... you're free to say what you like... short of threats.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Taking refuge from the floods in Pakistan, spiders are shrouding the trees with webs.
Astonishing photos, via Metafilter, which is infested with skittish comments like "Never going to click on those links. I never wanted to hear about this subject. Even being 6'5" I am so freaked out by even the mention of spiders."
"Prosser and Kloppenburg have both engaged in their share of negative comments on the campaign trail."
"Prosser has already played the liberal extremist card during candidate debates. And Kloppenburg has been relentless in labeling Prosser a Republican partisan. But because the candidates are about tapped out -- each has agreed to public financing spending limits -- the negative advertising to come will be carried out mostly by proxy. And thanks to the inflamed political atmosphere... Kloppenburg stands to gain the most."
So now, in this last weekend before the election, we're barraged with crazy ads that the candidates can't control, don't have time to respond to, and can benefit from without taking responsibility for. What an ugly mess!
So now, in this last weekend before the election, we're barraged with crazy ads that the candidates can't control, don't have time to respond to, and can benefit from without taking responsibility for. What an ugly mess!
Andrew Sullivan is "still absorbing" the "surreal," "discordant" news that the U.S. has gone into "yet another war against yet another tyranny simply because we can."
It's "so fantastically contrary to everything he campaigned on" that Sullivan "simply cannot believe it." He knows " the president is not against all wars - just dumb ones. But could any war be dumber than this - in a place with no potential for civil society, wrecked by totalitarianism, riven by tribalism, in defense of rebels we do not know and who are clearly insufficient to the task?"
How could Obama do something... dumb? He was all about smart. He was the smartest guy there ever ever ever was. The Sullivan brain locks up and crashes. Nooooooooooo!
How could Obama do something... dumb? He was all about smart. He was the smartest guy there ever ever ever was. The Sullivan brain locks up and crashes. Nooooooooooo!
"No one was cleaning the street, and there were large pools of urine accumulating and festering."
"It was extraordinarily bad — bad enough that people would avoid the corner walking by... It seems like a small thing until you realize how prolific horses can be. We’re talking gallons."
But...
"Horses are not like automobiles. You just don’t put ’em in neutral. You have to hold on to the horse with one hand with passengers in the back of the carriage and spray this stuff down. Maybe one time out of a hundred with passengers in the cab, the horse might get scared, run off and hurt passengers and things. This will be a disaster.” And they say horse urine "doesn’t have much of an odor, since horses are vegetarians and 'don’t drink Coke or beer.'"
Please don't get sidetracked into the general topic of the smell of the urine of a vegetarian. Spare us your asparagus anecdotes. This is about horse piss and city traffic.
But...
"Horses are not like automobiles. You just don’t put ’em in neutral. You have to hold on to the horse with one hand with passengers in the back of the carriage and spray this stuff down. Maybe one time out of a hundred with passengers in the cab, the horse might get scared, run off and hurt passengers and things. This will be a disaster.” And they say horse urine "doesn’t have much of an odor, since horses are vegetarians and 'don’t drink Coke or beer.'"
Please don't get sidetracked into the general topic of the smell of the urine of a vegetarian. Spare us your asparagus anecdotes. This is about horse piss and city traffic.
Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, threatens to boycott businesses that don't put up window signs supporting the union.
It's sending around a letter:
"Failure to [display the sign] will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business," the letter says. "And sorry, neutral means 'no' to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members."Which side are you on? Cue Pete Seeger. Neutral means you on the boss's side. In the case of the public employees, that's... well, it's the taxpayers, isn't it? You'd better not not be on that side, you lousy scab.
The union-led effort is an outgrowth of a boycott campaign by the Wisconsin Professional Police Association and other unions in which M&I Bank and Kwik Trip were targeted because either the companies themselves or their executives supported Gov. Scott Walker's budget initiatives.The police? I can't get my head around the concept of police involvement in boycotting businesses. That reads like pure corruption. I can't believe it's being done openly. Can someone explain to me how you can even argue that it is acceptable for police to extort political support from citizens?
Jim Haney, the outgoing head of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a pro-business lobby, said... "It's kind of like the old protection racket... If you have the right sticker, we won't break your knees.' This is beyond the pale to force a small-business person to choose when they want to stay neutral. But that isn't good enough."Meade and I talked to a several local business owners, after one protester threatened us and purported to "ban" us from various shops and restaurants in town. We wanted to know if we were still welcome, and everyone we spoke to wanted to be politically neutral.
In the letter, [Jim Parrett, a field representative of Council 24 for Southeast Wisconsin] writes: "It is unfortunate that you have chosen 'not' to support public workers rights in Wisconsin. In recent past weeks you have been offered a sign by a public employee who works in one of the state facilities in the Union Grove area. These signs simply said, 'This Business Supports Workers Rights,' a simple, subtle and we feel noncontroversial statement given the facts at this time."
"Soglin, mayor from 1973 to 1979 and again from 1989 to 1997, narrowly lost to Cieslewicz in 2003 — and it still bothers him."
From the Wisconsin State Journal's profile of Soglin (who is running against Madison's "Mayor Dave" in the April 5th elections):
Asked why he lost, Soglin said, "the enormous impact of (Dane County Executive) Kathleen Falk's endorsement and my opposition to IZ."
Inclusionary zoning, which made developers put lower cost housing in projects, had great appeal to the political left and was a central issue in 2003. Soglin, sensitive to concerns voiced by developers and landlords, predicted — in hindsight, correctly — it wouldn't work. He backed a voluntary program.
"Dave exploited it for all it was worth," Soglin said.
"Has the debate over Walker's collective bargaining law caused divisions in your life?"
The Wisconsin State Journal asks its readers. The comments over there so far aren't very interesting. Those who actually answer the question mainly express antagonism toward the terrible people who support the governor. My guess is that the anti-Walkerites are so passionate and vocal that anyone who doesn't agree just keeps quiet... especially in Madison.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the April 5th elections. Is there a silent majority supporting the governor? If there is, and they take the trouble to vote, it will throw cold water on the protest passions. If the anti-Walker side wins decisively — particularly in the Supreme Court race — it will, I think, go a long way toward undoing the results of last fall's election. And that would be even before the state Supreme Court invalidates the public-union-taming law.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the April 5th elections. Is there a silent majority supporting the governor? If there is, and they take the trouble to vote, it will throw cold water on the protest passions. If the anti-Walker side wins decisively — particularly in the Supreme Court race — it will, I think, go a long way toward undoing the results of last fall's election. And that would be even before the state Supreme Court invalidates the public-union-taming law.
About that claim that it could cost $7.5 million to clean up and restore the Wisconsin Capitol buidling.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has discovered the estimate was done on a single handwritten page.
So? If I understand correctly, the state was required to come up with an estimate in the context of the court proceeding about access to the Capitol. There was a sudden demand for a dollar figure, the activities threatening the building were in progress and escalating, and the state was focused — at least, in part — on protecting the historical building.
The MJS, revealing bias or ignorance, writes:
$145 million was spent restoring the Capitol in 2001, much of it on the old stone that was suffering ongoing damage when that court proceeding took place.
Now, using the high-end number in court had a political downside, because it was used by the protesters to mock and discredit the government, but the need to protect the building was real, and their mockery irritated me because of the way they put their own interests above the care for the public property. Think of something analogous. For example, imagine a factory polluting a river, and environmentalists who are making a big deal about what is a modest amount of pollution after the factory owner had taken some precautions to minimize the pollution. Picture the factory owner preening about the precautions and laughing at the environmentalists for getting all hysterical. The environmentalists would be enraged. That's how I feel about the Capitol building and the "we used painter's tape" argument.
So? If I understand correctly, the state was required to come up with an estimate in the context of the court proceeding about access to the Capitol. There was a sudden demand for a dollar figure, the activities threatening the building were in progress and escalating, and the state was focused — at least, in part — on protecting the historical building.
The MJS, revealing bias or ignorance, writes:
Much of the concern about possible damage centered on possible effects on the marble walls from residues left by tape used to hang protest signs. But most of those signs were hung with painter's tape, and so far few if any effects can be seen from it in the Capitol.I know, from personal observation, that a great deal of masking and duct tape was used. Some vigilant protesters were very active in spotting that tape and replacing it with the blue painter's tape so anyone looking around might think it's all painter's tape, but underneath that better tape was the damage done by the worse tape, and, moreover, even the painter's tape was damaging. The risk to that marble was real, and the high estimate of the restoration cost was understandable, even if it was exaggerated.
