Sotomayor, Day Two, (pt I)

Student versus Douchebags.
Doninger v Neihoff
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-05-29-Doninger%20Second%20Circuit%20Opinion.pdf

"Avery Doninger (“Avery”), was disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary after she posted a vulgar and misleading message about the supposed cancellation of an upcoming school event on an independently operated, publicly accessible web log (or “blog”)."

and

"Because Avery’s blog post created a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption at LMHS, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion."

The characterization of the "vulgar and misleading" bothers me, as does the "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption".

But:


"Doninger, alleging principally a violation of her daughter’s First Amendment rights, moved for a preliminary injunction voiding the election for Senior Class Secretary and ordering the school either to hold a new election in which Avery would be allowed to participate or to grant Avery the same title, honors, and obligations as the student elected to the position, including the privilege of speaking as a class officer at graduation. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Doninger had failed to show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits."

{Which may seem a little flaky asking the court to do that, but it's later revealed that as a write-in candidate Avery still won, even without campaigning or having her name on the ballot.}

Additional Info:
Student council had rescheduled Jamfest- a battle of the bands- twice. On the new date, the teacher- who was to run lighting and sound- was unavailable. Administrators wanted it moved to the cafeteria or the date changed. Student Council said the cafeteria would require acoustic instruments and problems for the bands who would need to change their sets. Student Council also worried that changing the date would cause bands to drop out of the competition.

Avery, and three other Student Council members, got on one of their father's email accounts, and informed the broader community "to the Jamfest situation and enlisting help in persuading school officials to let Jamfest take place in the auditorium as scheduled. The four students met at the school’s computer lab that morning and accessed one of their fathers’ email account. They drafted a message to be sent to a large number of email addresses in the account’s address book, as well as to additional names that Avery provided. The message stated, in substance, that the administration had decided that the Student Council could not hold Jamfest in the auditorium because Miller was unavailable. It requested recipients to contact Paula Schwartz, the district superintendent, to urge that Jamfest be held as scheduled, as well as to forward the email “to as many people as you can.” All four students signed their names and sent the email. The message was sent out again later that morning to correct an error in the telephone number for Schwartz’s office."

The Principal was mad. Avery says the principal told her she was very upset and that Jamfest would be cancelled. The principal says that's not true. The principal was upset the student council didn't come to her or the superintendent first. "[The Principal] testified that class officers are expected to work cooperatively with their faculty advisor and with the administration in carrying out Student Council objectives. They are charged, in addition, with “demonstrat[ing] qualities of good citizenship at all times.”" District Court found for the Principal, on what was/wasn't said. Avery and Principal Niehoff, according to the principal, decided a corrective email would be sent out that night.

"That night, however, Avery posted a message on her publicly accessible blog, which was hosted by livejournal.com, a website unaffiliated with LMHS"

"jamfest is cancelled due to douchebags in central office. here is an
email that we sent to a ton of people and asked them to forward to
everyone in their address book to help get support for jamfest.
basically, because we sent it out, Paula Schwartz is getting a TON of
phone calls and emails and such. we have so much support and we
really appriciate it. however, she got pissed off and decided to just
cancel the whole thing all together. anddd so basically we aren’t
going to have it at all, but in the slightest chance we do it is going to
be after the talent show on may 18th. andd..here is the letter we sent
out to parents."

She posted the original letter, then:

"And here is a letter my mom sent to Paula [Schwartz] and cc’d
Karissa [Niehoff] to get an idea of what to write if you want to write
something or call her to piss her off more. im down.—"

"Avery testified before the district court that “im down” meant that she approved of the idea of others contacting Schwartz to “piss her off more.” She stated that the purpose of posting the blog entry was “to encourage more people than the existing e-mail already encouraged to contact the administration” about Jamfest. The district court concluded that the content of the message itself suggested that her purpose was “to encourage her fellow students to read and respond to the blog.” Id. at 206. The district court also noted that “[s]everal LMHS students posted comments to the blog, including one in which the author referred to Ms. Schwartz as a ‘dirty whore.’” Id. at 206-07."

There was a meeting. Jamfest was rescheduled. Avery says they didn't mention the propriety of mass emails to criticize the administration.

"According to the district court, however, Schwartz and Niehoff “at the very least, made clear to the students that appealing directly to the public was not an appropriate means of resolving complaints the students had regarding school administrators’ decisions.” Id. at 207. The district court also found that, as a result of the Jamfest controversy, both Schwartz and Niehoff were forced to miss or arrived late to several school-related activities scheduled for April 24 and April 25."

