Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:July:19 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2005/7/19 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes] UID:38697 Activity:low
7/19    To get from SF to Fresno (Sequoia Nat Park) is it better to take
        580/5 and get on 99 near Modesto or the southern route taking 152
        though Los Banos to 99? I assume taking 5 all the way to Los Banos
        doesnt make sense. n.b. Not travelling during rush hour and the
        drivers are speed limit drivers, so it's not worth driving extra
        distance on 5 with the assumption you will drive 100mph]. ok tnx.
        \_ Hmm, I thought I was the only one that drives at speed limits on
           freeways.
        \_ A lot does depend on the time of day. 99 gets is a major highway
           that gets a lot of local/truck traffic. Expect small traffic jams
           during the usual times. Plus 99 is rougher, goes through more
           towns, and the number of people following the speed limit varies.
           5/152/99 has more truck traffic, fewer jams but the occasional farm
           equipment slowdowns on 152, and is less scenic (not by much though).
           On both routes, drivers are happy to pass you by with out cursing
           you out.
        \_ A lot does depend on the time of day. 99 is a highway with a lot
           of local/truck traffic. Expect small traffic jams during the usual
           times. Plus 99 is rougher, goes through more towns, and the number
           of people following the speed limit varies. 5/152/99 has more truck
           traffic, fewer jams but the occasional farm equipment slowdowns on
           152, and is less scenic (not by much though).  On both routes,
           drivers are happy to pass you by with out cursing you out.
2005/7/19 [Recreation/Pets] UID:38699 Activity:nil
7/19    Birds learn to imitate cell phone ring tones:
        http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_1434263,00180021.htm
        \_ I've heard mockingbirds around here doing the whole
           four-tone car alarm.  -tom
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38700 Activity:kinda low
7/19    "My answer hasn't changed in 24 hours" seems like Bush
        is starting to realize no one trusts him anymore.
        \_ I'm glad you learned nothing from 2004 Election.
           \_ What did he not learn?  Are you the "there's only room for one
              party in America" guy?
                \_ The lesson is that it doesn't matter how corrupt, dishonest
                   or dangerous the ruling party is because God wants Bush
                   to rule, so get used to it.
                   \_ No, it's that dumbasses like you aren't worth the time.
                      If you want to talk rationally we can do that, but it's
                      become increasingly difficult to talk to anyone who's
                      rational.
                      \_ Heh. -- ilyas
                         \_ I wonder if he will see the error in his sentence,
                            although he speaks more truth than he realizes.
                            \_ Oh, I'm responding to vitriol with vitriol.  I
                               know what I wrote and the potential irony.
                               \_ Acknowledging your stupidity doesn't make
                                  you any less stupid or any less a part of
                                  the problem.  You seem to be missing this.
2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38701 Activity:high
7/19    Iraqi Prime Minister praises the late Ayotollah Khomeini:
        http://csua.org/u/crd (Tehran Times)
        Also lays wreath on Khomeini's grave:
        http://csua.org/u/cre (Gulf Times)
        \_ This is surprising because?? Do you even know the results of
           the last 'election' there?
           \_ I just think that it's ironic.  The Iraqi government we are
              propping up as a "model of democracy" is praising the guy that
              engineered the 1979 hostage crisis.
              \_ Betcha you didn't think it was ironic we were protecting
                 Shias in the south and north under Klinton.
                 \_ Nice red herring.
                \_ Splitting up Iraq into Shiiteland, Sunniland,
                   and Kurdland might be a good idea. - danh
                   \_ How about Future Land and Frontier Land too?  And signs
                      that say "You have to be this tall to..."?
              \_ It is, in a way, but you might want to look up "Mohammed
                 Mossadegh", "Kermit Roosevelt" and "Reza Pahlavi" to get a bit
                 of insight into why things worked out the way they did, and
                 why certain people feel about certain other people in certain
                 ways.  -John
                 \_ You mean the US engineered coup that installed the Shah.
                    Yes, that's an additional layer of irony.
                        \_ You can thank Eisenhower for that ... Kissing the
                           Brit's ass.
                           \_ Uhhhhh. No.
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
                                \_ Uhhhhh. Yes.  Eisenhower was Prez, and the
                                   British got us to overthrow the government
                                   because they were going to lose their
                                   insanely profitable oil monopoly in Iran.
                                   \_ You have a poor understanding of history.
                                      What part of "anti-Communist" do you
                                      not understand?
                \_ you guys still don't get it.. still blind by our wrong
                   decisions in the past.  Despite Khomeini, Shia is not the
                   problem.  The problem lies extreme militant arm of Sunnis,
                   which the epic center is in *SAUDI ARABIA*.  If you guys
                   have the slightest knowledge of what Saudi is teaching
                   to their children, you guys would agree with me that
                   to fight terrorism, you have to deal with SAUDI ARABIA,
                   not secular government such as Hussien's Iraq!
                   \_ It's militant Sunnis and Shias.  The Shia side of it just
                      happens to have originated around a single issue (Israel
                      and US/Western support for Israel).  Iran supports or has
                      supported Hamas and Hezbollah, I'm not sure about Islamic
                      Jihad.  They've at the very least actively encouraged the
                      Badr Brigades and SCIRI.  -John

        \_ Billmon has a funny photoshop related to this:
           http://billmon.org/archives/002030.html
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:38702 Activity:low
7/19    Our next Supreme Court justice better not be a retard.
        Sandra Day graduated 3rd out of 102 from Stanfraud, I mean, Stanfurd
        Law, and in two years.
        \_ Why?  Kerry only averaged a C at Yale, and most here thought he
           was presidential material.
           \_ Wow.  Yer dumb.
           \_ Yeah, Dubya did worse at Yale (on average and trend-wise), and
              look at his Presidency!  Leadership!
              \_ "Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first
                 three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a
                 non-numerical rating system during his senior year...