$145 million was spent restoring the Capitol in 2001, much of it on the old stone that was suffering ongoing damage when that court proceeding took place.
Now, using the high-end number in court had a political downside, because it was used by the protesters to mock and discredit the government, but the need to protect the building was real, and their mockery irritated me because of the way they put their own interests above the care for the public property. Think of something analogous. For example, imagine a factory polluting a river, and environmentalists who are making a big deal about what is a modest amount of pollution after the factory owner had taken some precautions to minimize the pollution. Picture the factory owner preening about the precautions and laughing at the environmentalists for getting all hysterical. The environmentalists would be enraged. That's how I feel about the Capitol building and the "we used painter's tape" argument.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Ohio crushes public-employee unions.
The NYT reports:
The bill would bar public employees from striking and would prohibit binding arbitration for police officers and firefighters. It would allow bargaining over wages, but not health coverage and pensions and would allow public-employee unions to bargain only when the public employer chose to do so....
The bill would allow public employees who are covered by union contracts but who choose not to belong to the union to opt out of paying union dues or fees. The bill would also bar any governmental unit in Ohio from deducting any part of a worker’s paycheck and giving it to the union for political activities unless the worker gave express permission....
At the Early Spring Café...
... we're looking for signs of flowers....
... and Daisy pops up ...
... and spirals.
"Pro-Qaddafi Forces Push Rebels Into Chaotic Retreat."
The NYT reports:
Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi advanced rapidly on Wednesday, seizing towns they ceded just days ago after intense allied airstrikes and hounding rebel fighters into a chaotic retreat....Did God not hear Thomas Friedman's prayer?!
There were few signs of the punishing airstrikes that reversed the loyalists’ first push.
I am proud of my president, really worried about him, and just praying that he’s lucky...
I hope Qaddafi’s regime collapses like a sand castle, that the Libyan opposition turns out to be decent and united and that they require just a bare minimum of international help to get on their feet. Then U.S. prestige will be enhanced and this humanitarian mission will have both saved lives and helped to lock another Arab state into the democratic camp.
Dear Lord, please make President Obama lucky.
In the Wisconsin protests, Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs sought voluntary compliance, zero arrests, and a positive environment.
The Wisconsin State Journal calls Tubbs "Chief of Peace":
When Tubbs met with protesters and other law enforcement leaders, including Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney, Madison Police Chief Noble Wray, and UW-Madison Police Chief Susan Riseling, the emphasis was on making sure demonstrations stayed peaceful and dialogue between police and demonstrators stayed open....
Throughout the protests, Tubbs said he focused on a goal of “zero arrests.” He even discouraged protesters from playing or singing music that could cause a “negative environment,” suggesting instead patriotic songs, spirituals such as “We Shall Overcome,” even Motown hits....
Things threatened to get ugly ... on March 9... But there was no violence and about 200 protesters were allowed to stay the night. The following morning, many left on their own. Others were carried out of the antechamber to the Assembly, where legislators were due to meet, amid chants of “Shame!”
“It was not a difficult decision,” Tubbs said. “We had to conduct government business.” Once again, there were no arrests....
Asking "Are You Sexist?" is asking the the wrong question.
Bob Wright frames the question that way as he is challenged about the way Bloggingheads commenters seem to get angriest at me and 2 other female diavloggers (Megan McArdle and Michelle Goldberg):
Of course, the commenters respond to his question by denying that they've been sexist. They're good little commenters, so they don't want to be something bad, and they accept that the thing that sounds bad — sexism — is bad, and therefore no one can say anything interesting.
But obviously, the human mammal has a response to the perceived sex of another human mammal. All sorts of conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings flow through the nervous system. It is the most interesting topic of conversation. Don't squelch it! Facilitate it!
Why have diavlogs at all if not to expose the physicality of the interlocutors? If you want to exclude reactions of the more complex emotional/sexual kind, then let's stick to writing... and use sex-neutral pen names. If we're going to appear and speak out loud, we're doing something that has an elaborate effect on other human beings, and that's not something to deny and pretend not to see. It's something to observe, have deep (and shallow) thoughts about, and analyze — seriously and jokingly — in writing and in speech.
We're so afraid of hurting other people and of being thought ill of that we make ourselves into crushing bores.
Bonus: Here's an August 2008 BHtv segment in which I talked with Megan McArdle about why female diavloggers inspire wrath.
AND: Here's the BHtv link to see the kind of answers Bob got to his question.
Of course, the commenters respond to his question by denying that they've been sexist. They're good little commenters, so they don't want to be something bad, and they accept that the thing that sounds bad — sexism — is bad, and therefore no one can say anything interesting.
But obviously, the human mammal has a response to the perceived sex of another human mammal. All sorts of conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings flow through the nervous system. It is the most interesting topic of conversation. Don't squelch it! Facilitate it!
Why have diavlogs at all if not to expose the physicality of the interlocutors? If you want to exclude reactions of the more complex emotional/sexual kind, then let's stick to writing... and use sex-neutral pen names. If we're going to appear and speak out loud, we're doing something that has an elaborate effect on other human beings, and that's not something to deny and pretend not to see. It's something to observe, have deep (and shallow) thoughts about, and analyze — seriously and jokingly — in writing and in speech.
We're so afraid of hurting other people and of being thought ill of that we make ourselves into crushing bores.
***
Bonus: Here's an August 2008 BHtv segment in which I talked with Megan McArdle about why female diavloggers inspire wrath.
AND: Here's the BHtv link to see the kind of answers Bob got to his question.
The policy that is no policy... the problem of the sex discrimination action again Wal-Mart.
Lyle Denniston homes in on the plaintiffs' problem, as it emerged at oral argument in the Supreme Court yesterday:
So... the thing that makes a million individuals the same is that they... are different. They should have been made the same.... or more alike... by a sex-discrimination-conscious policy. I think it's possible to get your head around that idea, but nearly impossible to picture workable legal doctrine governing the real-world affairs of human beings... including the judges who would apply it.
[Justice Anthony] Kennedy said, “It’s hard for me to see…Your complaint faces in two directions. Number one, you said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that’s going on. Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion. It seems to me there’s an inconsistency there, and I’m just not sure what the unlawful policy is.”I think plaintiffs are trying to say that if headquarters can see a pattern of women doing poorly under the decentralized discretion system, then keeping that system in place is a discriminatory policy. That absence of centralized control is the common issue that makes it an appropriate class action (rather than lot of individual cases that ought to be brought separately if at all).
[The female employees’ lawyer, Joseph M.] Sellers chose in reply to dwell on the breadth of the store managers’ discretion, saying “There’s no guidance whatsoever about how to make those decisions.” The discretion, he added, is then used within “a very strong corporate culture” that leads managers to be “informed by the values the company provides.” The response itself seemed contradictory: if there was “no guidance whatsoever,” how were the managers led to apply company “values”?
So... the thing that makes a million individuals the same is that they... are different. They should have been made the same.... or more alike... by a sex-discrimination-conscious policy. I think it's possible to get your head around that idea, but nearly impossible to picture workable legal doctrine governing the real-world affairs of human beings... including the judges who would apply it.
The essence of conversation, revealed...
... by the complete absence of meaningful words.
These twin boys say nothing but "da da da" — call The Police — but the gesture and expression are elaborate and vital. They even get each other's jokes.
(The mother blogs here.)
These twin boys say nothing but "da da da" — call The Police — but the gesture and expression are elaborate and vital. They even get each other's jokes.
(The mother blogs here.)
"Six Reasons Google Books Failed."
Robert Darnton digests Judge Denny Chin’s opinion rejecting the settlement of the copyright claim against Google:
First, Google abandoned its original plan to digitize books in order to provide online searching.... Instead, Google chose to make its opponents its partners...
[Second]... a dubious opt-out clause....
Third, in setting terms for the digitization of orphan books—copyrighted works whose rights holders are not known—the settlement eliminated the possibility of competition.....
Fourth, rights held by authors and publishers located outside the United States...
Fifth, the settlement was an attempt to resolve a class action suit, but the plaintiffs did not adequately represent the class to which they belonged....
Sixth, in the course of administering its sales, both of individual books and of access to its data base by means of institutional subscriptions, Google might abuse readers’ privacy by accumulating information about their behavior....
Schumer overheard: "I always use the word extreme... That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week."
NYT reports.
Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.It's funny to hear it being done, but you already knew it was done. Will they be embarrassed into putting a little more effort into varying their language? I doubt it. They like to pick one label and stick it firmly on. It's pretty effective.
Conservatives keep trying to nose into professors' email.
The NYT reports:
A conservative research group in Michigan has issued a far-reaching public records request to the labor studies departments at three public universities in the state, seeking any e-mails involving the Wisconsin labor turmoil. The group, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, declined to explain why it was making the Freedom of Information Act request for material from professors at the University of Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne State University.... This records request, which was filed Friday, comes several days after the Republican Party of Wisconsin made a records request to a prominent University of Wisconsin history professor, William Cronon...I think there have been requests like this before, and I could point to one from a prominent liberal group in the recent past, but I will refrain. I am glad this issue is getting processed in the context of a conservative intruder on a liberal professor, because it will help build support for the position I favor: academic freedom for professors. Come on, all you liberals, commit to the academic freedom position. I want to rely on that in the future.
Greg Scholtz, the director of academic freedom for the American Association of University Professors, said: “We think all this will have a chilling effect on academic freedom. We’ve never seen FOIA requests used like this before.”
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
"County supervisor fined $205 for Capitol protest sign held by young sons."
News article about the videos we were talking about the other day.
"But what most of the many folks who visit his sweetie’s blog don’t know is that 'New Media Meade' has expanded his role..."
"...by collecting images at protests she just might not approve of. Undaunted, New Media Meade just cannot help himself, he is drawn to a protest just like the moth to a flame. Here’s one."
Hmmm... Well, I don't approve. So I can't show you that. So I'll show you this:
Hmmm... Well, I don't approve. So I can't show you that. So I'll show you this:
Another Prosser vs. Kloppenburg debate.
"Prosser says the campaign is one of the most politicized court races in state history and people are not looking at the qualifications of the candidates. He says the race has become a referendum on the wrong subject and people are supporting his challenger based on the perception that she’ll rule against the policies of the Governor... Kloppenburg says voters are turning to her because they think she’ll be an independent voice on the court that will help restore integrity."
That makes it sound like what we've heard before. You can listen to the whole thing here, but unfortunately, there's no transcript. I'm listening now. It begins with opening statements. Kloppenburg, speaking very quickly, recites her resume and claims she will be independent. Prosser, speaking slowly — he sounds like Mr. Rogers — recites his resume, concentrating on the number and range of his judicial opinions, and how they demonstrate that he's moderate and a centrist. He stresses that Kloppenburg lacks judicial experience and is a "stealth candidate."
MORE: Asked whether there is a First Amendment right for a judicial candidate to lie about his opponent, Prosser says he knows this is a reference to an ad the winning candidate in the last Wisconsin Supreme Court election used against the incumbent, which has been the subject of some very heated litigation. Getting into the specifics of that case, Prosser's answer was legalistic. When it was Kloppenburg's turn to answer the same question, she gave a clear "no," there is no First Amendment right to lie. That gave Prosser the opening to accuse her of lying about him. He offered to give her a list of her lies. She remained impassive.
That makes it sound like what we've heard before. You can listen to the whole thing here, but unfortunately, there's no transcript. I'm listening now. It begins with opening statements. Kloppenburg, speaking very quickly, recites her resume and claims she will be independent. Prosser, speaking slowly — he sounds like Mr. Rogers — recites his resume, concentrating on the number and range of his judicial opinions, and how they demonstrate that he's moderate and a centrist. He stresses that Kloppenburg lacks judicial experience and is a "stealth candidate."
MORE: Asked whether there is a First Amendment right for a judicial candidate to lie about his opponent, Prosser says he knows this is a reference to an ad the winning candidate in the last Wisconsin Supreme Court election used against the incumbent, which has been the subject of some very heated litigation. Getting into the specifics of that case, Prosser's answer was legalistic. When it was Kloppenburg's turn to answer the same question, she gave a clear "no," there is no First Amendment right to lie. That gave Prosser the opening to accuse her of lying about him. He offered to give her a list of her lies. She remained impassive.
"Gov. Scott Walker's administration no longer is collecting dues on behalf of state unions and..."
"... as of Sunday, is charging employees more for their pensions and health care, even though nonpartisan legislative attorneys say the changes are not yet law."
And there is a hearing going on right now in the Dane County Courthouse before Judge Sumi:
UPDATE: Meade leaves the hearing, saying: "This is not a job for New Media Meade." The courtroom is full of reporters, and there will be detailed reports of whatever goes on as a result of this hearing which is loaded with legalistic complexities. I'll read that stuff and get back to you later. Briefly, Sumi put aside the argument that the LRB publication has mooted the case and is holding the scheduled hearing.
UPDATE2: Judge Sumi rules against the law again:
And there is a hearing going on right now in the Dane County Courthouse before Judge Sumi:
Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.... Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.Meade is in the courtroom — along with a big crowd of anti-Walkerites. I'm in touch via text and will update.
But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law. The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts. Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it. On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.
Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.... Arguments are scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Tuesday in Ozanne's case, on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. But the dispute over publication of the law adds a new wrinkle that the judge could take up.
UPDATE: Meade leaves the hearing, saying: "This is not a job for New Media Meade." The courtroom is full of reporters, and there will be detailed reports of whatever goes on as a result of this hearing which is loaded with legalistic complexities. I'll read that stuff and get back to you later. Briefly, Sumi put aside the argument that the LRB publication has mooted the case and is holding the scheduled hearing.
UPDATE2: Judge Sumi rules against the law again:
But minutes later, outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect....
Sumi noted she has not yet found that lawmakers violated the open meetings law, but noted the Legislature could resolve the matter by passing the bill again. Andrew Welhouse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), said there are no plans to try to pass the bill again....
[T]he Department of Justice tried to halt the hearing in Sumi's court, saying the law is now in effect and legislators are immune from civil proceedings. But Sumi said the case must continue for now.
"I think the court has a duty to proceed at this point," she said.
The NYT is "contributing to the digital divide. Absolutely. No question about it."
Said Rush Limbaugh yesterday, at the end of a rant that began by noting that Bob Herbert is leaving the NYT, "with the intent" — in Herbert's words — "of writing more expansively and more aggressively about the injustices visited on working people, the poor and the many others in our society who find themselves on the wrong side of power."
Eventually, after explaining for the 5,000th time that the real cause of poverty is liberalism, Rush got to the subject of the new New York Times pay wall, which means that "The poor will no longer be able to read the New York Times."
James Taranto points to the @freeNYTimes Twitter feed, which you can follow to pick up links to all the new items in the NYT. That's not even bypassing the policy. It was already in the policy that you could get in free if you had a referring link. So there's a referring link for every single thing. It's an uglier point of entry than the front page at the NYT website, which is unfortunate, but not unfortunate enough to make me pay $35 a month for what I've gotten free for years. Now, readers coming over from Twitter will be consuming one of their 20 free page views that the Times gives us each month. I have quit linking to the NYT myself because I feel bad about forcing people to use up their free reads. If there's some news event I want to write about, I start at the Washington Post or some other standard place instead of the NYT. How about all those interesting extra things the NYT talks about — science, culture, commentary? I'm not seeing them, because I'm not looking there anymore. I know I'm missing stuff, but I'm finding other things elsewhere — all because the links consume the free 20!
Taranto has this from the Times Publisher Pinch Sulzburger:
What an embarrassing disaster!
Eventually, after explaining for the 5,000th time that the real cause of poverty is liberalism, Rush got to the subject of the new New York Times pay wall, which means that "The poor will no longer be able to read the New York Times."
It's $35 a month to read their website. Bob Herbert is quitting. Now, some enterprising hackers have found four lines of JavaScript to be able to beat the pay wall. The New York Times spent tens of millions of dollars establishing their pay wall, tens of millions of dollars to pay and keep people from busting it, and four lines of JavaScript have been written that totally bust the pay wall. But the poor don't even know what JavaScript is, so the poor will not even be able to read.Well, at least the young/cool people will be able to bypass the pay wall. Maybe that's what the NYT intended. They want their regular home-delivery subscribers to feel they're getting something special and forestall the abandonment of home delivery as people migrate to the internet. (That's what happened to me. I paid for home delivery from 1984 to about 2006, at which point, I noticed I'd been leaving the paper-paper folded up and unread, while I read and wrote on line.) I'm sure some on-line-only readers will pay to get through the wall, and the NYT will make some money from them. Maybe it's worth doing. But I suspect the Times — unless it's a complete idiot — has planned all along for people to work around the wall, because otherwise the drop-off in readership will be horrendous. I think they're hoping to rake in money from a subset of readers while providing free access for anyone who figures out how to get around it and isn't hyper-moral about such things.
