test would have as one of its questions, "Relying too much on democracy to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism."
Did environmentalism kill the Columbia astronauts? It looks like it may have helped.
I think the real answer to the shuttle's problems is to get rid of it. It's done. Embarassing, but unsurprising, that the government failed to replace it in a timely manner. Maybe these guys can manage it.
. (Link via Instapundit).
David was kind enough to ask the following question in a previous post on the role of government in collection of data for the purpose of crime avoidance: "What are its boundaries, or does it have any?"
Why, thank you for asking!
Would Russell support, on the same principle, oh... the implantation of coded transponders in all citizens to allow law enforcement to enforce immigration laws?
No. And I'll tell you why. Citizens are allowed to immigrate to the country... because this is where they live. To enforce immigration laws, we would need to implant non-citizens. That might be diplomatically tricky.
Oh. Wait. I think I understand what you mean now. If all citizens have implants, then anyone coming across the border who doesn't activate the machine that goes ping is an illegal? Do I have that right? Personally, I think that's overkill, because we already have a government issued document that accomplishes the same purpose: a passport. If someone wanted to put coded transponders inside US passports, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Might make border crossings smoother. But I doubt it.
Routine monitoring of phone conversations to allow law enforcement to enforce federal campaign finance, telemarketing, and anti-terrorism laws?
With the appropriate rules for use of information thus gathered, as described in a warrant -- even a relatively broad-based warrant -- I would have no problem with this. I'm guessing your use of the word "routine" implies monitoring without a warrant. That becomes problematic. (More on that below.)
Camera's and microphones in people's homes to listen for evidence that they have committed a crime?
We do have this. It also requires a warrant. And here's why what you're describing here is different than some sort of monitoring of the location of a citizen's vehicle. That kind of monitoring can be accomplished in a way that mimicks human, non-invasive surveillance. Listening in on phone or personal conversations does not. Where my car is, that piece of information I have no expectation of privacy on, because anyone can see it. What I say on the phone, I do have an expectation of privacy. So, in that instance, I believe a warrant is appropriate.
(Similarly, a conversation inside my car is also private... but unless my windows are tinted beyond the limits of traffic safety, the identity of the person with whom I'm conversing is not private.)
Is there some point at which that a measure allowing law enforcement the ability to enforce laws rather than simply responding to them is no longer sufficient to justify its implementation?
Yes there is. It's just about here:
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm sure the constitutional scholars out there would blanche at my simplistic reading, but I would class "listening in on a private conversation" as an unreasonable search, and recording it as an unreasonable seizure.
But then I'm just a whining liberal, making a mockery of the constitution by interpreting it!
Recent Comments