Looks like a performance at NYU (where she was a student for a few years). She really can sing (though she has a few misses playing the piano). There’s talent there, covered these days in a blond wig/hairdo and heavy makeup. Do your best to ignore the goofy MC, if you can. 
|
Blogroll
Friends
CT Politics Politics
Technology West Hartford Blogs Hartford Blogs |
Active Posts
|
|
Track & Validate
|
Why we need a war on the war on drugs.
This is unbelievable in a lot of ways. The headline made me wonder if the judge had some novel argument, but after reading the details, it’s clear that she’s ignoring what the law actually says.
I’m still reading, but this is worth passing on. More comments on this later.
This is stupid. I don’t know how you fix it, though. The new rules make this process more transparent, but there’s still a human factor. People need to read the bills they’re passing…
Not really sure how to react to this. I mean, it’s absurd she was arrested, but she shouldn’t have done this, either.
Excellent explanation of the current divide between those of us who want to follow due process and those that don’t. If there’s a left/right, liberal/conservative, or whatever debate on terrorism, it’s really between those who trust everything the government says and those who treat it all with skepticism. Ironically, I don’t believe this follows any traditional left/right divide, but the fact that so many of the President’s supporters choose to fall in line with the Administration’s statements that they take the authoritarian position simply out of partisanship. very dangerous.
Of course, this is why the political compass makes sense. We’ve been taken over by authoritarian right wing folks, pretty much the complete opposite of a libertarian left like me.
Interesting developments. I don’t see why online poker sites wouldn’t be affected similarly.
I probably shouldn’t comment on this because of what I do, so I won’t. I will say, go read this: Judge: Fantasy leagues may use MLB names, stats
Fantasy baseball leagues are allowed to use player names and statistics without licensing agreements because they are not the intellectual property of Major League Baseball, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Baseball and its players have no right to prevent the use of names and playing records, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler in St. Louis ruled in a 49-page summary judgment.
St. Louis-based CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. filed a lawsuit against MLB after CBC was denied a new licensing agreement with the baseball players’ association giving it the rights to player profiles and statistics.
Major League Baseball claimed that intellectual property laws and so-called “right of publicity” make it illegal for fantasy leagues to make money off the identities and stats of professional players.
But even if the players could claim the right of publicity against commercial ventures by others, Medler wrote, the First Amendment takes precedent because CBC, which runs CDM Fantasy Sports, is disseminating the same statistical information found in newspapers every day.
“The names and playing records of major league baseball players as used in CBC’s fantasy games are not copyrightable,” Medler wrote. “Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players’ claimed right of publicity.”
The ruling brings some relief to more than 300 businesses that run online fantasy leagues and have awaited the outcome of the lawsuit. In fantasy sports leagues, fans draft major leaguers and teams win or lose based on the statistical success of the actual players in major league games.
It wasn’t immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on existing agreements, such as the ones MLB has with CBS Sportsline.com, Yahoo Inc., ESPN.com and others. MLB also may appeal; a spokesman for the league did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
An ESPN spokesperson said Monday that the company would have no comment on the ruling.
Excerpt:
The American Bar Association recently joined the debate with the release of a Report by a bipartisan task force on presidential signing statements and the separation of powers. As one of us has noted previously, a number of aspects of the Report are very timely and worthwhile. In particular, we agree with the Report’s emphasis on the need for transparency
whenever the executive branch declines to execute a statute or construes that statute in a manner that appears to be contrary to its text and congressional intent. But we were surprised by, and disagree with, certain of the Report’s central conclusions…
Excerpt:
SMART gamblers know when to quit and when to hold their nerve and let bets run. The holders and folders who invest in internet gambling firms were given much to ponder with the arrest in America on Sunday July 16th of David Carruthers. The British chief executive of BetonSports was detained while changing planes in Texas en route from London to the online gambling firm’s base in Costa Rica. The next day many shareholders showed they weren’t prepared to risk their investments. Shares in BetonSports plunged. So did the value of other online firms that rely on American punters.
…
But the relevant laws largely predate the internet era. Legal opinion is divided over the extent to which the 1961 Wire Act, a statute designed to stop gambling over the phone, can be applied to betting over the internet. In this case, that may not matter. BetonSports—unlike most of its rivals—takes wagers both online and over the phone. Moreover, it accepts bets on American sports events as well as running casino-type games. Though BetonSports faces charges concerning both types of gambling, other online firms that do not run a sports book remain confident that they are safe from prosecution.
I was interviewed by Jodi Latina from WTNH 8 (the local ABC affiliate) this morning while picking up my morning bagel. I was completely not expecting this, and on top of that, I had never thought about this issue. So, of course, I said something not so clever.