James Taranto points to the @freeNYTimes Twitter feed, which you can follow to pick up links to all the new items in the NYT. That's not even bypassing the policy. It was already in the policy that you could get in free if you had a referring link. So there's a referring link for every single thing. It's an uglier point of entry than the front page at the NYT website, which is unfortunate, but not unfortunate enough to make me pay $35 a month for what I've gotten free for years. Now, readers coming over from Twitter will be consuming one of their 20 free page views that the Times gives us each month. I have quit linking to the NYT myself because I feel bad about forcing people to use up their free reads. If there's some news event I want to write about, I start at the Washington Post or some other standard place instead of the NYT. How about all those interesting extra things the NYT talks about — science, culture, commentary? I'm not seeing them, because I'm not looking there anymore. I know I'm missing stuff, but I'm finding other things elsewhere — all because the links consume the free 20!
Taranto has this from the Times Publisher Pinch Sulzburger:
"Can people go around the system? The answer is yes. There are going to be ways... Just as if you run down Sixth Avenue right now and you pass a newsstand and grab the paper and keep running you can actually get the Times free." Oh, so we're not savvy Web users, we're all thieves.Ha ha. The kind of people.... How ineffably snooty! Somebody tell Bob Herbert! People who are out of work. Those low-quality people! Note that he isn't saying the Times cares about poor people and intends to let them in free. It's saying losers like that don't want to read the NYT anyway. It's only the people who will pay who are wanted in the first place.
"Is it going to be done by the kind of people who value the quality of The New York Times reporting and opinion and analysis? No... I don't think so. It'll be mostly high-school kids and people who are out of work."
What an embarrassing disaster!
I would love to put Kausfiles on my blogroll.
But the Daily Caller seems to have rigged it to switch the Kausfiles URL — http://dailycaller.com/kausfiles/ — so that it takes you to the front page of the Daily Caller and not to the Kausfiles page! At least that's what happens when I put it in my blogroll. (Check the link in my blogroll.) This is abuse of Kaus, which I think is a tort.
ADDED: Clicking the link above will get you to the right place, but I can't get that to work in my blogroll.
ADDED: Clicking the link above will get you to the right place, but I can't get that to work in my blogroll.
The Annual Law Revue Contest.
Compete! It's not enough to put on a show... or to slog through law school and put on a show... you must strive to win the competition of shows.
2010 Law Prof Blog Rankings.
Results are in for the full 12-month competition to be the most popular lawprof/set of lawprofs in all the land... with a publicly available Site Meter.
Monday, March 28, 2011
A conference on Bob Dylan and the law.
At Fordham:
[The first session examines] the Dylan songs "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" and "Hurricane." "Hurricane" chronicles the true-life plight of boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, who was found guilty of murdering three people in 1966. His conviction was overturned after Dylan's song was released because of faulty evidence. "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" is about the 1960s murder of a black barmaid in Baltimore at the hands of wealthy white man, who spent a mere six months in jail for the crime.I hope they take account of my parody "The Lonesome Death Of William Zanzinger."
[The second session] will primarily consist of academics and judges presenting papers on Dylan and the law. For example Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner David Zornow will present "Dylan's Judgment on Judges: Are Power, Greed and Corruptible Seed All That There Is?" University of Kentucky College of Law professor Alison Connelly will present "Dylan as the Complete Trial Lawyer: Using Hurricane Carter to Teach Trial Skills."...Hmmm. Seems like too much Hurricane Carter... and too much obviousness. Does Dylan belong in academia? He answered that question himself:
I put down my robe, picked up my diploma
Took hold of my sweetheart and away we did drive
Straight for the hills, the black hills of Dakota
Sure was glad to get out of there alive...
"I think this guy should be investigated. He remembers when Obama was born?"
"Give me a break. He's just trying to do something for his party."
Says Donald Trump, referring to Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
Says Donald Trump, referring to Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie
"Did you notice Obama kept using the words 'hope' and 'change' in the address on military action in Libya?"
That's an IM from my son Chris. Here's the text of the speech. 4 "hope"s. 9 "change"s.
What Meade noticed was the failure to talk about Congress. Searching the text, I see he said Congress once:
What I noticed was the implicit disrespect for George Bush:
What Meade noticed was the failure to talk about Congress. Searching the text, I see he said Congress once:
[N]ine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.So... the leadership. Who, exactly? Boehner and Reid?
What I noticed was the implicit disrespect for George Bush:
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone....When did we act alone? Is he trying to make us misremember what Bush did?
Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi's remaining forces....How clean and breezy, compared to what Bush did to Saddam.
And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and — more importantly — a task for the Libyan people themselves....
We .. had the ability to stop Gadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground....
Of course, there is no question that Libya — and the world — will be better off with Gadhafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake....
If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.The implicit comparison is to what Bush did in Iraq.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.Now, it's explicit.
We have intervened to stop a massacre... We will... work with other nations to hasten the day when Gadhafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gadhafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.Isn't that what the United States said to the Iraqi people after the Gulf War?
"Two sources with knowledge of internal GOP polling tell us that Prosser and Kloppenburg are near even, a bad sign for the incumbent."
Writes Robert Costa in the National Review:
I hate these stranded elections. You have more power than usual, if you vote, because so few vote. That might be some motivation to vote, but... obviously not. That's the whole point: Few vote. Who are those few? The super-heated political types. So... how does that work for a judicial election? You can see that this stranded April 5th voting day presents a special problem with respect to keeping judicial elections above politics. Judicial elections above politics... it makes even less sense than usual.
Prosser has criticized the very negative ads that Kloppenburg supporters have put up, but if his supporters don't come on strong in retaliation, he's going to lose.
“She has driven his negatives up,” one source says. “It will be hard to drive hers up. Her lack of judicial experience should hurt her, but it also makes her harder to pin down. The question now is: Does the Right have enough resources to counter the Greater Wisconsin Committee’s millions? And even if they do, is it too late? It is going to be touch-and-go for these last few days.”...But if the election depends mostly on turnout, portraying it as a referendum on the governor is probably a better strategy than the usual grim focus on judicial aptitude and temperament. Who can be moved to go out and vote next Tuesday when it's just about a judgeship?
According to state-election figures, nonpartisan spring elections usually draw less than 20 percent of the electorate: 18 percent in 2009, 19 percent in 2008, 19 percent in 2007, and 12 percent in 2006. To win, GOP officials say Prosser will need to draw strong numbers from emerging conservative pockets in Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, and Racine counties. If voters from these areas don’t show, but liberals pile into voting booths in Dane County and Madison proper, Kloppenburg could cruise to victory.
“Look, this race is not a referendum on the governor or a specific piece of legislation,” Brian Nemoir says. “It has a much broader scope. supreme-court judges are elected to ten-year terms on purpose. Their elections are not intended to be snapshot responses to the current political environment.”
I hate these stranded elections. You have more power than usual, if you vote, because so few vote. That might be some motivation to vote, but... obviously not. That's the whole point: Few vote. Who are those few? The super-heated political types. So... how does that work for a judicial election? You can see that this stranded April 5th voting day presents a special problem with respect to keeping judicial elections above politics. Judicial elections above politics... it makes even less sense than usual.
Prosser has criticized the very negative ads that Kloppenburg supporters have put up, but if his supporters don't come on strong in retaliation, he's going to lose.
"Dennis is Not More Likely to be a Dentist."
Yeah, but delightful theories are more likely to be believed.
"If John Stuart Mill were around today, he would likely ask, 'When did Bob Wright and the left turn against free speech?'"
Wrote Meade in the thread about the dispute between me and Bob Wright, in which Bob Wright wanted to limit the concept of "free speech" to rights the individual holds against the government. Meade quoted John Stuart Mill, who wrote:
Wright also argued against the evolution of the meaning of words, but what if strict usage had checked the evolution of the meaning of the word "liberal"? Wright would need to resist calling himself a liberal.
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”Penetrating much more deeply... enslaving the soul itself!
Wright also argued against the evolution of the meaning of words, but what if strict usage had checked the evolution of the meaning of the word "liberal"? Wright would need to resist calling himself a liberal.
Bill Ayers: "Did you know that I wrote ['Dreams From My Father']?"
Nice comic timing. Or do you think the comedy is the equivalent of hiding something in plain sight?
ADDED: Protein Wisdom:
As someone who knows a thing or two about interpretation, I don’t need John Hawkins or Rick Moran to point out Ayers’ tone of sarcasm. What I’m interested in is the rather pointed tone of the sarcasm — it’s too deliberate, and the question seems too staged — and I’m suggesting that, while Ayers wants to joke it all away (to provide himself an out), he also very much wants credit. It’s who he is. It’s who they all are....
"Aging hippies trashed the state Capitol."
Writes Salena Zito in an article, cited by Instapundit, called "GOP Can't Ignore Wisconsin Recall Battle."
Look, I agree that GOP should not ignore the recall battle...
There was a tremendous infusion of energy from young people — especially the UW TAs. Who did the things that can be called "trashing"? Who broke windows and doors and taped up a lot of signs? I think it was the young people who became excessively impassioned about something that looked like good politics to them. They weren't hippies, though. And neither were the older state employees, who have jobs and, presumably, pretty damned conventional lives. This has been a fight over the preservation of the political clout of public employees, who love their job security and their pensions. These aren't hippie values.
Quit blaming hippies. No hippies were involved.
Anyway, about the recall elections. Not only is it important for Republicans to take these elections seriously, as Zito states, because of the damaging losses that could occur. It's also a great opportunity. Think of the up side. Promote the budget plan as something positive. You suddenly have a Democratic-Party-made platform for touting your program. And the protesters have, for your convenience, generated a vast array of images and video to attack the Democrats' position.
Look, I agree that GOP should not ignore the recall battle...
Unions and the left are far outspending pro-business interests and the right on recall ads. Democrats are wise to see more at stake than a single state Senate majority and a new political map that could unseat two freshmen Republican congressmen. They know this is the first battle of 2012 — their version of 2010's surprise election of Scott Brown, R-Mass., who won a blue-state U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Democrat Ted Kennedy....That's really important. But aging hippies did not trash the Wisconsin Capitol. There have been huge crowds at the Capitol in the last 6 weeks, and most of them weren't even trashing anything. The composition of the crowd has changed over time. It began with a lot of middle-aged state employees, notably teachers.
There was a tremendous infusion of energy from young people — especially the UW TAs. Who did the things that can be called "trashing"? Who broke windows and doors and taped up a lot of signs? I think it was the young people who became excessively impassioned about something that looked like good politics to them. They weren't hippies, though. And neither were the older state employees, who have jobs and, presumably, pretty damned conventional lives. This has been a fight over the preservation of the political clout of public employees, who love their job security and their pensions. These aren't hippie values.
Quit blaming hippies. No hippies were involved.
Anyway, about the recall elections. Not only is it important for Republicans to take these elections seriously, as Zito states, because of the damaging losses that could occur. It's also a great opportunity. Think of the up side. Promote the budget plan as something positive. You suddenly have a Democratic-Party-made platform for touting your program. And the protesters have, for your convenience, generated a vast array of images and video to attack the Democrats' position.
"The European Court of Human Rights has just upheld Italy's policy of displaying crucifixes in its public school classrooms."
John Witte Jr. writes about the 15-2 decision in Lautsi v. Italy:
The Court stated clearly that the crucifix is a religious symbol, that atheism is a protected religious belief and that public schools must be religiously neutral. But the Court held that a "passive display" of a crucifix in a public school classroom was no violation of religious freedom — particularly when students of all faiths were welcome in public schools and free to wear their own religious symbols. The Court held further that Italy's policy of displaying only the crucifix was no violation of religious neutrality, but an acceptable reflection of its majoritarian Catholic culture....This is much more accommodating to government religious expression in public schools than U.S. constitutional law is, but Witte notes 6 similarities:
First, tradition counts in these cases....Rich detail on each of the six points, so go to the link. Witte has a definite point of view, as he shows by referring giving "a minority a heckler's veto." The actual U.S. Supreme Court cases express concern about children feeling like outsiders.
Second, religious symbols often have redeeming cultural value.
Third, local values deserve some deference...
Fourth, religious freedom does not require the secularization of society...
Fifth, religious freedom does not give a minority a heckler's veto over majoritarian policies....
Finally, religious symbolism cases are serious business...
"Are you a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative?"
"I'm a conservative liberal."
"I'm a liberal conservative!"
(Things overheard at Meadhouse.)
"I'm a liberal conservative!"
(Things overheard at Meadhouse.)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Photography, yesterday.
Women in purple...
Meade, among the women...
Meade, in the rotunda...
Meade's subjects, the lounging protesters...
(Can you really do the fist salute while seated, slumping, on the floor?)
Meade, among the women...
Meade, in the rotunda...
Meade's subjects, the lounging protesters...
(Can you really do the fist salute while seated, slumping, on the floor?)
Wisconsin Capitol Police very gently enforce the law against posting signs on the first floor.
Via Garage Mahal. Meade and I didn't witness this, but we were there the other day when activist Ben Masel couldn't get himself arrested.
The Bob Wright/Ann Althouse email exchange about what free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News.
Back on February 2, I wrote “When did the left turn against free speech?” and used some clips from a Bloggingheads I did with Bob Wright, in which I talked about free speech values and rejected Bob's attempt to restrict the idea of free speech to the constitutional right to free speech, which only deals with the problem of government restrictions on speech.
The text of my post, however, doesn't restate our disagreement about the meaning of the term, and Bob emailed me to complain. And then last Friday, I did another Bloggingheads, and Bob brought up his beef about the definition of the term again. So I invited him to give me permission to publish the whole email exchange, and he agreed, so here goes...
In the blog post, explaining Bob Wright's position, I said that he thought that "free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways." Since Bob's point was that Roger Ailes should kick Glenn Beck off the air, Bob said:
But here's a poll anyway:
The text of my post, however, doesn't restate our disagreement about the meaning of the term, and Bob emailed me to complain. And then last Friday, I did another Bloggingheads, and Bob brought up his beef about the definition of the term again. So I invited him to give me permission to publish the whole email exchange, and he agreed, so here goes...
In the blog post, explaining Bob Wright's position, I said that he thought that "free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways." Since Bob's point was that Roger Ailes should kick Glenn Beck off the air, Bob said:
Don’t you think most people take ‘free speech’ to refer to speech that is unconstrained by the government? In which case [that] passage from your blog post is a somewhat misleading characterization of my views?...I responded:
I said not once but twice in our exchange that I absolutely wasn’t suggesting any government constraint on speech.
I said in the diavlog itself [in a clip embedded in the blog post] that I don't agree with that limitation. Free speech is a value that extends beyond the right that people have against government, just as privacy and autonomy are larger ideas than their corresponding legal rights. Moreover, it is when people lose the value in its larger form that they slip into accepting government limitations. There's an interrelationship between cultural values and the law, and an evolution of values against free speech can play out in legal restrictions later on.Bob said:
Just about everyone loses the value in its larger form, including, I venture to say, you. Surely there is *some* essay or article that you would say a conscientious newspaper editor shouldn’t publish, right? Say, for example, an op-ed piece recommending that all black people be killed? And, again, the question isn’t whether the editor should be *allowed* to publish it; we’re talking about moral sanction, not legal sanction. I’m saying that pretty much everyone, when you examine their beliefs closely, *does* believe that moral sanction has *some* place in shaping our discourse. But maybe you’ll surprise me and say that an editor who publishes a piece recommending the killing of all blacks shouldn’t be be condemned, and wouldn’t be condemned by you. Is that your position?I said:
What's missing from that hypothetical is that the newspaper has free speech rights too. It doesn't have to pass along other people's speech unless it wants to, just as I don't have to quote people on my blog unless I decide too.Bob said:
It doesn't have to publish anything it doesn't want, for whatever reason. This is what it means to acknowledge that corporations deserve free speech too.
The moral sanction is just more free speech as I see it.
The simpler way of putting that is that people continue to argue about what is true, what is good and what to do and believe. That's free speech. My preference is to argue on the substantive merits rather than to gasp about how bad people need to be cut off from the people who are choosing to listen to them.
Again, I support the free speech of the publisher. No one has to reproduce any speech they don't want to... for any reason, so there is no need to say exactly where the line is for any given organization to decide what they want to say or offer up as an op-ed.