[ASIDE] Are you noticing a pattern, here? Anytime the kid disagrees with the "adults" the kid is wrong.... I wish I could see the actual court records to discover why that was. I'm not sure there are many kids who could, or would, lie under oath on the stand at a District Court. After all, according to the Army, 85% of people break- are unable/unwilling to resist telling the truth- on direct questioning. Anyway... [/aside]

The superintendent's adult sun used a search engine and found the blog post a few days later. The superintendent showed the principal, who researched Conn. education law, and the school's policies. The principal decided that due to the "vulgar" and "inaccurate" information in the post, and due to Avery not taking her counsel on how to appropriately deal with addressing issues of concern, "Niehoff concluded that Avery’s conduct had failed to display the civility and good citizenship expected of class officers." "Niehoff decided that Avery should be prohibited from running for Senior Class Secretary. Because Avery had Advanced Placement exams at that time, however, Niehoff chose not to confront her immediately."

A few weeks later, Avery goes to accept her nomination as Senior Class Secretary. Niehoff hands her a print out of the blog post. Demands a written apology tot h superintendent, that Avery show the post to her mother, and that Avery withdraw her nomination. Avery complies with the first two portions. Niehoff withholds Avery's administrative endorsement, "which effectively prohibited her from running for Senior Class Secretary, though Avery was permitted to retain her positions as representative on the Student Council and as Junior Class Secretary."

Niehoff says her decision was based on:
"(1) Avery’s failure to accept her counsel “regarding the proper means of expressing disagreement with administration policy and seeking to resolve those disagreements”; (2) the vulgar language and inaccurate information included in the post; and (3) its encouragement of others to contact the central office “to piss [Schwartz] off more,” which Niehoff did not consider appropriate behavior for a class officer"

"Even though she was not permitted to be on the ballot or to campaign, Avery received a plurality of the votes for Senior Class Secretary as a write-in candidate. The school did not permit her to take office, however, and the second-place candidate became class secretary for the Class of 2008."

Avery's mom sued.

"Schwartz and Niehoff removed the action to the District of Connecticut. Doninger filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court developed the facts outlined here from exhibits, affidavits, deposition testimony, and the hearing testimony of ten live witnesses, including students, faculty, administrators, and parents. The district court concluded that a preliminary injunction was not warranted because Doninger did not show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. This appeal followed."

Discussion:

The court agrees that there's been harm to Avery's First Amendment Rights; but the second part of the question is whether Avery's mom's suit has "demonstrated a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits."

"The Supreme Court has yet to speak on the scope of a school’s authority to regulate expression that, like Avery’s, does not occur on school grounds or at a school-sponsored event. We have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school grounds, when this conduct “would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment,” at least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off-
12 campus expression might also reach campus. Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ., 494 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. — (2008).[size=85]1[/size]"

[size=85]1[/size] The Wisniewski panel divided on the question whether it was necessary in that case to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the expression at issue would reach school property. Two panel members concluded that the undisputed fact that it did so “pretermit[ted] any inquiry as to this aspect of reasonable foreseeability.” 494 F.3d at 39.

"[A]s Judge Newman accurately observed some years ago, “territoriality is not necessarily a useful concept in determining the limit of [school administrators’] authority.” [Thomas v Board of Education]. True enough in 1979, this observation is even more apt today, when students both on and off campus routinely participate in school affairs, as well as in other expressive activity unrelated to the school community, via blog postings, instant messaging, and other forms of electronic communication."

The court says, essentially, that the blog post [i]could[/i] make its way onto school grounds- which would mean the case falls under Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) {or Fraser} which says that a student's offensive, vulgar, speech is not protected while on school grounds, even if that speech would be protected for an adult. It says that, in fact, since other students posted comments on Avery's blog, this is extremely likely.

The court says that the materials [i]could[/i] cause a disruption- and that the materials did, by making two people late to a couple meetings.

Therefore, as established in previous case law (from the 60s, 70s, and 80s) Avery's First Amendment rights don't protect her because this was all a school matter, under school jurisdiction and territoriality, effectively.

"[The case] bears similarity to Lowery v. Euverard, which involved a group of high school football players who were removed from the team after signing a petition expressing their hatred of the coach and their desire not to play for him. The players lodged a First Amendment claim and the Sixth Circuit determined that the relevant question under Tinker was whether it was reasonable for school officials “to forecast that the petition would disrupt the team” — meaning that the petition might foreseeably frustrate efforts to teach the values of sportsmanship and team cohesiveness through participation in sport as an extracurricular activity. Lowery, 497 F.3d at 593, 596. The court noted that the players had not been suspended from school or even prevented from further criticizing the coach: “[T]hey are free to continue their campaign to have Euverard fired. What they are not free to do is continue to play football for him while actively working to undermine his authority.” Id. at 600 (emphases omitted). The court held that there had been no First Amendment violation."

Also, because there's no evidence that any of the other Student Council members wrote a blog post, or a similar kind of message, like Avery; Avery has no standing under equal protection for her mom's class-of-one claim.