                 [Kerry] got a cumulative 76 for his four years...  Like
                 Kerry, Bush reportedly suffered through a difficult freshman
                 year and then pulled his grades up."
                 http://csua.org/u/chg
                 \_ neither Kerry and Bush were anywhere close to Bill
                 \_ Neither Kerry nor Bush were anywhere close to Bill
                    Clinton.  Bush just *looks* like a total moron when
                    speaking -- it's a carefully honed act ... Not to say
                    he's a genius or anything, but he's nowhere near stupid.
                    he's a genius, but he's nowhere near stupid.  He knows
                    what he's doing which makes it yet scarier sometimes.
                    \_ Both Kerry and Bush would be among the duller lights
                       among aquaintances of folks on soda.  However, claiming
                       that Dubya did worse at Yale was factually incorrect.
                       \_ You're talking to the wrong guy.  "Okay, you got me"
                          is the same guy that said "Dubya did worse"
                 \_ Okay, you got me.  Dubya did a little better or the same
                    than Kerry (depending on how you view 1 point and 3 years
                    numerical grading Dubya versus 4 years Kerry), but Kerry
                    did have the better trend owing to being Mr. Distinction
                    in his freshman year (4 D's out of 10 classes).
                    \_ Since you insist on arguing the point, taking into
                       acount that both Kerry and Bush trended upwards, Kerry's
                       score was certainly less than 76 after 3 years, and Bush
                       would have gotten a higher score than 77 after 4 years
                       had he received a numeric score for his last year.
                       So the delta between them at the end of both year 3 and
                       4 would have been greater than 1 point.  Meaningful?
                       No.  Correcting a logical error?  Yes.
                       \_ Huh, what are you talking about?  I'm agreeing with
                          you:  "Dubya did a little better or the same than
                          Kerry".
                          \_ "depending on how you view 1 point and 3 years
                             numerical grading Dubya versus 3 years Kerry)"
                             \_ Yes, but the key is that I acknowledge that
                                Kerry did not do better than Dubya.
        \_ Gates dropped out of college.
           \_ So did psb.
        \_ it doesn't take a genius to vote no to abortions. any monkey can.
        \_ Rehnquist was #1
        \_ Class rank means nothing. Chief Justice John Marshall only had
           6 weeks of legal education but most jurists consider him one of
           (if not the) greatest men to ever sit on the Court.
2005/7/19 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38703 Activity:high
7/19    Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity (wsj.com)
        http://csua.org/u/cr9 (via uclib - use lynx from soda)
        \_ Don't worry, Operation Distract The Public From Rove begins
           tonight at 9pm EDT!
           \_ the link actually strengthens the case against rove. It reveals
              a June 10 WH memo detailing that Joe Wilson's wife's identity was
              sensitive and confidential.
              \_ 71% of Republicans think Rove did something wrong and should
                 be fired? Look!  Over there!  A supreme court nomination!
                 \_ Uh, wasn't that 71% in response to, "/IF/ someone
                    (was convicted of?) leaked/leaking classified info, they
                    should be fired"?
                    \_ Scratch the "was convicted of" and you've got it.
              \_ My reading of all this is that Libby and Rove both knew
                 they couldn't out his wife; however, they belived they could
                 say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that suggestion from another
                 reporter ...", if another reporter mentioned "Joe Wilson's
                 wife the CIA agent" to him.
                 \_ So did Rove or Libby see the memo?
                    \_ If you read the link, you'd know they didn't speculate
                       on this, only mentioning that Fitzgerald is
                       investigating this.
                       \_ I did read the link, and my point is that "My
                          reading of..." is completely ungrounded until you
                          can determine if Rove or Libby read the memo.
                          \_ This reminds of the Dave Chapelle where the
                             lawyer asks him what it would take for him to
                             believe R. Kelly is guilty.
                             \_ To be honest, I am almost certain that Rove
                                wrongly outed Plame, but I am unsure if he is
                                legally guilty.  I am a fan of fairness and
                                logic, and I try to point out claims that are
                                unsupported by fact.  -pp
                             \_ If Fitzgerald ultimately exonerates Rove,
                                would you accept that?
                                \_ Why hasn't Rove signed form 180?  What is
                                   he hiding?
                                   \_ And the man on the grassy knoll!?!
                                      \_ Don't forget Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
                          \_ I would replace "completely ungrounded" by
                             "a plausible theory".
                             I would put money on the issue of whether Rove and
                             Libby knew Plame's identity was "sensitive".
                             It's too bad that the truth of the matter is not
                             likely to come out clearly enough to be able to
                             collect on any bets.
                             \_ "Sensitive" is another one of those words that
                                sounds as if it should be useful as a delimiter
                                but really isn't.
                                \_ Let's refine that to "'sensitive' and
                                   probably shouldn't be disclosed to
                                   unauthorized individuals".
                                   \_ If you mean "classified", which has a
                                      clear legal definition, use that.  It
                                      sounds like you're trying to carve out
                                      a category of information that occupies
                                      the space between legal and illegal to
                                      disclose.
                                      \_ Actually, I'm just using the words
                                         in the article.  I'd be hesitant
                                         to bet on "classified" though.
                                         To a layperson, "sensitive and
                                         probably shouldn't be disclosed
                                         to unauthorized individuals" has a
                                         very clear meaning -- and I could
                                         bet on that.
                                         \_ Bush I probably thought the fact
                                            that he didn't like brocoli was
                                            "sensitive" and shouldn't be
                                            disclosed to the public.  And I
                                            will repeat my claim that you are
                                            trying to carve out a space between
                                            what is legal and illegal to
                                            disclose.
                                            \_ Yes I am carving out a space
                                               between what is legal and
                                               illegal, but what is my
                                               purpose in doing that?
                                               It is what I would be willing
                                               to "bet" on, rather than
                                               legal criteria for putting
                                               him in jail.
                                               \_ I think it's because you
                                                  suspect Rove won't be found
                                                  legally guilty but you're
                                                  not willing to let him off
                                                  the hook, so you're trying
                                                  to invent a standard whereby
                                                  he is guilty even when he
                                                  is not.
                                                  \_ /Everyone/ suspects that
                                                     Rove won't be found
                                                     legally guilty.
