9/05/2005

ChangeThis

  • The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong.
  • Why smart people defend bad ideas -- By Scott Berkun, April 2005
15.03 Let's Rewrite the Constitution to Deal With Organizations
  • Art Kleiner suggest that organizations are where all of the power lies today and it is about time to recognize that and leverage groups to solving problems. Think open source for government.
Links
  • Terrorism, Security, and America's Purpose the New America Foundation will convene a major national policy forum to examine the challenge of international terrorism and how best to confront it. (Sept 6-7, 2005)
=====

9/01/2005

democratic

  1. Populist Economy -- e.g. run the economic system for the average and less well off rather than the wealthy.

  2. Individual morality -- e.g. permit the people and families to manage their own moreality rather than determining the socially acceptable morality by the government.



Belief in the Common good in addition to the invisible hand of unregulated free enterprise.

Democratic Leadership council "Play Book"

8/28/2005

israel

The "history" of israel can be shown thru maps, and associated written material. The two comments linked below are:
  1. History of Israel and Palestine in VERY Easy To Understand Maps: "There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world!"

  2. Lessons From the Swiss Cheese Map: "Why have Israeli-Palestinian peace talks ignored the importance of good mapmaking?"

The first suggests that Greater Israel is a natural area for the Jewish nation and the second suggests that the breakup of the Oslo II peace talks may have been paritally caused by bad graphics that showed that Palestine area as "cantons" and thus unacceptable.

8/24/2005

links-24

Yet another set of links that have no organization, but that I want to save.
  • RSS Reader software , rss-specifications.com
  • Blog Navigator, RSS/Podcast
  • FeedDemon, RSS / Podcast reader ($30.00)
    • IPodder, the cross-platform podcast receiver
    • Ziepod is an easy-to-use toolkit to reach and manage audio-based content published through podcasts.
  • TouchGraph -- intersite link maps
  • Startup Organizer provide quick access to all of the programs that are automatically started when you turn on or log on to your computer
  • Hardware
  • Blinkx reads what you have on your computer screen and automatically links you to related information local and remote.

Florida

A friend has pointed out the two columns by Krugman on the 2000 Florida recount, See Comment 1)

This is a set of links to the various sites that might be useful in discussing this.

8/19/2005

questions

Roberts once wrote:
the personal beliefs of judicial candidates do not matter because "their ideology should have no role in the decisional process," (News Hounds)

Questions for Roberts
  1. Sen. Charles Schumer 20 , (Right Voices comment)
  2. Dallas Morning News 5
  3. People for the American Way 20, (from DailyKos)
  4. Reason 7

Discussion of reasonable questions:
  1. WeMatter.com Which topics are appropriate: Criminality, Qualifications, Judical Style, Idology, Positions, Personality?
  2. Washington Post
  3. John Roberts's Judicial Temperament (Brad DeLong)
  4. Propriety of Asking Judge Roberts to Comment on Specific Past Supreme Court Rulings , Part 1 Part 2 (FindLaw's Writ, Vikram David Amar)
  5. Originalism and Unenumerated Rights by Armando (DalyKos)
  6. Reasons To Go On Living -- Does anyone believe in a "living Constitution" anymore? (Slate)
  7. The Politics of the SCOTUS Confirmation -- the public now thinks the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee's positions on issues in addition to his or her legal background (Daily Kos)
Google search

8/04/2005

activist-

Objective Criteria (resources)

Still trying to get a set of OBJECTIVE definitions of Judicial decisions: It seems to me that any decision can be 1 of 8 outcomes based on which "side" won and which lost,
  1. Constitution WON, Federal law lost
  2. Constitution WON, State law lost
  3. Federal law WON, State law lost
  4. Constitution lost, Federal law WON
  5. Constitution lost, State law WON
  6. Federal law lost, State law WON
  7. Law WON, Individual lost (procedural)
  8. Law lost, Individual WON(procedural)
DEMOCRATIC -- One way of classifying these is that 1,2, and 3 are Anti-Democratic, Dictatorial, in that the most local democratic law lost, 4,5 and 6 are Democratic in that the most local government won, and 7 and 8 are probably best not categorized in this way.