Exactly. And when you choose not to quote people on your blog are you denying them free speech?
No, right?
So when I advocate that you not quote someone I’m not advocating that you deny anyone free speech.
That’s the exact analogy: If Roger Ailes chooses not to give Glenn Beck a show, he’s not denying him free speech. So if I advocate that Roger Ailes not give him a show, I’m not advocating that anyone be denied free speech.I said:
I agree that you are exercising free speech when you aim moral suasion at Ailes. You're doing the public shaming thing, which I understand. But Fox News wants Beck on the air, because a lot of people like to listen to him. You can avoid him yourself, but you want to stop the people who want to hear him from getting to hear him by convincing Fox that speech like that is not acceptable. So you're using speech to make an argument about what speech is acceptable and trying to persuade Fox to agree with you about the narrow range of acceptable speech, trumping the preferences of the people who do want to be able to see Beck on TV. If your method worked, there would be a narrower range of speech available to people who are currently eager to hear that sort of thing. You don't trust them enough to try to persuade them with arguments running in the other direction from Beck's. You want them to be protected from speech you think is bad. I see that as an anti-free speech position, because you aren't about talking more to the people you want to influence, you're about protecting them from the dangers in the speech you think is bad.Bob said:
OK, so now I’m pretty convinced of the truth of something I suggested earlier in this exchange: If Roger Ailes ran a show whose host was devoted to encouraging people to kill every black person they see, you (a) would not condemn Roger Ailes and (b) would consider me anti-free speech if I did condemn Roger Ailes.I said:
That’s in some sense a defensible position. But I’m sure you’ll agree it’s a minority position—most Americans don’t consider it “anti-free-speech” to condemn Ailes for at least *some* programming decisions, and to try to shame him into changing them. That’s why I said your depiction of my views as anti-free-spech is misleading. Most people don’t define “anti-free speech” the way you’re defining it.
Please do me one favor: Let me know whether my first paragraph, above, does or does not mischaracterize your position. If it doesn’t, then I think I totally understand your position and there’s probably not a lot to be gained by further elaboration. If it does mischaracterize your position, then I’m afraid I remain confused. (Wouldn’t be the first time!)
I think your hypothetical has the same problem that made Godwin invent his rule about bringing up Hitler. It's not conceivable that Fox would have a show like that, and if we lived in a world where there were shows like that on widely seen networks, everything would be different. How did it happen that blatantly racist speech (even without the incitement to murder) became off-limits in our culture? Not because extra-sensitive shamers got way out ahead of the rest of the culture and deprived people of access to speech they wanted to hear. In any case, we are so far beyond the imaginary world where there could be a show like that, that I have no idea what strategy I would adopt if something so bizarre came into being.Bob said:
To make a hypothetical that is enlightening to this discussion, you have to have some speech that there really is currently a big or at least decent audience for, that a lot of people think is worth listening to, and then ask me if I would join you in saying these people should not get what they want. That's what you're doing with Beck. To me, this unwillingness to trust people to hear and think for themselves and to be challenged with additional speech is what characterizes you as anti-free speech.
You're trying to get me to abandon my definition of free speech, but I'm not going to do that. It's funny that your argument is based on what "most people" supposedly think. If the judgment of the people should prevail, why not let the people who want to watch Beck have their Beck? The issue is whether freedom of speech is a high value and where it appears in your hierarchy of values.
Well, IMHO, the purpose of a specific hypothetical in cases like this has nothing to do with its plausibility; the point is to establish the parameters of a person’s general guiding principles. So in this case, depending on how you answered my hypothetical, you’d be saying that either (a) yes, there are at least *some* situations in which you’d adopt the position that (when adopted by me) you call anti-free-speech; or (b) your reluctance to condemn speech, and those who help amplify it, is extreme, and places you among a very small minority of Americans.I said:
So the point is that either (a) I’m anti-free-speech only in the sense that you are; or (b) I’m anti-free-speech only if you adopt a definition of “anti-free-speech” that is held by very few people—which gets us back to my original complaint: your depiction of my views as anti-free-speech was, according to conventional American usage, misleading; for the average American, “freedom of speech” is about the first amendment.
So the Godwin rule is misguided in your view. I disagree. As I said, when your hypos are off-the-wall implausible, they don't help us think about the real world. I'd have to begin by imagining myself in Crazy World and then come up with a way to think in Crazy World. That might be a fun game, but it's not useful in figuring out what to do in the real world, which is what matters.Bob said:
My standard free speech answer is going to be in favor of expression, access to expression, and more speech, not repression of speech and not cutting off conversations that are still in play because they offend some other people who think the conversation should have already ended. I'm not against condemning offensive speech, though, as I've said. That's part of the "more speech" remedy to bad speech. I don't think it's very effective speech however. I'd rather see engagement on the merits with people like Glenn Beck, not hollow assertions that he needs to shut up. That's actually counterproductive. People who want to hear him are going to see him as more worth listening too. As Rush Limbaugh loves to say: "The left will tell you who they are afraid of."
So if Google or Facebook, private corporations, took steps to squelch free speech that would just not even make sense to you as a concept because they can't affect free speech since they are not the government? If people organized and regularly showed up at events to shout down speakers they disapproved of, it would be incoherent to urge them to respect free speech.
I realize it irks you to be characterized as anti-free speech, but surely you must realize that is telling me what powerful rhetoric it is. I'm scarcely going to abandon it because it irks you. You are encouraging me to keep using it as a way of saying what I'm trying to say. Why would I back off and adopt a weaker form of expression?
By that logic you should call me a rapist and a child molester! After all, I would protest that allegation, too—and that protest would just show what “powerful rhetoric it is” and would thus “encourage you to keep using it”.I said:
Here’s a hypothetical that, I hope, is plausible enough for you to entertain: If a poll of your readers showed that most of your readers take “anti-free-speech” to mean “in favor of government censorship” *then* would you quit using the term to describe someone who is manifestly not in favor of government censorship? (Don’t worry, I won’t try to conduct any such poll—and I don’t purport to be sure what the results of such a poll would be. I’m just curious….)
Bob, you are indulging in logical fallacies like mad. If I'm doing something I already choose to do and believe in doing, and you give me an additional reason for doing it, that doesn't mean that I would do other things for the sole reason that was that additional reason. For example, if I love a dress in the store and it fits me, plus it's cheap, so I buy it, that doesn't mean I'd buy other things because they're cheap and nothing more.Bob said:
Defining terms is a huge part of argument. The notion that a term means what would come in first in a vote on the definition is absurd. What would liberalism or feminism or equality or fairness or any number of important terms mean if the meaning was frozen at the current first definition. Even the dictionary doesn't work that way: there are multiple uses for the same word.
As for the right to free speech, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Just on that text alone, you can see that there are 2 different things "the freedom of speech" and the specific direction to Congress not to abridge it. Now, if you say freedom of speech is nothing more than the direction to government not to abridge the freedom of speech, try to picture what the text would need to be: "Congress shall make no law... abridging Congress's proscription against abridging the freedom of speech" which would make no sense at all. The freedom of speech is something which we enjoy, and the Constitution bars Congress's interference with it.
Ann, I’ll bet you thought you had worn me out. Wrong! Although I have to admit that I don’t think I’ll last much longer.That's the last email, dated February 22. Funnily, the conversation began before the Wisconsin protests began and ended 9 days into the real-life, free-speech extravaganza in my neighborhood. I'd like to say I let him have the last word, which sounds gracious, but I can see that Bob left some questions for me that I never answered. Except I think I did answer it. Obviously, I stand by my definition of "free speech," and I wouldn't change my position based on a poll of my readers!
As for your first paragraph: Obviously I’m not saying that you take the vociferousness of someone’s protest against your characterization of their views as the sole criterion for believing your characterization was valid. But for you to take it into account at all—to think that vociferous protests to *any* extent *validate* your characterization of their views—strikes me as odd. When someone tells me I’ve misrepresented their views, I think, “Oh, shit, maybe I did” and then go check to see if I did. I’d sure save a lot of time if I adopted your approach, and took every complaint about my accuracy as a degree of validation.
As for your final paragraph: I gather you’re saying that the authors of the constitution are here suggesting that “freedom of speech” can be constrained by something other than the government (though, actually, this doesn’t quite follow logically from the phraseology; i.e., they’re not literally implying it). That may be true, but it says nothing about whether, more than two centuries after the constitution was written, the phrase “anti-free-speech” has come to mean “in favor of government constraints on speech”.