                                                     Listen, all I wrote was
                                                     that I would put money on
                                                     the fact that Rove and
                                                     Libby knew Plame's
                                                     identity was sensitive and
                                                     probably shouldn't be
                                                     disclosed to unauthorized
                                                     individuals.  I also
                                                     acknowledge that Rove
                                                     probably won't be
                                                     convicted.  I also
                                                     acknowledge that the terms
                                                     I would bet on probably
                                                     don't meet the legal
                                                     requirements for
                                                     conviction.
                                                     So what's the big whoop?
                                                     \_ Nothing at all.  But I
                                                        am encouraged to see
                                                        you admit that Rove's
                                                        action "probably don't
                                                        meet the legal
                                                        requirements for
                                                        conviction."
                                                        \_ "Admit" is not the
                                                           right word.
                                                           I always had the
                                                           distinction between
                                                           what I wrote and
                                                           legal requirements
                                                           in mind, and I
                                                           don't see how
                                                           I implied I wasn't
                                                           aware of the
                                                           distinction.
                                         For legal purposes, "classified" has
                                         a very clear meaning as you pointed
                                         out, but I wouldn't bet on Rove and
                                         Libby knowing it was "classified".
                                         I'm definitely not betting on whether
                                         Rove will be convicted or not, but
                                         the smart money of course would be
                                         on no conviction.
                                         \_ Same question: If Fitzgerald
                                            ultimately exonerates Rove, would
                                            you accept that?
                                            \_ If by exonerate you mean "not
                                               convicted of breaking the law",
                                               I'm not sure I would be happy.
                                               If by exonerate you mean
                                               convincingly shown that Rove
                                               behaved ethically, then I would
                                               accept that.
                                               But what I said above is all
                                               very obvious, I think.
                                               \_ Does "not sure I would be
                                                  happy" mean that you do not
                                                  accept Rove was innocent,
                                                  despite Fitzgerald to the
                                                  contrary?
                                                  \_ Look, O.J. was found "not
                                                     guilty" / "innocent" of
                                                     killing his wife.
                                                     Do you accept that?
                                                     \_ BTW, I take it that
                                                        you will not accept
                                                        Fitzgerald's conclusion
                                                        if it is counter to
                                                        your position.  Who has
                                                        the closed mind here?
                                                        \_ How do you translate
                                                           "I may not be
                                                           happy" to I "will
                                                           not accept F.'s
                                                           conclusion if it
                                                           is counter to [my]
                                                           position"?
                                                           \_ I asked the
                                                              question, and I
                                                              took your silence
                                                              as acquiescence.
                                                              Mea culpa.  Will
                                                              you accept Rove's
                                                              exoneration?
                                                              \_ See oddly
                                                                 shaped
                                                                 post [below].
                                                     \_ Nope.  But then I am
                                                        not trying to invent
                                                        a standard by which
                                                        OJ could be punished
                                                        despite his legal
                                                        innocence.
                                                        \_ Where did I EVER
                                                           say Rove should
                                                           be punished under
                                                           my criteria?
                                                           \_ So if Rove were
                                                              exonerated, you
                                                              would not clamor
                                                              for his removal?
                /--------------------------------------------/
                If by "exonerated" you mean convincingly shown that Rove
                behaved ethically, I would accept that.
                \_ Convincingly to you or to Fitzgerald?  So you're still
                   saying that even if he is legally innocent, if you found
                   him unethical by your "sensitive" standard, you will still
                   want to see him removed?  And that is not "punished despit
                   his legal innocence" in what sense?
                   \_ What does convicingly mean when used without
                      qualifiers?  It means convincing to an informed observer
                      who can be persuaded both ways.
                      This thread has deviated way off course.
                      You are asking for my political beliefs, when the only
                      thing I wanted to volunteer is what I would put money on
                      as being factually true (but probably never practically
                      verifiable), and independent of a criminal conviction or
                      my political beliefs.
                      Political beliefs are subjective and can be argued on
                      UNENDINGLY.
                      \_ I think your politics are abundantly clear.  The
                         question remains: Should Rove be pusnished even
                         if he is found legally innocent?
                         \_ It depends on who you ask.
                            I'm too tired to answer myself.
                            \_ What, tired of contradicting yourself again?  If
                               you've made up your mind, admit that.  Being
                               intellectually dishonest is probably worse than
                               having a closed mind.
                               \_ Oh god, I've been trolled.  Fuck you troller.
                                  If you were an innocent motd poster, I
                                  apologize.
                                  \_ Hardly.  You have been shown to be a
                                     charlatan though.
                                     \_ <roll eyes>
                                        Who are you dude?
                                        I stand behind all my posts. -jctwu
                                        \_ But apparently you're not willing
                                           to answer the question whether Rove
                                           should be punished depite his legal
                                           innocence, but that might cause you
                                           to contradict yourself again.
                                           \_ I would like to know that I am
                                              not being trolled.  Please
                                              identify yourself. Thanks. -jctwu
                                              \_ Heh.  Show a little
                                                 intellectual honesty.  It's
                                                 not like we'd be surprised by
                                                 your answer.
                                                 \_ Okay, anonymous dude:
                                                    You see contradictions
                                                    where I do not.
                                                    You see intellectual
                                                    dishonesty where I do not.
                                                    Your jump to these two
                                                    claims are indicative of a
                                                    troll, though not proof.
                                                    You've been called out, and
                                                    you have not come out to
                                                    back up what you've
                                                    written. -jctwu
                                                    \_ Re "sensitive": carve
                                                       out space between legal
                                                       and illegal?  "Actually,
                                                       I am just using the
                                                       words in the article".
                                                       Well, later, "I am
                                                       carving out a space"
                                                       after all.
                                                       \_ Both facts are
                                                          true at the same time
                                                          \_ Spin, jctwu, spin.
                                                             \_ same to you,
                                                                buddy
                                                       Will you accept F's
                                                       judgement?  "How do you
                                                       translate [not happy] to
                                                       [will not accept]?"