FEDERALIST -- Another way to classify these is that 2,3 and 1? are Anti-Federalist, National, and 5, 6, and 4? are Federalist

Previously discussed in Activist: Constitutionist , Simplicity , Corporate , Social control




Level of "Discovery"

Another topic is the level of discovery that it is "reasonable" to do with respect to a Supreme court appointment

  1. Criminality -- Is the Judge a criminal now, or has he been in the past?
  2. Qualifications -- Is the Judge educated enough, smart enough, experienced enough to serve? -- Note: There has been some disagreement as to whether a judge should be rejected if he is not highly qualified, e.g.: a) Not approved by the AMA, b) We need judged for the common man {TBD}
  3. Judicial Style -- How does the judge decide cases, Based on a Dead Constitution, a Living Constitution, or? based on a set of core moral principals?
  4. Moral leaning -- What is the morality of the judge, e.g. Conservative, Liberal, Religious, Atheist, Fundamentalist, Weak Christian, Jew, Moslem, etc? -- In general, there seems to be a conscientious that we do not admit to considering these, as well as those below, in the approval process, though if a judge seems to, or is suspected as likely to, generally decide according his leanings or positions, then it is probable that these will be explored and considered regardless of the profession to the contrary.
  5. Positions --How would a judge decide on specific "hot" button issues? -- Abortion, Disabled, Free Enterprise, Gay, Gender, Race, etc. Certainly there are people, groups, etc. that either feel strongly about certain issues or are willing to use these issues to further their addenda.
  • Personality and History. -- Is the Judge a nice person, do lots of other people like him, did he rise from the low class... -- This is either stated, in general by his supporters, or criticized as the "politics of personality" if it is negative. (Note: I am not sure where this should be in the aboee list)
In general the people who feel that the Judge should be confirmed state that only the first few should be considered and were in the past, where as those who might oppose the Judge or the nominator tend to explore more of these levels.

Also see: Judgments , Activist , Candidates ...



Resources

C-Span ^f"Roberts" (June 19, 1997, How the Supreme court works)
Resources on the Web (SctNomination)

Offical Supreme court site

Oyaz site > podcasts > Roberts > [feedback]

FindLaw Citation Search
    U.S. = e.g. 410 U.S. 113.

7/29/2005

pa-ftth

This is a place for people to discuss the proposal to have the City of Palo Alto be involved in a Fiber to the Home. (Note: I am in favor of the FTTH imvolvement, but will add links as people tell me of either side)

See:

Please add a Comment, that starts with: PRO or CON, and then contains your comment on the involvement of Palo Alto in the project so that the city council can determine if there are a sufficient number of people who support or oppose this involvement. Of course, if you want to Email to the City council, city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org do so, but you may also want to put the comment below to share it with others.

7/24/2005

access

"Phone company blocks access to telecoms union's website"

On first read, this is the type of action that I think needs to be covered by the FCC and legislated as part of our Internet, Telecommunication acts.

We need to assure that:
  1. Areas that are not served by high speed internet access at costs that the citizens would be willing to pay, both directly and perhaps through their taxes can be served by their own communities if they so decide.

  2. Any Internet service be available on an open basis so that no content provider is prevented from access through the service or unreasonably charged or limited.

  3. In the case of Cable TV and Satellite TV, the "wire" vender should make a reasonable case for choosing and bundling channels as the presumption should be that the community is benefited by a diversity of opinions and the flexibility to pay for the channels that they want.

The case suggests that an internet "cable or ISP" provider is controlling access for corporate reasons. If we permit limited and "difficult to switch" internet accesses to our homes via the public right of ways than we may also require that there be no such discrimination of the content over these channels.

7/20/2005

judgements

Now that we have a supreme court nominee we want to consider how to judge him:

  • His opinions in NON UNANIMOUS decisions
  • His opinions
  • His "work" affiliations
  • His positions (as employee)
  • His supporters/opponents

In addition we could consider that he would be a Thomas, Scalia type judge. This means we want to look at how the court is currently organized and what decisions would be changed if 5/4 decisions with the Thomas/Scelea as in the "4" were in the "5", See:

A Mathematician Crunches the Supreme Court's Numbers (NICHOLAS WADE, June 24, 2003, NY Times)

7 Questions for John Roberts -- What I'd like the Senate to ask the Supreme Court nominee (Reason)

Five Questions for Roberts (Dallas news)

Reader questions (Newsweek blog)

Republican internal briefing memo on Roberts by kos, Jul 21st, 2005

Judical review...