Speaking of which: You failed to answer my hypothetical about whether, if most of your readers indeed shared this understanding of “anti-free-speech,” you would refrain from applying the term to me. So first you said you wouldn’t answer a hypothetical because it was implausible, and now it turns out you won’t answer plausible hypotheticals either?
But here's a poll anyway:
Hillary Clinton distinguishes Assad from Qaddaffi.
Syria is not Libya. I hope you can understand why.
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s security forces clashed with protesters in several cities yesterday...Is this a doctrine?
Clinton said the elements that led to intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, an Arab League call for action, a United Nations Security Council resolution -- are “not going to happen” with Syria, in part because members of the U.S. Congress from both parties say they believe Assad is “a reformer.”
“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities... than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
Shame, shame, shame. Where is the shame?
Is it in wearing a gray hoodie under a tailored blazer, a little black derby hat, and a smelled-a-fart expression while carrying a pre-printed "SHAME" sign when the guy marching after you is wearing a windbreaker and carrying a handmade "TAX the RICH" sign?
Is it in carrying a 3D representation of the governor's bare ass while being followed by a blanketed-up old woman in a wheelchair against whom is propped a gigantic "SHAME" sign?
Is it in wheeling around an old woman against whom is propped a gigantic "SHAME" sign and sticking mylar pinwheels into her blankets?
Is it in marching — while holding, instead of sign, a take-out coffee — while a woman holds up a "SHAME!" sign and you (apparently) supervise a child who is bearing a handmade "InaPPropriate Boob" sign which depicts (presumably) Scott Walker being directed toward a blazing fire.
Where is the shame? Is it in my photography and my questions? Should I be ashamed to see alternate meanings in the "SHAME" signs the Wisconsin protesters display proudly?
Is it in carrying a 3D representation of the governor's bare ass while being followed by a blanketed-up old woman in a wheelchair against whom is propped a gigantic "SHAME" sign?
Is it in wheeling around an old woman against whom is propped a gigantic "SHAME" sign and sticking mylar pinwheels into her blankets?
Is it in marching — while holding, instead of sign, a take-out coffee — while a woman holds up a "SHAME!" sign and you (apparently) supervise a child who is bearing a handmade "InaPPropriate Boob" sign which depicts (presumably) Scott Walker being directed toward a blazing fire.
Where is the shame? Is it in my photography and my questions? Should I be ashamed to see alternate meanings in the "SHAME" signs the Wisconsin protesters display proudly?
Why didn't Scott Walker realize he was talking to a prankster who was only pretending to be David Koch?
Because Walker had never spoken to David Koch in his life.
That fact begins a Weekly Standard article called "The Paranoid Style in Liberal Politics." Toward the end:
That fact begins a Weekly Standard article called "The Paranoid Style in Liberal Politics." Toward the end:
As the assaults piled up Charles [Koch] couldn’t help thinking of Schopenhauer’s “Art of Controversy.” The German philosopher had noted that people who can’t win an argument through reason attack their opponent’s motivation. “I thought I was cynical enough,” Charles said. “But that was pretty shocking, to see what we’re up against, or what the country’s up against: to have an element like this.”...
To Charles, the call for bigger government was egalitarianism run amok. Liberals, he thought, fetishized equality of condition at the expense of personal liberty. “They cannot stand that some people are better off than others,” Charles said. “I think part of it fits Mencken’s definition of a Puritan: someone that’s miserable because he knows that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself. He cannot stand that. And I think they all slept through Economics 101.”
In London, "protesters threw light bulbs filled with ammonia at police."
Were these old-style incandescent light bulbs or compact fluorescents? Because if they were compact fluorescents, protesters threw light bulbs filled with ammonia and mercury.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
At the Wisconsin Capitol today, a rag-tag band plays and the assemblyman who's been avoiding Meade suddenly shows up.
Brett Hulsey was avoiding Meade yesterday, but he sought us out today, when we dropped by to see what was going on down at the Capitol. The encounter begins about 2 minutes in, and you see uncut footage of the whole conversation:
The band, which looks like this...
... plays "Solidarity Forever" and then "On, Wisconsin!" Meade sings along with "On, Wisconsin!" and, as he explained to me later, he's deliberately singing tunelessly as a critique of the band.
The band, which looks like this...
... plays "Solidarity Forever" and then "On, Wisconsin!" Meade sings along with "On, Wisconsin!" and, as he explained to me later, he's deliberately singing tunelessly as a critique of the band.
"'Tear Down This WALL'ker"/"Torture Fitzgerald"/Meade + Hulsey/Krampus.
At the Wisconsin Capitol today... a man in a Reagan mask had come up with a clever saying...
A woman with pinwheels didn't seem to be taking the subject of torture seriously enough...
Our assemblymanm Brett Hulsey — who'd been trying so hard to avoid Meade — found us and was amiable and talkative....
So... let the wild Krampus begin!
A woman with pinwheels didn't seem to be taking the subject of torture seriously enough...
Our assemblymanm Brett Hulsey — who'd been trying so hard to avoid Meade — found us and was amiable and talkative....
So... let the wild Krampus begin!
David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg square off over judging (and running for judge) in Wisconsin.
We watched the whole debate last night, and those snippets give you the flavor of it. The ad Prosser asks Kloppenburg to ask her supporters to take down is the one we were discussing yesterday under the title "Mother Of All Negative Ads."
"Defecating dog sparks US shootout."
Why did BBC publish this story? It's not exactly big international news!
Two neighbours in the US state of Mississippi drew weapons and fired at each other as an argument over a defecating dog ran out of control.... injuries are not life-threatening... "Just meet me at the levee and I'll shoot you down."...I think the BBC is into stoking anti-hillbilly bigotry. Bob Wright was doing that yesterday:
Madison's new tourism industry: the endless protest.
There's this:
Spend Sunday, April 10th, and the previous Saturday afternoon and evening, in Madison with hundreds if not thousands of other Wisconsinites as we convene the first in a series of meetings of the Wisconsin People’s Assembly. By participating in the Assembly, you will have the opportunity to meet, learn from, and build lasting personal connections with Wisconsinites coming from all trades, communities, and backgrounds.I'm getting a tourism vibe. And it's not just the "wave" logo, suggesting a beach outing. It's the whole visit-Madison-for-the-excitement pitch.
Obama's Libya adventure does not fit the War Powers Resolution... and can only be supported by the most extreme view of presidential power.
Lawprof Bruce Ackerman explains:
Here's the part of my diavlog with Bob Wright where we talk about this issue. Note how, challenged, Bob comes up with a generic neocon argument about how more democracy in the world is good for national security. I press him about how there needs to be an emergency to justify not including Congress in the decisionmaking. (I've let this clip go on a bit, so it's a little long, but I purport to tell you the whole story of constitutional law, so it's actually super-concise.)
After the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which granted the president the power to act unilaterally for 60 days in response to a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." The law gave the chief executive an additional 30 days to disengage if he failed to gain congressional assent during the interim.The War Powers Resolution cedes power to the President in the very place where the argument for independent presidential power is strong: When there is a national security emergency. If you don't fit the War Powers Resolution, because it's not an emergency, the argument for independent power is at its weakest.
But... these provisions have little to do with the constitutionality of the Libyan intervention, since Libya did not attack our "armed forces." The president failed to mention this fundamental point in giving Congress notice of his decision on Monday, in compliance with another provision of the resolution. Without an armed "attack," there is no compelling reason for the president to cut Congress out of a crucial decision on war and peace....
The War Powers Resolution doesn't authorize a single day of Libyan bombing. But it does provide an escape hatch, stating that it is not "intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President." So it's open for Obama to assert that his power as commander in chief allows him to wage war without Congress, despite the Constitution's insistence to the contrary....
Many modern presidents have made such claims, and Harry Truman acted upon this assertion in Korea. But it's surprising to find Obama on the verge of ratifying such precedents. He was elected in reaction to the unilateralist assertions of John Yoo and other apologists for George W. Bush-era illegalities. Yet he is now moving onto ground that even Bush did not occupy....
Here's the part of my diavlog with Bob Wright where we talk about this issue. Note how, challenged, Bob comes up with a generic neocon argument about how more democracy in the world is good for national security. I press him about how there needs to be an emergency to justify not including Congress in the decisionmaking. (I've let this clip go on a bit, so it's a little long, but I purport to tell you the whole story of constitutional law, so it's actually super-concise.)