                                                       As it turns out, you
                                                       want Rove to be
                                                       convincingly ethical.
                                                       To whom?  F?  Well, not
                                                       F after all, but an
                                                       informed observer.  So
                                                       you don't accept F's
                                                       judgement.  How about
                                                       \_ This is a jump in
                                                          logic
                                                       punishing Rove?  "Where
                                                       did I EVER say Rove
                                                       should be punished
                                                       under my criteria?"  So
                                                       would clamor for his
                                                       removal?  Or are you
                                                       going to contradict
                                                       yourself again?
                                \_ Non-sophisticated:
                                   What are you talking about?
                                   Faux sophistication / aloofness:
                                   "Delimiter" is a word that has a very clear
                                   meaning but for some reason really isn't
                                   here.
                                                       \_ troll! or coward!
                                                          one or both may
                                                          be true.
2005/7/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38704 Activity:nil
7/19    Iraqi blogger kidnapped by mukhabarat (new Iraqi secret police):
        http://csua.org/u/cr8 (raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com)
        \_ Oh no.. secret police.
2005/7/19 [Computer/SW/Editors/Vi] UID:38705 Activity:high
7/19    Wow, apparently I've made 249 posts today.  -tse
        \_ kchang is trying to lower the bar for the term 'heuristic.'
           \_ I keep an editor open on motd.public, and I periodically
              reload and save when I do not overwrite.  Ah, the magic of
              scripting.
              \_ I copy the motd to read it and kchang thinks I'm
                 making posts.
                 \_ Hm, according to the log, it says:
        tse vi 58050 7 / 62 -rw-rw-rw- 36564 r /etc/motd.public
        tse vi 2184 3 / 62 -rw-rw-rw- 34298 r /etc/motd.public
        ... so on and so forth ...
                    So, I don't know what you're doing, but the log says
                    you "vi /etc/motd.public", WITH LOCK.  -kchang
                    \_ Yep.  I reload and save without overwriting in a
                       script.  Why?  If I own all the updates, then I own
                       none of the updates.
2005/7/19 [Computer/Theory, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:38706 Activity:nil
7/19    For the betting types below:  You could always use some sort of
        formulation of the bet that would result in a yes/no:
        eg: Rove is indicted by 12/31/2005, or
            Grand Jury evidence shows 1 witness reporting Rove "handled"
               the memo.
        \_ You mean something like this?  http://csua.org/u/crr
           \_ error page
              \_ Fixed
2005/7/19 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:38707 Activity:low
7/19    My boss has a bunch of money for techinical books he needs to get
        spend.  Any suggestions on what I should get?
        \_ Duh, what field is your dept in?
           \_ Actually, it should be something OUTSIDE my field.  (That's
              how the money is budgeted)  Some Topics:
              Linux Kernel Hacking
              MPI programming
              Advanced Threaded Programming
              Software engineering
              \_ Design Patterns
                 \_ Driving J2EE and SOAP CORBA for B2B and B2C success in
                    XML RSS!!!
        \_ The Art Of Computer Programming
2005/7/19 [Uncategorized] UID:38708 Activity:low
7/19    Ouch. http://csua.org/u/cro [SFW]
        \_ Er, why motd this? I mean, yuck.  For everyone else,
           it's a story on a guy who had a grotesque accident leading
           to being maimed and blinded.
           \_ Fear the danh! Fear!
              \_ As I recall, danh uses tinyurl, not http://csua.org.
                 \_ And he usually signs his url posts as well.  Besides,
                    this is way sub-par to danh's standards.
           \_ It's a CT for crying out loud.  danh would have posted a color
              photo.
2005/7/19-20 [Finance/Banking] UID:38709 Activity:low
7/19    I just applied to Citibank and got a card last week. Today someone
        from Citibank called and asked to verify some information, like
        my address, then the SSN. I didn't feel comfortable giving out
        my SSN esp. when I wasn't sure who was calling, so I asked her to
        give me Citibank's number. I called Citibank back, and they said
        they NEVER call you unless something's wrong with the card, and
        in fact they checked their call log and they didn't call this
        morning. What is going on?
        \_ The fact that they're (assuming it's them) asking for your SSN
           is fucking stupid.  I don't believe it's legal to require it for
           any services, I could be mistaken.  -John
        \_ Citibanks calls me all the bloody time for satisfaction surveys
           and for new product sales.  When I'd call, I get different answers
           to questions all the time.
        \_ You were smart not giving out the SSN when the other party
           initiated the call.  But were you calling the number she gave you
           thinking that it was a legitimate Citibank number?
           \_ The caller this morning gave me a legit Citibank number when
              I requested for it but when I called the legit number they
              said they NEVER call me to get these information. If it's
              fake, then I don't understand how these people know I just
              got a Citibank card.
              \_ They dived into your mailbox?  Or, the called didn't actually
                 know, and she was just calling random numbers in the
                 phonebook.  If you didn't happen to have a Citibank card, she
                 would just say it was a computer glitch.  Anyway, if she was
                 fake, she was stupid to give you a legit number.
        \_ I once had the following conversation:
           "Hi, I'm calling from [company], we just want to confirm
            your address."
           "Ok"
           [pause] "Um, I'm ready when you are Sir."
           "No no, you tell me what my address is, I'll tell you if you're
            right."
           "... I uh... don't have your address."
           "That's right. You don't." [click]
           So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if someone was trying to
           scam you. Good call in not giving out the info. -bz
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:38710 Activity:nil
7/19    Biased source, but Rove may not have told the FBI about Matt Cooper
        at all in 2003:
        http://csua.org/u/crt (prospect.org)
2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:38711 Activity:low
6/19    What is so special or significant about being part of the dissent
        (wrt the USSC's ruling)? What is wrong with having an opinion
        that isn't shared by the majority of other justices?
        \- i am sort of at a loss how to address the above, but
           1. there are some famous "i told you so" dissents.
              one of OHOLMES nicknames was "The Great Dissenter",
              see e.g. Dissent in Lochner.