Basically, the town council passed a voluntary sticker program that would allow parents to apply a sticker to the cars used by their new teenage drivers. This would help cops and other drivers identify a young driver. Parents apparently asked for this program, though I can’t really imagine why (more on that in a sec) and the West Hartford Police like it because it makes it easier for them to enforce a new CT state law that bans new drivers from having passengers in the car aside from parents/guardians or experienced drivers. The law also imposed new time restrictions on young drivers with some exceptions for work, religious activities, etc.
I was just trying to express my initial reaction which was, why the heck would parents do something like this? I hate to sound like an old man, but when I was a kid, my parents taught me to respect the law, not live in fear of it. It was enough that they asked me to be home by midnight. Even if I were concerned my kid might not listen to me, why in the world would I want the police involved? Down that road lies higher insurance premiums, fines, etc.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t think of what the parents who asked for this new program were thinking.
Regardless, the program is voluntary. We’ll see how many stickers they give out and how many stickers I see around town. I’m willing to bet the program will not be that popular, especially after a report hits the news about a kid getting caught because of it.
The war on privacy | Economist.com
THE demands of security frequently square up against the desire for personal liberty. Most recently, on May 30th, the weighty matter seemed to rest on the scales of the European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court. At issue was an existing European Union agreement to provide American officials with many personal details of airline passengers who cross the Atlantic. The Americans want the data for the sake of public safety. But some European politicians complain that the demands are so great they might even break strict European privacy laws. In fact, the court objected to the transfer of data on a legal point and did not consider, in this instance, the issue of passengers’ privacy rights.
Good article covers some recent schemes to defraud folks. Arizona is apparently the worst place to be if you’re concerned about identity theft.
Un-freaking-believable. The DMCA is bad enough, and the fact that Rep. Boucher’s Fair Use bill has been stuck in committee is even worse, but this law does nothing to foster creativity or new products. It’s pandering to the RIAA/SIIA/MPAA and big copyright holders.
Prof. Eugene Volokh says not to read too much into when a group doesn’t file an amicus brief.
It’s a little known fact that companies like ESPN.com, Yahoo.com, and Sportsline.com have to pay royalties to the various players association and/or the leagues in order to run their fantasy games for the public. The cost is often significant, amounting to significant portions of a game’s gross revenue. You can tell games that pay the fee because they’ll have the players association logos plus the league logos on some or all of the pages for the game.At ESPN.com, for example, you’ll find the NFLPA logo at the bottom of our fantasy football pages (example).
Anyway, apparently a company out there is taking one of the leagues to court to argue against the fees as they’re set up now. The company is taking MLB, which bought the exclusive rights to distribute player statistics from the MLBPA, to court to argue that the statistics, once the game is over, are historical fact and therefore shouldn’t require a license. It’s going to be an interesting case that will have some interesting repercussions regardless of who wins.
The leagues exercise pretty significant control over anything they can to make money. The trend over the last few years has been to partner exclusively with a partner to get the big check from one source. You can see it with the deals the NFL made with EA and MLB made with Take2. It hasn’t happened in the fantasy sports world yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone hasn’t thought of that idea.
David Pinto at Baseball Musings has it right, I think when he argues that MLB and the leagues are making a mistake if they limit the number of licenses. Fantasy sports are a feeder into other merchandising and ticket sales. I own one more jersey than I would’ve and I watch WAY more football and baseball than I otherwise would’ve if I didn’t play fantasy sports. We’ll see how it pans out, I guess.
(Usual disclaimer: I speak for myself here and not for ESPN.com or ESPN or Disney.)
That seems to be what the government is saying as they completely undermine their own case and piss off an otherwise friendly federal court. Makes you wonder how much crap they’re just making up because they’re too damn lazy/busy/arrogant to care about, say, the law and the Constitution.
I have to agree with Drum on this, when the heck did this happen? Secret courts, secret evidence, sure, but a secret law??? Update: more from Slate
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, they linked to an article examining the role of gun control laws in Nazi Germany. From a historical perspective, it’s interesting to note what the gun control laws were. To take the next step, which this article takes, and impugn the gun control laws as a primary enabler of the pogroms against the Jews and the other “subject races” is taking the slippery slope argument a bit too far. The paper presents a timeline of gun control laws with no historical context or acknowledgment. In other words, because A then B then C then D happened doesn’t mean that A caused B caused C down the line or even that A led to B led to C etc.
It also gives some magical power to government gun registration records. Trust me, if we ever go through something like the rise of a Nazi-like party (or any totalitarian regime), those NRA membership records, Wal Mart’s database of purchase history, and the list of subscribers to Guns and Ammo would be just as useful to the new regime. And, they’d likely be more up to date.
There’s definitely a risk and a tradeoff in implementing gun control legislation. I’m no lawyer, but I can get that. The bizarre notion to me is that there’s some sort of absolute protection to owning a firearm of any type.
It’s a common phrase these days: “Activist Judges.” What does it mean? Conservative activists and President Bush have defined it, at least in part, as judges that make law, as opposed to interpreting it. Sounds good so far, but to get to the heart of it, we should examine the definition of “make law.” How do judges make law? Prof. Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder of Yale Law defined it in the Times as striking down a law passed by Congress. That would fit the definition of “legislating from the bench” pretty well.
Their research finds an interesting conclusion. Here are the percentage of times since 1994 that a particular justice invalidated a Congressional act of the 64 provisions that have made it in front of them.
Thomas: 65.63%
Kennedy: 64.06%
Scalia: 56.25%
Rehnquist: 46.88%
O’Connor: 46.77%
Souter: 42.19%
Stevens: 39.34%
Ginsburg: 39.06%
Breyer: 28.13%
They conclude:
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more ”liberal” — Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens — vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled ”conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
Of course, the definition is perhaps a bit narrow. The hyper-libertarian/conservative/federalist Volokhians would be more concerned about the court stepping into matters better left to the state. It might be interesting to see a tally of the times each justice voted to invalidate a state or local provision rather than just acts of Congress. I suspect the results will be less stark.
In the end, I guess, Atrios gets the definition right:
Judicial Activism usually means nothing more than “Judgifying I don’t like.” In other words, it means nothing.
Definitely.
(Times article found via Atrios)
I’m no lawyer (though I like to play one on the Internet), but I wonder if Google’s blog posting today on Google Video will create (or draw attention to) any legal exposure for them. They highlight the awesome video of those two Chinese kids singing and another cool video of a guy juggling a soccer ball in Amsterdam.
Both of these clips feature nearly the complete audio for a copyrighted song. Google is hosting the video on their site. Isn’t that bad for Google?
I think Google Video is a great idea, and I’m all for it. In the current IP climate, though, aren’t we going to encounter copyright issues? And wouldn’t the recording industry have a legitimate point in this case?
What’s the answer? Compulsory licensing? Who pays then, Google or the video producer?
Most of you have probably heard the Miers nomination has been withdrawn. Unfortunately, it looks like it was withdrawn for what I think are the wrong reasons. Social conservatives balked at her lack of zealotry on the abortion issue. Other conservative groups were concerned the lack of an identifiable judicial or governing philosophy. What’s interesting in all of the different reasons cited by various groups for opposing her nomination, not one comment is made by anyone about why Bush would’ve nominated someone so universally reviled. Wouldn’t answering that question give us more insight than anything that happens in the almost farcical confirmation hearings?
The ends don’t justify the means because the means have consequences. Whether it’s fighting the war on terror or trying to “improve” education, the Bush administration has chosen very peculiar paths to get where they are. The choices Bush has made obviously will affect his legacy. What will be that legacy? Dan Gillmor suggests one:
Abortion was never the issue that mattered to me. I take it for granted that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the court as Bush and company remake it. Some state governments will ban it afterward; most will keep it legal.
I was always more worried about the above-the-law question — the insistence by this administration that it can make up new laws when it comes to people it claims to be terrorism suspects. What did Miers do in Bush’s government, which basically claims that the president or his agent can lock any of us up indefinitely and without access to a lawyer?
She was part of the government that has asserted dictatorial authority. That is more scary than her right-wing views on abortion, by far.
I also think that progressive Americans (as well as pragmatic Americans) that want sensible policies would do better than focusing on the abortion issue. The court is going to be pro-business to a fault. How they reinterpret the roles of the branches of our government will probably remake our country in several ways. More than the social issues, this interpretation will be the legacy of this administration and the Roberts court. At best, they’ll be a passive court, deferring to the other branches in all but the most obviously constitutional cases. The worst case is real judicial activism, not the straw man that the right wing throws up all the time. Things like Bush v. Gore which was a travesty regardless of whether you liked the outcome or not.
I’m really worried that left wing folks and progressives are missing the boat on convincing those of us closer to the center that these issues are serious. For example, Atrios, who has a sizable reach among progressive and left wing activists in addition to the typical Democratic fold, only comments so far as to misrepresent Ann Coulter’s gloating on CNN. There are so many good examples of how social conservatives are hoping for judicial activists that he didn’t need to misrepresent Coulter. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s a zealot and horribly unreasonable and unethical in her own writing. That still doesn’t excuse getting her objections to the nominee wrong. Especially when, for once, she’s not completely off-the-wall bonkers.
Update: I edited my post as it was almost incoherent in places.