John Roberts re: Federalist Society

What Could He Rule On? (DailyKos) -- The faith of John Roberts -- If he had to rule on an issue that the Catholic Church considers a sin, ...he would have to recuse himself -- (latimes)

A John Roberts Roundup -- Slate

5 recent cases that were decided 5/4 that Roberts could be asked about (nyt)

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Judical-Nomination BLOG (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations

Previous wematter postings: Activists , Candidates



Also interesting

    Stigmatized Abortion -- Three positions on abortion seem possible. One view is that abortion should (almost) always be legal. Another is that abortion should (almost) always be illegal. The third is that abortion should be legal, but stigmatized, Jack M. Balkin

7/07/2005

timetable

I am updating the subject of this as Iraq is our country:

1) Iraq is starting to want us out!

    As of July, 4, 2005, over 37% (103/275) of the The Iraqi National Assembly has proposed the adoption of a resolution:

      1) cancelling the request made by the Government to the UN Security Council to extend the presence of multinational forces, and

      2) urging the Government to put “a clear plan for army building and a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops” from Iraq. Informed Comment and Wikipedia

    Note: 2 weeks before that, June 22, the number was 83

2) Iraq is "cooperating" with Iran

    BAGHDAD - Iraq signed a military pact with Iran ... agreeing to accept Iranian military training and other cooperation ... Responding to the suggestion that the thaw in ties with Iran would anger Washington, Dulaimi said: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countrie -- (Reuters)

    Discussion: TheLeftCoaster

7/06/2005

activist

There are a number of things one may OBJECTIVELY say about a supreme court decision, in addition to saying things that just indicate whether one is in favor or against the decision.

1) Constitutionist -- e.g. Pro: if the decision overturns the law because of the constitution, Anti: if the law is upheld despite the constitutional challenge. -- Note: In general this is also Anti/Pro originist and often is the definition of Pro/Anti Activist.

2) Federalist -- e.g. Pro: if the state law or practice is supported. Anti: if the decision strikes down a state law because of a federal law, or federal constitutional condition.

3) Simplicity -- e.g. Pro: if the decision stated the results so that it is easier to decide similar cases or not: e.g. Anti: the decision seems to "split the difference" so that another set of cases seem to be required to determine where the "boundary" is.

4) Corporate Economic -- Pro: If the decision is for regulations that help business or against regulations that limit business, Anti: If eliminates business supports or supports regulations that limit business.

5) Social control -- Pro: If the decision supports laws that control the activity of an individual, Anti: if the decision supports controlling laws.

=====================

Flag Phrases. The following, I consider, not objective but "Flag Phrases", in that the generally are looked at as good, but tend to be subjectively judged by a person as satisfied by decisions.

a) Originist -- If the decision is what the framers of the constitution clearly stated (or meant), though if it was clear, then one wonders why anyone would think that the Supreme court, or any other court would oppose it.

b) Activist -- If the decision is overturning a law as being against the constitution. Note: This might also be considered Constitutional Extension, e.g. if the law makers really thought the constitution was opposed to the law, they might not have passed it.

. See: So Who Are the Activists? {e.g. Constitutionist) (nyt), and DalyKos
    {C} Thomas 65.63 %
    {C} Kennedy 64.06 %
    {C} Scalia 56.25 %
    {C} Rehnquist 46.88 %
    {?} O'Connor 46.77 %
    {L} Souter 42.19 %
    {L} Stevens 39.34 %
    {L} Ginsburg 39.06 %
    {L} Breyer 28.13 %

    . Key: {C} Conservative, {L} Liberal
I look forward to any other objective classifications for decisions.
Also see:

7/01/2005

candidates

The following are some possible Supreme Court nominees

  1. Brown, Judge Janice Rogers SCTN ,

  2. Clement, Judge Edith Brown SCTN ,

  3. Jones, Judge Edith Hollan SCTN ,

  4. Gonzales, Attorney General Alberto SCTN ,

The top runner's position on abortion (Slate)

SCTN = SctNomination.com



My Prediction 7/4/2005

As far as I can see the only question is whether the group of 14 decide to over-ride the Filibuster.