              Wouldnt you have been wanted to be known as the single
              dissenter in Plessey v. Fergueson, one of the cases
              contending for the "worst sup ct decision in history"
              title? [that was HARLAN].
              \_ I would have preferred to have been a dissenter
                 in Dred Scott, but Plessey would be a close 2d.
                 \- i picked PLESSY because the lone dissent is a
                    little more dramatic, although yeah, in terms
                    of the actual holding DRED SCOTT is worse.
           2. there are fome extremely fractured decisions where there
              isnt really a single maj opinion ... those as you might
              image are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
              imagine are hard to interpret. the bakke case is one of the
              std such examples:
                POWELL, J., announced the Court's judgment and filed
                an opinion expressing his views of the case, in Parts
                I, III-A, and V-C of which WHITE, J., joined; and in
                Parts I and V-C of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and
                BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and
                BLACKMUN, [438 U.S. 265, 268] JJ., filed an opinion
                concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
                part, post, p. 324. WHITE, J., post, p. 379, MARSHALL,
                J., post, p. 387, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 402,
                filed separate opinions. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion
                concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in
                part, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART and
                REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 408.
                \- bakke had 6 opinios i believe. it;s sort of funny that
                   current liberal bastion STEVENS wrote the relatively
                   hostile to affirmative action "dissent" ... STEVENS ends
                   up on the pro aff action side of both recent UMICH AA
                   cases [concurring with OCONNOR maj opin to uphold the
                   law school system and dissenting with RHQ decision to
                   strike down the UG AA system].
                \_ Another good example is Powell v Texas which
                   established that a voluntary act was required
                   under the constitution for criminal punishment
                   but tha a mens rea (criminal intent) was not.
2005/7/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38712 Activity:moderate
6/19    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956
        Supreme Court choice John C. Roberts Jr. reported by multiple sources
        is sharp, but will probably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
        I say there should be no filibuster attempt. -liberal/moderate
        \_ Roe v. Wade *should* be overturned.  And then (or even prior)
           congress should pass laws about privacy, etc.
           \_ If you're a strict constructionist, then you believe Roe v.
              Wade should be overturned.  On the other hand, if you're Sandra
              Day, you would uphold it.  Which is more valid?  You got me.
        \_ The magic number is 50. Assuming everything equal, he'll be around
           for the next 30-odd years.
           \_ When a Democrat is President, he or she can also nominate a
              sharp 50-year-old with little in judicial opinions written down
              but believed to be as liberal as you can get, but also one who
              has stated that they support being impartial over being
              predictable.
              \_ Only if someone on SCOTUS dies or retires during his
                 presidency. Cf. Clinton.
        \_ "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing
           in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully
           applying that precedent."
           \_ I also read an article today that said he was speaking for a
              client, and not from his personal view, when advocating for Roe
              v. Wade to be overturned.
        \_ Does it mean anything that he's a Harvard man?
           \- no. HLS is one of the largest law schools in the country.
              who he clerked for might mean more ... what ever that means.
              half the sup ct went to harvard.
              \_ He clerked for Sith Lord Rheinquist.
              \_ Of course it means something. You are naive. It even
                 means more that he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. It
                 is not a coincidence that half the supreme court and 10%
                 of Congress went to HLS. Seven US Presidents are Harvard
                 grads. This is how the upper class perpetuates itself.
           \_ Souter graduated Harvard undergrad magna cum laude, and also
              graduated Harvard Law.  Appointed by Bush I in 1990.
              Scalia is also a Harvard Law grad, as well as Breyer and
              Kennedy.
              \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel. -- ilyas
              \_ And now they want to make Souter's house into a hotel.
                 -- ilyas
2005/7/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:38713 Activity:nil
7/19    Rove _should_ be punished even if he is legally found innocent,
        because what he did was unethical, foolish, and dangerous.  If he
        didn't know better, he should have.  Bush came into office saying
        he would restore integrity.  He has an opportunity to do this by
        firing Rove.  He hasn't.  He's backed further and further from his
        "I will fire anyone involved" because he knows it was a definitive
        statement.  He's hoping for people not to notice.
        This is on par with the house eviscerating its ethics committee and
        rescinding the "get indicted, lose your leadership position" rules.
        Once upon a time the bar was "appearance of impropriety" but that's
        apparently too hard these days.
        In short, as soon as his lawyer said "by the way, yeah he did tell
        her name to these guys" his desk should have been packed and his
        WH badge pulled.  Anything less is pure hypocrisy. --scotsman
        \_ well said. -nivra
        \_ Ok, I haven't been following this very carefully, does someone want
           to summarize what was found for me? -- ilyas
           \_ I'm speaking to the thread below.  All this discussion is moot
              until Fitzgerald reports.  But the WH's statements that "anyone
              involved would be fired" should have been honored.
        \_ What if Rove was actually innocent (in the ethical sense as well as
           the legal sense)?  How do we decide if he were ethically innocent?
           \_ I'm tempted to say "doesn't matter".  The president said he
              would fire him.  He hasn't.  If Rove was ethically pure, then
              in terms of being entrusted with any sort of security clearance
              he was utterly incompetent.  I don't know which is worse.
              Actually, strike all of the above.  Do you know just how FUCKING
              STUPID you sound?
              \_ Why?  Because I'm still waiting for all the evidence to come
                 out before I pass judgement?
        \_ unethical how?  If he didn't know she was covert (or she wasn't even
           covert)  how is that unethical?
           foolish how?
           dangerous how?
           \_ eg. "I come across the information that X works at the CIA. Prior
              to revealing this information, it might behoove me to check _if_
              X's status is sensitive information."  The Jun 10 memo shows that
              Plame's status was sensitive.  Given your conditional, Rove
              apparently had been too _foolish_ to check.  This type of
              foolishness from an official privy to sensitive information is
              dangerous.
              \_ Oh give me a fucking break.  It's dangerous for the president
                 of the United States to lie under oath.  Why weren't you
                 calling for Clinton's head? -- ilyas
                 \_ Actually, I didn't support Clinton over the perjury charge.
                    I presume you or the op were calling for Clinton's head.
                    If so, why aren't you calling for Rove's head?  Revealing
                    the status of non official cover CIA assets is at least
                    as dangerous as the Clenis.
                 \_ The above wasn't me, but for me it's the same reason that
                    R's joined D's in voting not to remove him: because the
                    case brought wasn't weighty enough to warrant his removal.
                    (Okay, yes it's silly for me to suggest i know the
                    senators' reasoning) --scotsman
                    \_ So let me get this straight.  If Rove didn't do anything
                       legally wrong, he should still resign because he did
                       something 'unethical.'  Clinton, on the other hand,
                       despite not getting nailed on legal grounds, should
                       nevertheless have stayed despite doin something
                       clearly 'unethical.'
                       \_ No, Ilya.  Rove should resign or be fired because
                          the President said that's what would happen.  Clinton
                          isn't President right now, btw.
                          \_ I don't know how you managed to shout over my
                             response without waiting for me to finish,
                             _ON THE FUCKING MOTD_ but you did it.  Thanks for
                             pointing out Clinton isn't president now.  I rely
                             on hard working folks like you to keep me up to date
                             on world events.  You started your first post
                             talking about Rove doing something unethical and
                             foolish.  If you want to rag on Bush for not
                             following through on what you think Bush said,
                             that's fine, but if you want to rag on _Rove_, you
                             will have to explain why leaving Billy alone with
                             his foolishness and lack of ethics was ok. -- ilyas
                             \_ heh. you saved half your response (ending at
                                the second sentence), which Ben responded to
                                while you were constructing your last sentence.
                                He had no idea you were formulating a 3rd
                                sentence. -nivra
           \_ The purpose for his revealing this information to
              the public is to discredit a 3rd party, and advance an agenda.
              That is unethical.
              \_ Not necessarily.  Wilson still insists that his wife had
                 nothing to do with getting the trip, when she was the one who
                 recommended him.  Wilson looks pretty dirty to me.
                 \_ Every time you bring this up it sounds dumber and dumber.
                    You're FUD slinging.  Wilson has been a diplomat for
                    us for decades, has served in Iraq and African countries.
                    It doesn't matter that his wife may have recommended him.
                    You're asking us to believe that he and his wife, along
                    with the CIA, conspired to get sent over there just so he
                    could prove Bush wrong a couple years down the line.  You
                    need help.
                    \_ No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that Rove
                       was trying to discredit Wilson.  I don't think that Rove
                       offered a compelling reason ("don't believe him, he just
                       got the job because his wife recommended him").  And yet
                       he denies that she recommended him, even though the
                       Senate intelligence committee has a memo in her
                       handwriting recommending him.
                       \_ And to discredit him, he simply _had_ to reveal
                          a CIA agent's identity...
                       \_ danh's link says that this memo was a formality and
                          CIA folks are pretty pissed this memo is being
                          twisted.  Anyways, go back to what the other guy was
                          saying about it not mattering even if Plame
                          recommended Wilson.
2005/7/19-20 [Uncategorized] UID:38714 Activity:nil
7/19    I don't suppose anyone is planning to go to the Aquabats show
        tonight at Slims? -jrleek
2005/7/19-22 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:38718 Activity:low 80%like:38735
6/19    Firefox 1.0.6 is out:
        http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/1.0.6.html
        \_ Yay, Firefox is turning out to be just as broken and bug-ridden
           as IE! Woo!
           \_ Err.. that seems like a bit of an overstatement.
              \_ Is it?  Six major patches in as many months, correct?
                 \_ IE still runs ActiveX.
                 \_ Have you done any significant programming?
                    You ought to know how damn hard it is to get all
                    the bugs (esp. security) out. The FF team is doing
                    a very good job considering that for many of them
                    it is not a paying job.
                    \_ I think the PP was referring to the fact that so many
                       security holes existed in the first place (rather than
                       how fast/slow they were fixed), which means Fx was not
                       more secure than IE after all.  (I understand that 1.0.6
                       is not about security fixes.)
                 \_ 1.0.x vs 1.0.y is a "major patch"?  I don't think so.
        \_ Hi guys, when upgrading Firefox for your Windoze clients, do you
           just install over the old Firefox, or do you manually uninstall
           it and manually delete the leftover C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox
           directory like the official download site recommends?
           \_ I don't know about broken and bug-ridden, but IE's update
              process is much easier than Firefox's.  I hate updating my
              notebook, my desktop, my girlfriend's notebook/desktop, my
              mom's desktop, etc., etc. ... ob yermom joke
        \_ When upgrading Firefox for your Windoze clients, do you
           just install over the old Firefox; or do you uninstall Firefox
           first, then manually delete the leftover C:\Program Files\Mozilla
           Firefox directory like the official download site recommends?
           \_ What I do for every upgrade is: exit Fx and all other apps, start
              Fx, Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Clear All, exit Fx, uninstall
              Fx from Control Panel, reboot, delete "C:\Program Files\Mozilla
              Firefox", install new Fx.
              Firefox", install new Fx.  Actually, now that I've learned about
              the profile folder, I'll also delete that from now on.
           \_ Related question: How do I uninstall all the extensions and
              themes when I uninstall Firefox?
              \_ Probably Tools -> Extensions -> Uninstall, before you
                 uninstall Firefox.  I don't know, I always though not
                 uninstalling them was a feature.  I do have to re-install
                 Macromedia Flash every time though.
2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38719 Activity:kinda low
6/19    Re: "strict constructionist" below.  I can't see how anyone would want
        a SCOTUS judge to not be strict constructionist.  If they follow the
        document then we don't get wonky rulings like the expansion of eminent
        domain and the excuse of interstate commerce to trample on states'
        rights.  Furthermore, it means we the people change the consitution
        through elected officials (many of them have to act together) rather
        than 9 or so appointed judges.  So, if you disagree with the strict
        constructionist philosophy, please argue your case.  I really don't see
        the other side of it and I'd like to change that. -emarkp
        \- "strict constructionist" or "fundamental fairness" and other such
           terms are can get universal agreement but they mean different
           things to different people. to take a geek turn, two people can
           think 'object oriented programming' is good and mean different
           things by it. a judicial philosophy is more than two words long ...
           and isnt even a list of "two words phrases" ... "i believe in
           'original intent' and 'strict constructionism' and 'stare decisis'
           and  the 'plain meaning' of the constitution."
           see e.g. Cardozo: Nature of the Judicial Process.