Bob Wright says that because the attack on Libya "is truly multilateral... it not only diffuses the literal cost ... but the blowback that you get from intervention inherently."
But it doesn't work, does it, for the United State to try to spread the responsibility around? It reminds me of getting stuck in a group project at school, when you're the GPA-protecting A+ student and everyone else knows it. In school, the A+ student knows this is a bad deal. He's not thinking: I love this diffused responsibility! He's thinking: These other students are dragging me down, and if this project gets a D, I'm getting a D, so I'll do everything I can to get the A for everybody. And all the other students are thinking about how they will take advantage of this arrangement. There's no diffusion illusion in school. Does it get any better in military maneuvers? Those other countries are already flaking out, and the United States will be exposed as having the full responsibility it always had. Was there ever any serious hope of diffusion of "blowback"? I doubt it. If there was, it was naive and, really, quite ugly. We'll go to war if we can hide behind France?!
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wisconsin collective bargaining law is published despite the court order barring Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing it.
So... a loophole? It got published by someone other than La Follette?!
The governor and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said flatly Friday that the law will take effect on Saturday. But Reference Bureau Director Steve Miller said his department's publication of the act was only administrative. He said La Follette still needs to publish the act in the Wisconsin State Journal...The struggle continues, and I'm sure the Wisconsin people are exasperated... but who with?
"Every attorney I have consulted said this will now be law," said Fitzgerald, who said he was aware this was going to happen. "It wasn't a secret. I think they left the door open for this."
"Rave On" — a new Bloggingheads with me and Bob Wright.
Topics:
- Ann’s family feud with liberals, Rob Farley, et al.
- Bob defends Libyan intervention
- Is there an Obama Doctrine?
- Could the Supreme Court stop a war?
- Creepy Wisconsin protester threatens Ann
- Bob vs. Ann on the meaning of free speech
At the Planned Parenthood rally, Meade's conversation with Brett Hulsey is aborted.
This morning, Meade went down to the Capitol to meet with our state senator, Fred Risser, who's been a Wisconsin senator since 1962. (He's the longest serving state legislator in the United States.) It's been much harder to get to see our assemblyman, Brett Hulsey. You remember what happened yesterday. Today, after seeing Risser, Meade happened to run into Hulsey.
There was this Planned Parenthood rally. It looked like this:
That's Hulsey standing in front just behind the woman in the white jacket. (Enlargement here.) That's Risser in the red hat just below the speaker's upraised fist. Hulsey noticed Meade. Meade waved at him and he looked away. A bit later, Hulsey was talking to some women who had come to the rally. And Meade was video-recording. Actually, this was a set-up photo-op, and Meade positioned himself so he had the ideal vantage point. Then, when Hulsey starts walking back toward the Capitol, Meade calls out in the hope of finally getting a few words....
Suffice it to say: The conversation is aborted.
There was this Planned Parenthood rally. It looked like this:
That's Hulsey standing in front just behind the woman in the white jacket. (Enlargement here.) That's Risser in the red hat just below the speaker's upraised fist. Hulsey noticed Meade. Meade waved at him and he looked away. A bit later, Hulsey was talking to some women who had come to the rally. And Meade was video-recording. Actually, this was a set-up photo-op, and Meade positioned himself so he had the ideal vantage point. Then, when Hulsey starts walking back toward the Capitol, Meade calls out in the hope of finally getting a few words....
Suffice it to say: The conversation is aborted.
"Mother Of All Negative Ads Dropped On WI Judicial Race."
"Progressives in Wisconsin are up with a TV ad that puts the negative in negative campaigning: sitting state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser defends child molesters instead of their victims, the groups say."
So is this the kind of negative ad that people say they're sick of but insinuates itself deep into the brain cells?
So is this the kind of negative ad that people say they're sick of but insinuates itself deep into the brain cells?
The Wisconsin Republican Party uses Open Records Law to get emails written by the Wisconsin professor William Cronon.
Cronon had an op-ed in the NYT — which I blogged about here — and he's also blogged about the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council in the Wisconsin budget repair bill. Now, his political antagonists are trying to get the UW to turn over all his "wisc" email messages "which reference any of the following terms: Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union" and a lot of names of Wisconsin legislators.
Cronon thinks the Wisconsin Republican Party is hoping he's violated the Wisconsin email policies, which forbid use "to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum." I've long worried about the ridiculous and chilling overbreadth of that provision. It's supposed to refer to running a political campaign using university resources, not interacting with people about political issues or even expressing opinions about candidates. In fact, the university has long promoted what it calls "The Wisconsin Idea," which is all about professors influencing legislation.
When does the Open Records Law apply to email? Is there a special rule protecting professors' email? Cronon says it shouldn't be used "to harass individual faculty members for asking awkward questions, researching unpopular topics, making uncomfortable arguments, or pursuing lines of inquiry that powerful people would prefer to suppress.... It is chilling indeed to think that the Republican Party of my state has asked to have access to the emails of a lone professor in the hope of finding messages they can use to attack and discredit that professor."
With hindsight, it's easy to see what a mistake it is to use your wisc email account for anything other than class email lists and responding to email that UW people sent to your wisc address. I've known for years and years that there is Open Records vulnerability here. I use gmail myself to keep my notes and personal interactions out of this potentially public realm. (I love the way "union" is one of the search terms that the Republican Party put in its request. That would could come up in all sorts of contexts, including the most minimal. )
ADDED: FIRE enters the fray:
AND: UW Chancellor Chancellor Martin has issued a statement:
Cronon thinks the Wisconsin Republican Party is hoping he's violated the Wisconsin email policies, which forbid use "to support the nomination of any person for political office or to influence a vote in any election or referendum." I've long worried about the ridiculous and chilling overbreadth of that provision. It's supposed to refer to running a political campaign using university resources, not interacting with people about political issues or even expressing opinions about candidates. In fact, the university has long promoted what it calls "The Wisconsin Idea," which is all about professors influencing legislation.
When does the Open Records Law apply to email? Is there a special rule protecting professors' email? Cronon says it shouldn't be used "to harass individual faculty members for asking awkward questions, researching unpopular topics, making uncomfortable arguments, or pursuing lines of inquiry that powerful people would prefer to suppress.... It is chilling indeed to think that the Republican Party of my state has asked to have access to the emails of a lone professor in the hope of finding messages they can use to attack and discredit that professor."
With hindsight, it's easy to see what a mistake it is to use your wisc email account for anything other than class email lists and responding to email that UW people sent to your wisc address. I've known for years and years that there is Open Records vulnerability here. I use gmail myself to keep my notes and personal interactions out of this potentially public realm. (I love the way "union" is one of the search terms that the Republican Party put in its request. That would could come up in all sorts of contexts, including the most minimal. )
ADDED: FIRE enters the fray:
Last year, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that "the contents of employees' personal e-mails are not a part of government business," and that "[p]ersonal e-mails are therefore not always records within the meaning of Wis. Stat. 19.32(2) simply because they are sent and received on government e-mail and computer systems." Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, 327 Wis. 2d 572 (2010).Cronon should win this. And by the way, thanks to all the left-wing assholes who think the best response to the intrusion on Cronon is to seek access to my emails. You've revealed a lot about what freedom means to you.
In Schill... the Supreme Court of Wisconsin determined that the emails had no connection to government business and were thus not records under the statute. Concluding, the court wrote:If the content of the e-mail is solely personal, it is not a record under the Public Records Law and the e-mail cannot be released....To the extent that a Wisconsin public university faculty member's emails are connected to a "government function," they may be covered under the state's Open Records law. But whether Cronon's emails meet this criterion is not presently clear. And even then, the court held in Schill that if the emails are in fact records, "then the court must undertake a balancing test to decide whether the statutory presumption favoring disclosure of public records is outweighed by any other public interest."
AND: UW Chancellor Chancellor Martin has issued a statement:
Compliance with public records requests involves a balancing test.... [W]e will need to consider whether disclosure would result in a chilling effect on the discourse between colleagues that is essential to our academic mission.Good.
Academic freedom is one of the university’s greatest contributions to a democratic society. No other institution is charged specifically with protecting the pursuit of knowledge, wherever it may lead. Individual faculty, staff and students inevitably consider and advocate positions that will be at odds with one another’s views and the views of people outside of the university. It is the university’s responsibility both to comply with state law and to protect our community’s right to explore freely and freely express their points of view.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