1) Bush will put up a "Strict Constructionist"

2) There will be a lot of Yammering, all predictable, given the (R) or (D) of the yammerer.

3) The nominee will be voted out of the committee on a partisan vote.

4) There will be a Filibuster, after the same predictable yammering, and then either:

. 5) The filibuster will be broken and the nominee is approved,

. 6) Or it holds and then after a sufficient time there is a recess and the nominee is recess appointed until the next Senate

=======

So let's sit back and see the show, given the outcome is determined!!!

I estimated that it would take 6 weeks, but forgot about the time it took to "vet" the nominee.

=======

Note: The compromise, even if it holds, only lasts until the end of this session, and that, by chance?, is the time at which a recess appointment would expire.

6/26/2005

greenhouse

A comment (media matters.com) on the graph of the WSJ -- It's old and early measurements, as I indicated are rough.

6/21/2005

factoid

There are a large number of things people believe that either can be uantifiable or are mistaken. The following will state the true version of these.

  1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders was 3.5% ... a lower reoffense rate of almost any other type of crime (BJS: 5.3% arrested) , (Hawai'i: 2.3-5.7%) , Others higher

See:

6/17/2005

second

F.D.R. proposed to start working on passing the "Second Bill of Rights". It is evident that they would not be passed today, and perhaps should not be, but as a taking point, I wonder what would happen if these were passed, as negative rights, e.g. What laws, regulations... would actually be in VIOLATION to them?

The proposed rights are: "The right to..."

  1. A useful and remunerative job;
  2. Earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  3. Every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
  4. Every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  5. Every family to a decent home;
  6. Adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  7. Adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  8. A good education.
See: Blog for America

6/12/2005

pa-term

The Palo Alto city council is considering extending the term limits of its members from 2 terms to 3. As I have been thinking about the problem of incumbency, I am opening this Blog entry to discuss the Palo Alto Term Limit proposal, and perhaps my own proposal for "gentle" limits:

My initial proposal is that there be no hard term limits but that it be harder and harder for incumbents to keep their office as their vote would be decreased by "N"*5% if they had served for "N" terms. Thus, for example, a person who had already served for 2 terms would have to get 10% more vote than his rivals to stay in office a third term.

See: Palo Alto Weekly on term limits
2003 City Council results

Comments, and previous proposals and links can be added as desired, and if I see any links that are related to this subject I may add them to this Blog entry.

Unrelated, but interesting:

6/11/2005

unmatch

The funding for PBS is proposed to be decreased from $400m to $300, and the president of PBS is suspected as a strong conservative.

If PBS continues to be funded, even 25% by the Federal government, then it will be open for funding cuts and changes in objectives, so I propose that the viewers take over the portion of the funding that the government is now supplying and the management, and thus its direction be determined by its funding viewers.

    First: I propose to give money to PBS under an UnMatching condition, e.g. for every dollar I contribute, I will require that PBS cut their government funding by half a dollar. In this way they will have an increase in their funding while still removing their dependance on the government.

    Second: I propose that PBS management be elected by their members. either by one person one vote, or by one dollar one vote (excluding coprorate advertisers).


In this way as the viewers can control the direction of PBS as their support increases relative to government funding.

See:

6/07/2005

srsa

States Rights Separation Act

    1) Hereafter all federal acts, bills, regulations shall only apply to interstate commerce and not be extended to state declared legal activities wholly within a state unless there is a separate section defining how they effect the internal state activities.

    2) These separate sections must separable in that they must be voted upon separately, be veto-able separately, as well as be able to be declared unconstitutionally separately.

    3) Specifically the laws dealing with marijuana shall not be extended to the states that have, or may, pass laws permitting such use.

    4) The congress may pass other specific sections to existing bills that limit their application to interstate commerce if they so choose.