        \_ Let me preface my comments by saying that Justices ought to
           primarily interpret the law not create it. However, in some
           cases they need to be flexible enough to mold the law into a
           particular direction that is favorable for society as a whole.
           \_ I see this as a problem.  Who decides what's faborable for
              society as a whole?  Society should.  And we should do it through
              constitutional amendments if necessary, or by state and federal
              legislature if not. -emarkp
              \_ The judiciary has a role in molding the development
                 of society as much as the legislature does. Often
                 judges are asked to interpret laws for situations
                 that were not envisioned by the the people who framed
                 the law. Instead of automatically deferring to the
                 legislature (when/if they get around to dealing w/
                 the issues instead of bonking their interns or taking
                 bribes), it would be preferable for judges to suggest a
                 manner in which the law should develop. If the judicary
                 makes a mistake, the legislature can always fix it via
                 statutory enactment or constitutional amendment.
                 \_ Here's where we disagree then.  I see SCOTUS as having a
                    very narrow purpose, and that's making sure laws passed by
                    congress don't violate the constitution.  Of the three
                    branches of gov't, the congress should be the strongest and
                    the judges (not elected, not removable) the weakest.
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Okay. If you view the congress has having the
                       strongest role and the judiciary as having a
                       merely passive role, I can agree that you want
                               \_ I don't see 9 people striking down
                                  legislation approved by 536 people as
                                  "passive". -emarkp
                                  \_ Is there a particular act you are
                                     talking about, or are you speaking
                                     in general? I find it hard to
                                     believe that anyone can think that
                                     the vast majority of legislation
                                     has unanimous approval of the
                                     house and senate (or that it
                                     reflects the views of more than
                                     perhaps a mere majority of the
                                     voters - and if it is a mere
                                     majority then the cts must serve
                                     as a check on the tendency of
                                     to resort to mob rule)
                                     \_ Not any particular act.  Just the
                                        congress + president as a whole in
                                        principle.  I guess another way to look
                                        at it is that 337 people can pass an
                                        act (2/3 of house and senate to
                                        override a veto), but 5 people could
                                        smack it down (SCOTUS majority).
                                        -emarkp
                                        \_ Personally I feel safer that
                                           there are at least 5 people
                                           in the country who can smack
                                           down the BS that comes out
                                           of congress. Without a strong
                                           and independent judiciary
                                           to keep a check on congress
                                           we would quickly descend
                                           into mob rule in which the
                                           rights of the minority would
                                           basically be ignored.
                                           \_ I agree.  It's a good check.  The
                                              appointment for life is
                                              important--that way it takes
                                              decades to shift the entire
                                              makeup of the court, so one group
                                              can't easily dominate it.  But
                                              if it goes beyond a check it's a
                                              problem. -emarkp
                       judges who act in a limited way.
                       I, however, think of the judiciary as a feedback
                       system for the legislature. The legislature has
                       the primary role in setting national policy, &c.
                       Sometimes, the legislature doesn't do a good job
                       and fails to think things through. This is where
                       the ct can come in and make sure that things are
                       running smoothly. Actions taken by the court can
                       provide valuable feedback to the legislature to
                       get its act together and fix things rather than
                       just dink around discussing pay raises, and 1/2
                       dead people in FL.
           With that as a reference, here are some points re strict
           constructionism:
           (1) Often its not clear what the rule actual is - congress will
               frequently enact legislation drawing power from various
               clauses in the constitution but fail to define key terms
               and the circuits will split over the meaning. The Court
               needs to have justices who can think about the long term
               effects of their actions and act appropriately. Acting like
               a curmudgeon and applying 18th-19th century principles to
               things like the Internet isn't realistic - the framers had
               no idea about this type of communication/commerce and you
               need judges who can look to the past for analogies but also
               look to the future.
               \_ There is something about your rhetoric I find vaguely
                  unsettling. -- ilyas
                  \_ Consider Sony for example. Yes there were people
                     using the VCR to violate copyright but it wasn't
                     clear that Sony had done anything wrong in making
                     a product that enabled this. The fact that the
                     ct saw its way clear to say that producing a product
                     w/o more wasn't enough to infringe copyright was a
                     big deal (Sony was going to be decided the other way
                     until one justice switched his vote, iirc b/c of
                     the implications of just a decision).
           (2) Sometimes you have a doctrine that is the "law" and is
               defended as such but in reality is just a cover for something
               more insidious like racism. In these situations you need to
               be flexible to stamp out behavior that has no place in a
               civilized society.
               \_ Again, who defines "civilized society"?  Again I argue that
                  society should, not a panel of judges. -emarkp
                  \_ So you would be willing to accept racism until
                     the states voluntarily decided to outlaw it?
                     And that was going to happen like NEVER. In
                     some instances, the states/people need a nudge
                     in the "right" direction.
                     \_ So you've turned prophet and caretaker now?  You can
                        say what would or would not happen?  You can decide
                        what the "right" direction is?  Here's a question:
                        aren't you concerned about a group of 9 people deciding
                        what's "right" for you?  What if all of them were
                        hardcore conservatives? -emarkp
                        \_ If you looked at the trends in desegregation
                           prior to Brown, it was pretty clear that the
                           state were doing NOTHING to overturn separate
                           but equal on their own.
                           This has nothing to do w/ me being a prophet,
                           it is just extrapolation based on the trends
                           that were present.
                           \_ Extrapolating to NEVER isn't justifiable IMO.
                              Public attitudes were changing, and I believe
                              it would have happened legislatively, but of
                              course I don't know for sure. -emarkp
                              \_ When would it be justifiable for the court
                                 to step in?  When 25 states had changed?  30?