Finally:
"We are sympathetic to [Avery's] disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledge her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.” Doninger, 514 F. Supp. 2d at 202 (internal quotation marks omitted). We are not called upon, however, to decide whether the school officials in this case exercised their discretion wisely. Local school authorities have the difficult task of teaching “the shared values of a civilized social order” — values that include our veneration of free expression and civility, the importance we place on the right of dissent and on proper respect for authority. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683. Educators will inevitably make mistakes in carrying out this delicate responsibility. Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.” Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 326 (1975). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed."

My Conclusion:
Sotomayor didn't write the opinion, so bare that in mind. The finale seems to articulate things rather concretely.

HOWEVER, The usage of prior case law was spurious. In twenty-thirty years all that shit, and this case, will be superseded by a new generation of federal judges who will have grown up with modern technology. The internet is NOT the school. And just because my friends and me talk online, doe NOT make it inherently public communication. Those are OLD concept that do not address modern technological realities of the internet. It's the SCHOOL's responsibility to block access to sites like livejournal. Not the student's responsibility to confer with School Administrators and DISTRICT COURT JUDGES before posting their thoughts on their blog.

The person who found the blog was actively searching for it or something very similar. It takes some understanding of how search engines work, and crawl sites like livejournal, to really grasp this. This is part of the reason I'd like to see transcripts of the case. To figure out EXACTLY what this adult son of the superintendent was looking for, and why.

Also, my anecdotal experiences with fucked up school principals lead me to think that the Administrators are bullshitters- with the authority of their titles- saying "oh, she's just a kid, of COURSE I didn't say THAT! She only took it that way!" But it's also true that one person can say one thing and another can hear something completely different.

In the end, I think it's the Judges inability to really comprehend that The internet is not the same as a 'zine or a pamphlet. This case SHOULD have provided precedence protecting the rights of students to post private thoughts of their blogs, and email their friends. If Avery had been on a conference call with a bunch of her friends, and said even worse things, we'd never have known it and she wouldn't have had to correct it, and she'd have graduated as her Senior Class Secretary. But, instead, READING and WRITING got the STUDENT in trouble. Good Job, assholes. Way to be full of fetid fail...
Read More...

Great News!

(via /.)
"Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology."
Read More...

Fall TV, so far...

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/04/fall-tv-cheat-s.html

The gist is, I hate so much of what was a "sure thing" that I'm questioning a bunch of things about my future prospects. And hoping it's you that are stupid, not me. ;-)

To be honest, I also hated almost everything that got canceled, too. I think it's a choice between shit, utter shit, and Are You Fucking Serious? on television, anymore.
Read More...

This

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1910892

and

http://www.critical-hits.com/2009/05/18/the-contrary-opinion-jj-abrams-star-trek-with-spoilers/

Yep.
Read More...

Collins and the NIH

Francis Collins, of the Human Genome Project, is the rumored Obama appointee to head the NIH, the National Institutes of Health.

After the last eight years of science-bashing religionistas, do we really need more people who can't separate their personal superstition from science?

Pharyngula says No:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/dis-appointment.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/holier_than_thou.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/more_on_what_we_can_expect_fro.php

I agree.

{BTW: Blogger is annoying....}
Read More...

Sotomayor, Day One, (pt V)

In conclusion, I find that I'm wary of her opinions on copyright; but hopeful they have changed. I'd like more information on her opinions of the constitutionality of RFRA, which she avoided. And I want more info on her opinions of rights to privacy. Also, some clarity on those FOIA requests she denied saying she didn't want to “unreasonably hamper agencies in their decision-making.”

All of these things will, surely, be discussed to death and back, and be brought up in the confirmation hearings. But she'll be able to avoid most of the hot-button issues. It will be informative to see which questions she avoids, and which she answers.

I think she'll be a good moderate on the courts. I'm still not sure how I feel about moderates on the SCUSA, though.
Read More...

Sotomayor (pt IV)

Hankins vs Lyght
I like to call this one Old Dude vs Methodists. It's the case of a minister suing the church because they fired him. He had refused to take mandatory retirement at the age of 70- a church policy.

The district court dismissed the claim; on appeal, the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which - subject to certain exceptions - prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion, had effectively amended the ADEA by providing a defense for ADEA violations.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/


The crux of Sotomayor's dissenting opinion seems to be:
+ Both parties waived RFRA in letter briefs.
+ "The Court found RFRA's protections 'so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that [the statute] cannot be understood as responsice to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.'"
+ Even if RFRA wasn't waived, it doesn't apply to a dispute between two private parties. and "Two provisions of the statute implicitly limit its application to disputes in which the government is a party."
+ And that ADEA couldn't apply to a member of the clergy v the church because that is a matter of internal religious governance, and requires too much interaction between the state and the religion. She cites several cases making it clear that this is only the case due to the position of the person being forced to retire. In her own words "Here... the dispute is between a minister with primarily religious duties and a church that no longer wishes him to serve as pastor of a congregation." + Also "[M]y conclusion is substantially the same as that of other Circuits: courts may not adjudicate employment discrimination lawsuits brought by clergy members challenging a religious body's refusal to select or retain them as spiritual leaders."

