I’ve seen a lot of conservative commentators make arguments that the Supreme Court’s decision is somehow a repudiation of Sotomayor. They’ve used the decision’s 90-page length as evidence of Sotomayor’s lack of good judgment, the fact of an overturned decision as evidence of it being “wrong”, and the fact that the appellants were White as evidence of her racism.
But I come to the opposite conclusions by calmly looking at the facts:
- The Court’s conservative majority reached its decision by creating law in the form of a new standard — a “strong basis in evidence” of the success of a disparate effect lawsuit is now required.Sotomayor shouldn’t have done the same (and didn’t) as an appellate judge, whose role is to interpret, not create law.
- The Court’s reasoning was based on a reading of the facts that was different from that of the trial court. Several long and conflicting recitations of the facts caused the decision to reach ~90 pages. In other words, the case was reviewed “de novo”. Sotomayor shouldn’t have done the same (and didn’t) as an appellate judge, who is required to give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact.
- The Court reached a 5-4 split decision along the supposed political lines: 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Justice Kennedy in the middle. Attempting to label Sotomayor’s decision to uphold the district court’s decision as radical or racist is simply disingenuous.
Oy! On the first day of Passover, I opened Oregon’s newspaper of record to find this example of photo journalism gone wrong.
The headline reads, “Jews gather to bless the sun”. Pictured are Shmuel, Shimey, Menachem, and others engaged in prayer. The text doesn’t mention it, but they are Lubavitchers (a sub-sect of the small Hassidic sect). Instead, the men (no women, of course, these are Hasidim) are twice simply referred to as “Jews”. I don’t have a problem with the Hasidic. God love ‘em. But, representative of Jews in Portland? Or of Jews anywhere outside of Williamsburg, Brooklyn? Not.
But if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. And so to be helpful, I thought I’d offer this photo to the big O to run on Sunday. Christians gather to prepare for Easter:
Kate: Thanks for your great concern. I would…
ELIZA: What about your own great concern?
Kate: Dont worry, if anything happen to the computer, I will…ELIZA: Why do you mention computers?Kate: i mean laptop
ELIZA: Can you elaborate on that?
I just posted a laptop for sale on Craigslist and was deluged with scammers trying to get me to ship it to Nigeria. This really intrigued me; is there a way to do something about it … that would, itself, be ethical? Or, not unethical? So for example, I really don’t want to steal from them; (scam the scammer.)
And then I had an AWESOME new idea for dealing with these people: I’d take whatever the scammer writes to me, and give it to ELIZA. And then, whatever ELIZA replies, I write back to the scammer.
I love it. This is almost performance art. I wonder how long it will go on. Now it just needs to be automated, so I don’t have to copy and paste.
PS: If you need a little free therapy yourself, you can talk to ELIZA here: http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html
All over the web and in real life, people are talking about DRM-free music and video, who’s selling it, and who isn’t.
(“DRM-free” has a mushy definition, but it basically refers to digital media files {e.g., mp3s} that don’t have copy-protection or purchase information indelibly encoded into them. For example, anything that you record yourself, on your own computer, will be DRM-free. In contrast, most songs purchased in the past from iTunes do have DRM, which ensure that only the purchaser can listen to them.)
But what I can’t figure out is, why do people want DRM-free so badly?
After all, in the case of iTunes’ DRM-encoded files, I find that as an owner, I have more than enough flexibility to excercise the rights that I’ve been licensed; such as viewing files on the various devices and computers I own, and making backups for myself. Here then, are my best guesses why people want DRM-free:
- So that they can enjoy their media on Linux. This is why I’d like DRM-free files, but I can’t imagine this accounts for most others.
- (In the case of iTunes) So that the media files can be viewed on media players besides iPods. But this strikes me as unlikely as well; there are other sources of music besides iTunes.
- (Abstracting #1 and #2 together) To decouple the media from the device required to view it. That’s a great goal, but is this what’s behind the wave of desire for DRM-free content?
- Something else that I’ve forgotten. Whoops! Waited too long to write this post.
So what is it? Can somebody drop me a line and let me know why they prefer DRM-free media
Something that’s gnawed at me since I started blogging: Am I being pretty bad by calling this blog, The Robb Report?
The 
Robb Report, of course, is “The Global Luxury Source”. They’re a reliable destination for Rolls-Royce reviews. We can all probably agree that my blog and the Robb Report travel in different circles.
I’ve known about the magazine for years, most likely from seeing it in doctors’ waiting rooms. And when choosing this name for my blog, one of my reasons was the humor arising from the contrast of the two Robb Reports, for those who are familiar with the senior mark holder.
But I wonder, (1) is what I’m doing ethical? And (2) am I infringing on Robb Report’s mark?
I’ll think about these more after this never-ending final exam period is over.
From the LexisNexis trademark law podcast: An alumni / fan of Auburn University designs and sells giant foam hands printed with university’s marks. Auburn files suit and has won a preliminary injunction.Links:
Am I completely innocent and naive to be shocked at this?
“I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign”
“You can be whoever you want to be,” says an inviting Phil Tuchman. “You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!”
The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want — as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. “Your letters,” says Phil Tuchman, “will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we’ll place them in local newspapers.”
Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: “I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/index.html
A classmate sent a message to a bunch of us about a video featuring an attorney Phil Berg:
I’m interested to hear your thoughts on these. . . . On what grounds could Obama not answer / refuse to answer? Why wouldn’t he answer just to shut this guy down? . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs This video has close to 2.5 million hits.
I did some “due diligence”, and am convinced that the video contains many untruths and arguments made in bad faith. So many, that I didn’t have time to chase down each statement that sounded questionable. I like to apply the science-investigation ethic — “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. The video fails this test. Here’s what I found:
(1) Intro screen by the film-maker: “I invented the Internet”
This is unfortunately a common falsehood. Al Gore didn’t say this [4], and what he did say is correct. I have personal knowledge here: I’ve been involved with the Internet as a user and software/network engineer since 1986; when it was still the “Arpanet”. I’m additionally confused as to why this is the title for this video. I don’t understand the connection to Obama; possibly this is simply a (presumed easy) swipe at another famous liberal politician. Indicates a lack of seriousness.
(2) Berg: “Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen”
Berg provides no support for this statement. (In law school, we’d call that “conclusory”.) It begs the question, as it forms the basis for more statements. I find this fairly shameless, and it appears to be disingenuous: Berg seems to want to come off as a concerned citizen. Instead, this is evidence that he is an ideologue — that he has an axe to grind.
(3) Berg: “FactCheck.org . . . supposedly checks out documents to make sure they’re correct.”
A slanted characterization of factcheck.org with no supporting details or evidence. He then goes on immediately to another topic. This is propaganda [5] intended to create doubt. (And further, what does it mean, “to make sure they’re correct“? He probably means “authentic“; this is typical of his imprecise language throughout.)
(4) Berg: “[in re Annenberg] There’s a little conflict of interest there, I believe.”
Same as previous. This is tossed out, and then not followed up. Is he claiming that Factcheck is wrong? If so, where? Did they fabricate? If so, where? He doesn’t say. This is propaganda. [5]
(5) Berg: “John McCain . . . immediately released his birth certificate . . . he immediately released his medical records . . . . He said, ‘Whatever you want, I’ll give it to you.’ and he did, right away.”
This seems to be false: I could find no evidence of this. What’s more, I found plenty of evidence to the contrary. It seems to have taken 4 months for his certificate to become public, and it wasn’t through McCain’s organization:
Feb. 21, 2008: Earliest mention I could find of McCain’s citizenship question. [1]
May 2, 2008: Dept. of Homeland Security refuses to hand over copy of McCain’s birth certificate in response to a subpoena, claiming improper service. [2]June 20, 2008: The Dallas News runs picture of birth certificate, courtesy of a source, “Don Lamb in Panama.” [3]
(6) Berg: “Obama . . . has refused to release any records . . .”
Untrue on its face. The video itself talks about the records Obama has released.
[1] http://newsbusters.org/forums/latest-news/q-panamanian-born-john-mccain-natural-born-citizen-united-states-19392
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_pf.html
[3] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/mccains-citizen.html
[4] http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
[5] “Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Welcome message when logging in to WaMu on 9/26/2008.
I’ve got a checking and a saving account at Washington Mutual, and I haven’t been too freaked out about the whole financial crisis.
Today it occurred to me, “Oh yeah, my bank’s failing,” and so I read an NPR article about it which said,
Trying to keep more people from taking their money out, regulators are saying it will be a seamless transition — and that the bank is reopening Friday as usual, just with new owners.
And so I thought I’d log in to my account and see if that’d be the case. I was greeted by this message in the screenshot. I realized that this is pretty much (hopefully!) a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see what it’s like when one’s bank “fails.”
Looks to me like everyone’s done an awesome job, including the IT people at WaMu, who’ve made a great web system. WaMu’s always been a pretty good bank to be at; you know, as far as banks go. So I have no complaints.
Exactly what’s the purpose of the condiment bar in a coffee shop? What’s the intended use? What should be a customer’s expectation?
Here’s a story about a cafe owner going berserk over a customer ordering a “double espresso poured over ice.” It turns out this is a way for people to save money / rip-off a cafe on the purchase of a latte. For example, by ordering espresso+ice and then filling up with “free” milk at the condiment bar, one can save a buck or two on the cost of the drink.
I’m so clueless … err, I mean ethical … I had no idea.
There’s a whole slew of interesting ethical questions here. But then I was shocked to realize that I might be one of them: I like a lot of milk/creamer in my coffee. Up to and including making it a full-on cafe au lait. I frequently pour out a half-inch or more of my coffee (even after I ask for “room”) to be able to put more milk in.
I had never thought twice about it. But sometimes I’d wonder why they never really give me “room” when I ask for “room”! Hmm. Am I violating some kind of implicit contract between the establishment and myself? If so, then what should I be ordering? “Cafe au lait” usually is not what I’m going for. What’s half-way betwen that and black coffee? Is a “latte” what I’m describing?
I’ve always intentionally avoided learning all of the froo-froo names of the various coffee drinks. “A man’s drink has a name which is a list of its ingredients”, you know. Maybe it’s time I start — for all I know, I’ve been drinking back-alley lattes for years.