                                 47?  Or never?
                           \_ This could be a whole different topic, but
                              you might be able to argue that there really
                              was a constitutional problem with the
                              implementation of seperate but equal.
                                 \_ Not the point.  I don't think it's valid to
                                    say that it would never change, nor do I
                                    think it's right for 5 people to determine
                                    what's "right" for society.  And on top of
                                    that, I agree with the person below re:
                                    PLessy v. Ferguson. -emarkp
                              \_ Extrapolation is never justifiable?
                                   \_ Read it again.  In this case,
                                      extrapolating "not yet" to "NEVER" isn't
                                      justified.  -emarkp
                                      \_ Perhaps NEVER is incorrect
                                         b/c almost every event has
                                         a small non-zero probability
                                         of occuring. Yes I could
                                         wake up tomorrow in Andromeda
                                         and know how to speak fluent
                                         Klingon, but its not bloody
                                         likely.
                                 How do you order your future affairs
                                 w/o looking to the past/present and
                                 seeing trends?
                                 Re legislative intervention in Brown,
                                 I strongly disagree. I have friends
                                 in the south and there is still a
                                 tendency to treat "colored" people
                                 less favorably than "white" people.
                                 I really doubt that an southern
                                 state would voluntarily have integrated.
                           \_ I would argue that the example or Brown v.
                              Board of Education is invalid, because
                              Plessy v. Ferguson really was
                              unconstitutional by the 14th, IMHO.
                              \_ It is by no means clear that Plessy
                                 was wrongly decided under a strict
                                 constructionist or originalist view.
                                 Consider that the framers put in the
                                 3/5 compromise and the framers of
                                 the 14th amd also created segregated
                                 schools in Washington DC during the
                                 same session.
                                 No where in the text of the 14th
                                 amd does it say the same, it just
                                 says equal - as long as the facilities
                                 were equal, everything was kosher.
                                 In fact, in Brown, the Board of
                                 Education agreed that the schools
                                 were not equal and that they needed
                                 to fix them, what they didn't want
                                 was integration.
                           I am not sure why you think that a bunch
                           of conservatives would make me unhappy?
                           \_ Choose your bogeyman then. -emarkp
                           In general the conservatives tend to issue
                           opinions that are far more consistent w/
                           a free/open society than the liberals.
                           As an example, when the issue of police
                           use of thermal imagers w/o a warrant was
                           presented to the court, it was conservatives
                           who held that this use violated the 4th amd.
                           The liberals were all for letting the cops
                           do whatever they wanted. It is not clear
                           that a strict interpetation of the 4th amd
                           would have found that a thermal imager was
                           a search and thus fell under the 4th amd.
               I would point to separate but equal as an example - clearly
               the intent behind the doctrine was racist and it needed to be
               ended, but the strict constructionism stood in the way of
               this. This was a state law issue, but the states weren't
               doing anything about it. Second, congressional intent when
               the 14th amd was drafted seemed to show that segregation
               was constitutional b/c the same congress created segregated
               schools in DC. The Court had to be flexible to get around
               the doctrine.
           (3) Reasonable minds can differ as to how the framers would
               apply or interpret parts of the constitution to modern
               situations. You gave the example of commercial development
               (Kelo). AFAIK, there were no commerical developers around
               when the constitution and the bill of rights were enacted.
               You MIGHT think you know how they would interpret the
               situtation, but do you really know? Esp. considering the
               fact that there were probably some at the constitutional
               convention who would have found no problem w/ the Kelo
               decision. Wouldn't it be better to have Justices who can
               see that perhaps we need rules that help order affairs
               in the reality of 21st century life rather than get stuck
               w/ rules that were suited to 18th-19th century life?
               \- wasnt part of the MARSHALL J. holding
                  in Barron v. Baltimore the takings clause
               \- wasnt part of the MARSHALL J. holding in
                  Barron v. Baltimore the takings clause
                  didnt apply to the states but just the
                  national govt? what you you crazy ori-
                  ginalists think about that?
                  \_ iirc, Barron was decided in the 1830s prior to
                     the 14th amd. At the time it was decided it was
                     correct b/c the 5th amd only apply to actions
                     by the federal gov and not the states. However,
                     the 14th amd (sec 1) made the 5th amd. applicable
                     to actions by the states, thus the holding in
                     Barron is no longer correct.
                     \- so the whole idea of the absorbption doctrine,
                        and the slaughterhouse cases and 14th amd
                        interpretation is a big area where these kinds
                        of originalist interpretations become difficult
                        or break down. like the meaning of "congress shall
                        make no law" in the 1st amd no longer has the
                        "scope" of only applying to the congress eventhough
                        it "plainly" says so.
        \_ The Founding Fathers deliberately set up a balance of powers
           arrangement so that the different branches of government could
           serve as checks on each other. If the SC turns itself into
           a rubber stamp for the legislature, or even worse, the executive,
           they will weaken one leg of the stool. Plus, even what exactly
           a "strict" constitutionalist changes over time, as our notions
           of equality and fair play and even the definitions of words change.
           Furthermore, technology and other changes have made parts of the
           Constitution obsolete. Isn't $10 still the limit for immigration
           taxes somewhere and $20 the limit for trails by jury?
            \_ The 7th amd sets the min limit for trial by jury as $20
               for suits at common law.
2005/7/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38720 Activity:nil
6/19    NY Times with apparently accurate (non-biased) background article
        on Roberts:
       http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20judge.html
        "On the other side of the political equation, he is likely to be
        confirmed, at least with far less trouble than many of the other
        candidates who had been listed as possible Bush choices. Even as
        Democrats were resisting many of Mr. Bush's other appeals court
        candidates with filibusters, Mr. Roberts was approved by a vote of 16
        to 3 in the Judiciary Committee and confirmed without a roll call vote
        on May 9, 2003." (you can bet the 3 no's were for the abortion thing)
        Filibuster at your own peril. -liberal/moderate
2017/11/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/23   
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:July:19 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>