If you've read all this and plan on listening to the confirmation hearings, do yourself a favor- as this one is almost sure to come up- learn about the Catholic Bishop rule.

Read More...

Sotomayor (pt III)

Great Resource:
http://documents.nytimes.com/selected-cases-of-judge-sonia-sotomayor/page/83#p=169
Read More...

Sotomayor (pt II)

Copyright:
Castle Rock Entertainment Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group

I'm thinking since this ruled in favor of the copyright holder, we'll be hearing a lot about it.

The complaint:
Carol Publishing Group published a book called The Seinfeld Aptitude Test, or The SAT. At first, NBC liked it and nothing happened. Later, Castle Rock asked them to stop. They didn't, so Castle Rock took 'em to court.

Essentially the court said "The Copyright Act of 1976 ("Copyright Act"), 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-803, grants copyright owners a bundle of exclusive rights, including the rights to "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies" and "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work."" And that the Carol Publishing Group had produced a derivative work, since there were so many usages of the fictional "facts" relating to the show.

Seems fair. The book was just a regurgitation of trivia from the episodes. No one would doubt that selling a ticket to a live play of an episode, where everything is done, and said, exactly the same, is not fair use. That's how the court ruled. The book took away the copyright holder's rights to the derivative market. If the book had, instead, been transformative- taking that trivia and making something else out of it- there may have been a case for fair use.

EDITED to add:
Also, looking at New York Times Co. v. Tasini she doesn't seem aware that there's a difference between print publication and electronic publication. As this has been an issue of dissent lately- re: The Writers' Strike, et al- I'd hesitate to harp on it. Especially in light of the fact that the SCUSA has already reversed Sotomayor's finding.
Read More...

Sotomayor (pt I)

I've seen a lot of back and forth on Sotomayor. Let me state that at the outset, I'm a bit worried. She'll be an ideal Souter replacement- centrist (hopefully leftist). She was appointed by Bush1, Clinton, and on the short list of Bush2 appointees. And everyone is arguing back and forth over everything, already...

So, screw it, I'm going to take a look for myself.

First, to clarify my starting position:

She's kinda a non-entity, most people seem to agree that she's never really made any big precedence forming cases. Which, apparently, isn't unusual for an Appellate Court Justice. She is, almost certainly, a centrist. Souter is also a centrist, though he's considered part of the liberal wing. I'm very interested in her confirmation hearings, and I'm not very hopeful. (She's Catholic- the sixth on the current court- the Bushes loved her, and she ruled for the Church in Methodist v Old Dude.)

Today's (first?) review:
Centers for Reproductive Law and Policy v Bush (2002)


They dismissed the case, but for different reasons than it was originally dismissed. There's precedence in her reasoning. Here are the important bits:

On 1st Amendment:
+ "The crux of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim is their contention that the restrictions chill foreign NGOs from collaborating with domestic NGOs like CRLP because such collaboration may be viewed as promoting abortion and thus would jeopardize the foreign NGOs' receipt of U.S. government funds. Plaintiffs argue that such collaboration is essential to their ability to carry out their mission as advocates of reproductive rights and that depriving them of this ability violates their freedom of speech and association."
+ "In reaching its conclusion, the court relied heavily on our analysis in [Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for Inter-national Development]."
+"Our outcome on the merits is thus "foreordained" by Planned Parenthood. Under the Norton/Airec/i exception acknowledged in Steel Co., we need not reach the academic question of Article III standing in this case."

{Which is them saying, essentially, "we can bypass the hard question of jurisdiction because there's already precedence on the merits, and we reject the merits, just as we did in Planned Parenthood."}

On Due Process:
+ "Because Planned Parenthood did not address due process claims brought by domestic NGOs in this context, we address the due process claim separately and dismiss it on the alternative ground of prudential standing."
+ "Plaintiffs' claims do not fall within the "zone of interests" protected by the Due Process Clause. "
+ "It is not the plaintiffs, however, who are allegedly left uncertain of their rights by unconstitutionally vague language in a government provision; it is the foreign NGOs who are allegedly left in this position. Plaintiffs' harm is derivative of this due process-type harm, and their alleged injury (albeit an unactionable one) concerns First Amendment interests. Plaintiffs' allegation, simply put, is that the vague language of the Standard Clause causes the foreign NGOs to be overly cautious in avoiding interaction with plaintiffs, which in turn harms plaintiffs' speech and association interests. On appeal, plaintiffs expressly acknowledge that "[t]his vagueness claim is premised on the [restrictions'] chilling effect on protected speech and association." As plaintiffs do not assert a harm to their own interest in receiving due process of law, this is precisely the sort of claim that the prudential standing doctrine is designed to foreclose. Plaintiffs cannot make their First Amendment claims actionable merely by attaching them to a third party's due process interests. See Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Gracey, 809 F.2d 794, 809 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (explaining that because due process rights "do not protect a relationship" between a third party and a litigant, a plaintiff "could never have standing to challenge a statute solely on the ground that it failed to provide due process to third parties not before the court")."

{The Plaintiff is saying "our rights are harmed because of ambiguity causing foreign NGOs to not interact with us." The court says "Too bad. You can bring suit over your rights, but you can't bring suit over someone else's rights. Therefore you don't have 'prudential standing' under Due Process."}

On Equal Protection:
+ "Plaintiffs argue that the district court failed to undertake a separate analysis of their Article III standing to bring an equal protection claim. Because we agree with plaintiffs that the case law regarding constitutional standing for equal protection claims is distinct, and because Planned Parenthood does not foreclose this claim on the merits, we address the question of Article III standing with respect to this claim."
+ "Because this classification "neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights," it must "be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.""
+ "The Supreme Court has made clear that: the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."

{Essentially, the Court said: "You have standing, here; but because The SCUSA has said this behavior of favoritism is okay, precedence says we have to dismiss this claim because you have no merit."}


My Conclusion:
Doesn't tell us much. The Plaintiff was doomed from the get go because of how similar their case was to one brought by Planned Parenthood, to the same Court, in 1998 (4 years earlier). The precedence is from how standings and merits questions were resolved- which disagreed with why the case was dismissed; but not the dismissal. In other words, it's very appellate-like. I will say she did seem to consider the case and not just trumpet the governmental position over or above the plaintiff. In my opinion, that's a good thing.






Read More...

Ethanol is worse than Gasoline

Like "Clean Coal", Ethanol as "'GREEN' alternative energy" is fictitious bullshit dreamed up by- surprise surprise- people who stand to gain lots and lots of money from its use. Ethanol is crap. It raises the price of food. It causes more smog than gasoline. It destroys engines to the tune of ~$1000/repair. And it does nothing to curtail our use of crude oil to manufacture all sorts of things.

Environmentalism is Big Business, easily co-opted for it's popularity, and just as suspect as the corporations it so often opposes. Spend some time, and read the following article. The article indicates we need some perspective, better studies, and less Ethanol.

(via /.)
(Article: The Great Ethanol Scam, by Ed Wallace)
(snippets after the fold)

First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).

Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser. Other studies suggest there is a small net energy gain from it.

Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline.

...

On Jan. 16 of this year, Lexus ordered a massive recall of certain 2006 to 2008 models, including the GS Series, IS and LS sedans. According to the recall notice, the problem is that "Ethanol fuels with low moisture content will corrode the internal surface of the fuel rails." In layman's terms, ethanol causes pinpoint leaks in the fuel system; when leaking fuel catches your engine on fire, that's an exciting way to have your insurance company buy your Lexus. Using ethanol will cost Toyota (TM) untold millions.

...

Though the media is ignoring it, one can easily find many stories on BMW (BMWG.DE) blogs relating similar problems with fuel systems damaged by the use of ethanol. Certainly that was the case with Christi Jordan and her 2007 Mini. For weeks it was difficult to start; Moritz BMW in Arlington, Tex., inspected it and found severe carbon buildup inside the engine. On her second trip to the mechanics they decided to test the ethanol content of Christi's fuel and found it was much higher than the federally mandated limit of 10%. This time the fuel pump had been destroyed by the ethanol. The repair bill came to $1,200: As in all cases where vehicles are damaged by ethanol, legally the factory warranty no longer applied.

Read More...

Some Lite Reading

Over at the Guardian, there is an article up about a recent "psychic" preliminary test for the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge. If you've never read about this before, or even if you have; do yourself a favor and go read it. The Update at the bottom of the article should be enlightening. Also, check out the review at Bad Astronomy (linked below) by JREF President Dr. Phil Plait.

Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test by Chris French

The JREF challenge can be traced back to 1964 when arch-sceptic, magician and debunker Randi offered $1,000 of his own money to anyone who could prove a paranormal claim under controlled conditions. Other donors quickly came forward to support Randi's efforts and the total prize available has stood at $1m for many years now. Despite the fact that the world is full of people claiming to possess abilities that defy conventional scientific understanding, only a minuscule proportion of them ever put themselves forward for the challenge. A minuscule proportion of a very large number still amounts to several hundred applicants, of course, but this does raise the question of why the vast majority of psychic claimants shun the challenge altogether. One commonly cited reason is that the challenge is fixed by Randi in such a way that no one would ever be able to claim the prize. True believers in the paranormal often have a deep mistrust of Randi and, indeed, he has been likened to Satan himself on more than one occasion.

...

The first volunteer did not choose the reading that had been produced for her. Neither did the second. Or the third. By chance alone, the most likely outcome was for one hit out of ten.

(first seen at BA)
Read More...

Veterans and Service-people

Thank You.

Bernard, John, Kenny, Jackie, Arthur, Nemiah, Scully, Toby, and all the rest.

Those who never made it back, or who have since died, are in our thoughts.

I owe each of you, at least, a beer.
Read More...

Comments

Blogspot has, once again, failed miserably. I just got a comment for moderation. It was originally posted almost a week ago. Hopefully this is a one time glitch; if you're having trouble with comments here, feel free to email me, and we'll see what we can figure out:
tom (period) d (period) hand (symbol) gmail (dot) com
Read More...

GLEE

The pilot of GLEE- a new high school comedy/drama focusing on, well, The Glee Club- is up on Hulu. It's good stuff.

It's got the kind of subtle comedy that makes you smile, so you can take the cheesy-ness. And it's not your momma's after-school-special extra cheesy, it's the kind you'd see in a Broadway play: half-sarcastic. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the plays I've read and seen.

There's drama, and some obvious hooks for future drama; but the acting is superb. It's just the first episode, so we'll see how they go and where they throw their emphasis. I recommend watching it, it's a little over 43 minutes you'll be happy you spent.

If you liked any recent adaptation of a musical to the big screen, you'll enjoy this show. If you like sarcasm, you'll find plenty there. And if you "Can't stop the feelin'", well... just watch.

Read More...

Star Trek: The College Years

Watched it yesterday. Go see it, you'll probably like it.

(spoiler laden review below the fold)
(if you're viewing this on the Facebook feed, try checking in at my actual blog: http://tomhand.blogspot.com , where there are no formatting SNAFU's to overcome- like the lack of an actual fold)




Some Thoughts:
Jar Jar Binks cum Scotty (the cute little rock guy) is for merchandising purposes- look at JJ Abrams, he does/understands marketing very well.

The time travel alternate universes is old old hat. It goes something like: At every decision there are, at least, two choices. You pick one and that becomes your universe. A different version of you picks a different option and that becomes a different universe. Now, to add some Micheal Chricton from Timeline, you can't actually TIME TRAVEL, but you can move to other, slower, universes that are very similar to your own (most of the choices have been the same, or all have been the same, so far). But that may be nit picky. They may posit actual time travel, but that the act creates the new universe, or any act done outside your natural timeline creates a new Alternate Reality.

Star Trek has already shown the alternate Realities, where they meet their EvilTwins(tm)- they did this a couple times in DS9 and once or more in TNG, but I could be wrong about the latter.

What pissed me off was:
The Blatant use of Time Travel as easy to use plot point. Others have already commented on this, so I'm just agreeing. "Why make it good, when we can make it EASY?"

The Internal Inconsistency: Red Matter makes a black hole- everyone travels safely back in time, no problems. Lots of Red Matter makes a big black hole (maybe)- with a visible accretion disk that's about the same size as the original hole (and by "about" I mean, I didn't notice any difference), yet this one destroys your dumb ass. Stupid.

Scene first, someone gets sucked out into space and there's no sound. Not five minutes later a shuttle craft buzzes the camera and we hear it whistle-puttering past. Stupid. Then there was the blatant stealing of cinematography- on the free fall to the drill platform- from Firefly: silent, off kilter, shakily acquired, zoomed in on.

Summation: I succeeded a little too well at psyching myself down about this movie. But worse, I was right: they did it the easy, commercial way, rather than spending their massive budget on something other than pretty-ness. The reboot of Star Trek will be profitable; but it won't be satisfying. What make me think so? THEY MISSED THE DAMN POINT! Spock is talking about "faith" and they're all talking about "destiny". To start with, this is just weasel words to absolve the individual from responsibility for their own actions. To finish, the episode they seem to be referencing is from TOS. SPock is told by Kirk to fly the shuttle craft in a way that is not logical, because MAYBE- if their faith in their crewmates is justified- the Enterprise will be able to save them (if not, they die for sure). So Spock does it, and they get saved and everyone dies from the cute sugary plot-like thing they've just swallowed, right? WRONG. The point was Spock was an absolutist: logic was ALWAYS the answer. The point was that absolutism eventually fails, and is just as short-sighted as anything else, when done fanatically. But Mr's Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman don't want deeper meanings, or science, to get in the way of selling their fucking movie. So, expect horoscopes in the next one, or Feng Shoe-y , or goddamn chiropractors and homeopaths....
Read More...

Cool

Of course, you're all Doctor Who fans. And you like really cool things- like Tesla Coils being used as instruments... so:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/20/tesla-coils-sing-the.html


Read More...

craptastic

Which is diametrically opposite of mantastic, just so you know...

"There is more than one of everything..."

"This truck was never made..."

And the FBI agent who hasn't watched enough Law and Order to know that "Was it a mask, or bandages?" is a leading question...

Craptastical.

UPDATE: COMPLETE, UNADULTERATED, HACKERY! Fucking douche bag, un-talented, commercialists. Dickwaded cockfingering turdshits.
Fucking Sans-tastical.
Read More...

Things

1) First, I see on WarrenEllis.com that Diamond has changed some metrics and a good number of comic books and their creators aren't gonna qualify to get DISTRIBUTED. This is not good news. Imagine if they'd done this when no one really knew Brian Wood, or any number of others. We could be without DMZ, Watchmen, and Transmetropolitan. If that's not scary, your head isn't on straight. The reverse may be true, though; this might be a victory for Print On Demand (POD). We can only hope. What it definitely does, and I hope I'm proven wrong on this, is make it that much more difficult to get new works out to enough people for newer works to be made and experience to be gained.

2) Went to the Sports Page, off South Parkway, and saw The Ugli Stick on Saturday (click the link, and listen to some of their stuff, it's all great). You really want to go see them, because in a few years it's gonna cost you your left testicle- a price you'll gladly pay by then. Better even than their skills as artists of the musical sort, they're all great guys. It's hard to describe their style. Suffice it to say, they take bits and pieces from every genre, combine 'em, force willing supplicants to snort 'em, and gently ape-fuck awesomeness out for your amusement. While Quintin shoots bass groves at you all night long, and your girlfriend fantasizes about Eric. Then Dale Jr opens up his pipes or bounces his fingers along the neck and you start wondering why people with so much talent aren't all fronting their own bands. Tim... he drums. I suspect the earphones he's wearing are repeating "Don't smile, they'll know!" When you catch your toes tappin' and your head noddin', don't look Tim in the eyes, lest he steal and consume your sweet sweet thinky-bits. (Thanks Yvonne, it really was a great show.) They'll be back in H-vegas on June 12, at the Sports Page.

3) Also, yesterday I hit a link to 13 mysteries in science. It was from New Scientist, I think, and written in 2005. It's a damn shame they lied about half of them- if not more- making unrepeatable results in one lab into a scientific mystery isn't exactly being factual. If you happen upon the link, do yourself a favor and ignore it. The three or five interesting mysteries aren't worth the bullshit.
Read More...

Great News, Again!

NASA announced Thursday an $18.69 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 to advance Earth science, complete the International Space Station, explore the solar system and conduct aeronautics research. The budget request represents an increase of $903.6 million, or 5 percent, above funding provided in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. All totaled, an additional $2 billion has been added to NASA's 2009 and 2010 budgets under the Obama administration.

read on at:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html
Read More...

Ah. ha. ha.

First seen on BadAstronomy

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

Funny, True. But still..
Read More...

I can haz baby star lazers?

(from wired.com)

Three previous laser fusion systems have been built in the past 35 years at Livermore Lab, none of which produced enough energy to reach fusion. The first, Janus, went online in 1974. It created 10 joules of energy. The next experiment, in 1977, was a laser system known as Shiva, which achieved 10,000 joules.

Finally, in 1984, a project named Nova produced 30,000 joules, and it was the first time its creators actually believed there was a chance of fusion. This newest system by the NIF team is expected to create 1.8 million joules of ultraviolet energy, which scientists hypothesize will create a baby star in Livermore with positive power output.

read more at:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2009/05/gallery_nif

{By the by: I want like 8 of these for my birthday!}
Read More...

Story Time

The Community That Works Together

We always lived out in the country. The main road that runs on one side of the neighborhood was somewhat heavily trafficked- enough so that back in the days of letting your dogs roam freely, the gauge of how good your pet was depended on whether they got hit by a semi at night. But our streets were calm, except for when the latest wave of teenagers got drivers' licenses and would barrel down them at a neck-breaking forty miles per hour.

I remember the house getting built, and when I was 9 they finally paved the road- though, it's never had lines on it. We had fields behind our house, and beyond them the river. We'd fish and swim everyday during the summer, in what we later discovered to be the most agriculturally polluted river in the state.

Half the thick clumps of "virgin" forest we gallavanted through as youths have been destroyed. Modest suburban homes, with manicured lawns replaced the random, wild, leaf covered places of yesterday. That was called progress, or so they told me.

What I know is, everyone knew everyone when I was a kid. All day, during the summer, children on bikes would ride unmolested on the road ways; but they spent most of their time in the woods. We visited The River, or The Monkey Vine Jungle, or The Dam. We saw snakes, and fish, raccoons, opossums, deer, birds, and all manner of insects. We recognized a few dozen species of plants, malignant and benign.

And then the fields got sold, too.

All the other fields within a twenty miles had been sold and turned into housing divisions. People grew up and moved away, wistful for the past and resentful of the future. Nothing happened to the fields. New families moved in, with dogs in fences, and children who stayed inside- or no children at all. Dogs got shot if they roamed free- or put in the pound. The old families tried to contain their resentment; and fences blocked new explorers from Th Monkey Vine Jungle. Nothing happened to the fields.

At the same time the resentments were fading, and new friendships were in the wind, something else changed. The old mill, hidden in the woods beside The Dam, was torn down to the foundations. Marks were put on trees, and the shape of the land was changed. There were whispers of development. New friendships formed over resentment at the intrusion, and respect for natural beauty. We became a new community, forged from our mutual hate of future degradations. The fields were being replaced with a Water Treatment plant.

We wrote the newspaper; but there were more people nearby, but not in the neighborhood, who wanted it. People who didn't know, and therefor didn't care, about our hidden wonders wanted more more-ness. New families meant more infrastructure; and we were opposed to progress, or so they told me.

We railed and cried. We spoke out and spoke up. We protested, and sometimes- in the depth of night- we sabotaged. Little hindrances, nothing substantial, but it caused delays. Eventually, we were at our wits ends; and some hung their heads, steamrolled into the future. It was ironic, and the way of things; but it was also profoundly sad.

Until we found help. Not from those nearby, who could come down and see our hidden beauties, our River and our Dam. But from a group of people with money- a group not like us in their wealth- from across the world: California. They sent in scientists, and used the law against the lawmakers. The environmental impact study halted the earth movers, the concrete pourers, and progress.

We put on a bake sale. We held a golf tournament. We did odd jobs, and we started a foundation for the preservation of Rural Life and Natural Beauty. The environmental impact was significant enough to warrant a government funded study; and we had more time. We held a block party, and invited the entire county. We barbequed, we held fundraisers, we washed cars, and we developed plans. In three years we had made money, and we bought our fields back.

There was a three day celebration, with guided nature tours. The kids rode their four wheelers, and the grown-ups smiled constantly. We were victorious! The underdogs had won! The county built their plant somewhere else; none of us knew where. We were the modern progressives, turning our fields into a community owned garden, park, and nature preserve; or so they told me.

We couldn't grow that, because it negatively affected those others. The lack of rotation meant weaker yields over the years. Dogs had to be on leashes, and our insurance wouldn't let anyone too near The Dam, and certainly not in The River. Our property values soared. The neighborhood bought better, bigger cars, and put up fences. Horses were only allowed on the trails, specifically marked, made for them; and the same for the four wheelers. Hunting was prohibited, but we put in a shooting range where the mill once stood. A picnic area and campsite were installed soon after- no more primitive camping for us!

The new kids grew up, and went off to college. The single family suburban homes were too empty, and too much to take care of; but they sold for twice the price they had been built. The lure of money, and the lack of family, tore people away. They were too old to walk all the trails, to take advantage of the vast natural splendors. New families moved in, and the progress we had fought continued unabated in new forms.

There's a clubhouse where we once grew vegetables. The River was shored up, and the old flood plains are cabins. It's three thousand a year for a family to have full access to the grounds; and that's a deal compared to what families outside the neighborhood pay! My nephew's kids enjoy the pool.

I had to put an eight-foot privacy fence around my yard because I refused to follow the homeowners' associations lawn grooming bylaws. If you put your hand up- and no one has a fire going in any of the cabins, and the people at the shooting range aren't shooting too often- and you cover the land so you only see the tops of the hills in the distance, the autumn sunsets still look the same.

I watch those magnificent paintings in the sky. I tore down the old house years ago, and built one that would last more than a couple decades. My porch is perfect for such viewings, and my privacy fence means I don't have to hold up my hand. I think back to playing in the woods, climbing the trees where houses now stand. I remember my first kiss, playful and inquisitive in woods that were replaced by the Clubhouse parking lot. And I remember our battle against progress, when I was so worried about the contamination to our well- which I had to abandon when they shored up the river.

We were poor when we built the old house, and all the time I was growing up; or so they told me. I had a bicycle and a BB gun, and all the woods in the world to explore; I thought I was rich. If I wait three more years before I finally move away from this place where, they tell me, I grew up; I'll be rich. Whoever moves in after me can live their lives behind my privacy fence; and if they pay their dues, they can walk in wonder, staring at the manicured nature I helped protect from progress.

(c) 2009 Tom Hand
Read More...

Funny Commercials

These Hulu commercials are funny as hell:



"And you're not soup, yet."

(P.S. My brains last, Dennis SAID!)
Read More...

Ted Talks- Shadow Cities

TED Talks are interesting things. I've probably watched 50 or more in the last year or so.

Today, I watched this one, by Robert Neuwirth, about "Shadow Cities". It's very neat, lots of pictures of squatter villages, lots of information about squatter villages around the world: Rio, Turkey, Kenya, etc. Only about 14-15 min, definitely worth watching.

He has some statistics in there:
* Today 1 in 6 people, on the planet, are squatters (about a billion people worldwide).
* By 2030, 1 in four people. (2 billion squatters of roughly 8 billion people total)
* By 2050, "better than" 1 in 3 people. (3 billion squatters out of almost 9 billion people total)

Those numbers aren't just interesting because of their predictions of squatting/squatters; but for their predictions of the worldwide population.
Read More...