==================================================

I am suggesting that the proceeding "States Rights Separation Act", SRSA, be passed by the US government to allow the states to reasonably independent. It is my hope that it allow the congress to do what it does now, but still provide, as a default, that federal laws, regulations, etc. do not automatically limit the states.

This act allows the federal government to specify when they need the states follow a law, but otherwise it permits the states to enact their own laws.

=======================================

I plan to submit this to my representatives, other blogs, and some lawyers to determine if this act is legal, how it should be re-written and if it is possible to have it passed by the congress.

It is hoped that there will be suggestions as to how the act might improved as well as comments that indicate approval or disapproval.

======================================
Also see:

The New Republic. on the decision

My opinion on the decision

New York Times news on the decision

Paul Compos on the decision

Nick Gillespie, of Reason magazine on the decision

Support: H.R. 2087, the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act" discussed over at the Drug War Rant

Wall Street Journal on the decision

The Talent Show on the decision

D. T. Armentano on the decision, Lew Rockwell

marijuana

It is my "thought" that the Supreme court decision on the California vs.. Federal marijuana law is wrong in two areas. As I am not a law person, this thought is based on my ideas of right-ness and not law.

1) I personally think that the extension of the Congress’ Commerce Clause should not be extended to the commerce totally within a state even if it can be rationalized as somewhat effecting the flow of products between states. We see how this leads to the stretching of the national law into the area that one would logically think is the state's domain, and that our federal society would be better served if the federal government did not impose itself in the states affairs except perhaps where the state is restricting people's rights further than the constitution permits.

2) Secondarily, the use of the commerce clause to control activity within the state where the interstate activity is ILLEGAL seems even more a stretch. If one is to reject the general argument "1)" that it would be better if the federal government only controlled interstate commerce, then it seems reasonable that the federal goverment only has the right to control activity within a state where the activity leads to an increased violation of the interstate law. On the other hand, the California law, if properly enforced, will, if anything decrease the amount of illegal interstate traffic and thus assist the federal government in reducing the flow of illegal interstate drugs.

Thus, it seems to me that both on

a) general considerations, The commerce clause should not be extended to activities within the state that have only minor effects on interstate commerse, and on a

b) specific condition, that the California mariuana law may well decrease the illegal flow of mariuana, the Supreme court
"got it wrong"

5/30/2005

Gerrymandering

I am writing the following to my Governmental representatives and other opinion groups supporting an effort to reduce the Gerrymandering.
    I have just read the editorial in the New York Times discussing:
    "Ending the Gerrymander Wars"

    I think that this effort is one of the most important ones in this congress, and I hope that you look into this proposal, evaluate it, and either work in a bipartasan way to revise it or pass it.

    Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30mon1.html?8br
    Comments:
    http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/todayseditorials/index.html?page=recent


    Thanks...

5/27/2005

NotePad V5

(NOTE: I mispelled it as NotePad, and except in the "title"s have corrected it to NoteTab, Sorry, My Bad)

I like NoteTab, and as it has been over a year and a half since it has been upgraded, I am starting this Blog entry to allow the status of the upgrade to be posted and, if appropriate, Feature enhancements to be suggested.

Status:
My post to the mailing list asked for an update on the current status and suggested that we offer to help pay for a new version with specific features. Please feel free to add your suggestions to this Blog, or to NoteTab yahoo group. I will update this posting as I get more information or if it seems "reasonable" to start collecting a list of the Feature requests

Enhancements:
  • Customizable syntax highlighting -- ron_riche
  • Tree view outlines -- ron_riche
  • Customizable keyboard shortcuts -- ron_riche
  • Shortcuts to clips -- ron_riche
  • Blocking/columnar selecting -- ron_riche
  • Make line numbers paragraph numbers when word wrap
    is on -- ron_riche [pet]
  • Make 'scroll past end of line' buffer dependent -- ron_riche [pet]
  • $10 -- Allow the Replacement window to be "hidden" by the Main window -- mll
  • $10 -- Click on a blank area in the tabs bar to open a new text area NoName... -- mll
  • $10 -- Retain the "Regular Expression" and "All" setting in the replacement dialog between activations -- mll

Also see:



Unrelated Links: