It was a crazy day, I also bought an ab-blaster

North Carolina DA Mike Nifong says he, "maybe got carried away a little bit" discussing the case of three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a African American stripper.

Yes, maybe a touch carried away in torching the lives of three Duke students, their coach (resigned), and an entire sports program (suspended for the rest of the 2006 season).

Just reading some of Nifong's quotes for the Fox article in the last link.

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done," Nifong said. "It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

And,

"I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."

Odd, with Mr Nifong's amazing gut, that all three students were cleared.

So now Mr Nifong may lose his lawyer license. Among the comments cited was this gem where he said "he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for 'a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl.'" That's at least somewhat ironic now, given all the media surrounding both the initial incident, and the current media all surrounding the fact that in Durham, a bunch of lacrosse players were incorrectly charged with raping a black girl by an out of control DA. Duke is now as much known for this incident as anything else. Congratulations Mr Nifong. Rarely have I ever witnessed such a complete failure in any endeavor. Just a loss across the board. Wow.

I really haven't been following any of this, but if the only thing Mr Nifong loses is his license to practice law...well that feels like a crime.

I know this will muddy the picture, but I have to point out that if any of these players were foreigners accused of anything having to do with terrorism, they would have not had the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, the right to see the evidence against them (including the flawed DNA evidence), nor any type of jury by peers in front of a judge, and the rest of the tools and protections that freed these boys. The woman's accusation and Mr Nifong's gut would be more than enough to keep them locked up forever.

UPDATE: Nifong announced his surprise resignation today.

Con-Vick?

I know, I know, Michael Vick hasn't been convicted of anything (and you won't see me jumping on, I just couldn't resist the title, and I have dibs on "Con-Vick-ted" if he goes down). However, things are heating up for young Michael as the feds have taken up the investigation into his alleged role in running a dog fighting ring.

Quick aside for a rant. ESPN Page 2 writer Bill Simmons argues that every professional sports team should hire a VP of Common Sense to keep GM's from making boneheaded moves-an idea I love. I also think that every pro athlete should make a member of his "posse" the official Jimmy the Cricket-or JC. After Mr Vick's run in with Miami Airport Security, he should have immediately hired a JC. Then said JC could have told Mr Vick that when you're a pro quarterback with a $130 million contract, maybe, just maybe, you should let the whole illegal dog fighting ring runner gig go. I think all athletes could benefit from a JC, probably wouldn't even have to pay much for the service, and in any case, what the JC saves in fines and public humiliation would surely cover their salary.

Anyway, all this hullabaloo around Mr Vick allegedly running an illegal dog fighting ring led to him abruptly canceling his annual camp, a move that is sure to enhance his reputation with the fans (apparently he's going for the rare "killer of dogs and children's dreams" combo).

Also, the same article has some excepts from a letter that Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank sent to season ticket holders, more of the letter here. Anyway, anytime you have to send a letter that asks, after defending your star QB from public persecution, that

"In the meantime, we want you to realize there are many examples of our organization impacting our community in a very positive manner."

And you also have to point out

the many charitable functions in which Atlanta players participate, and points out that the Atlanta Falcons Youth Foundation has to date provided more than $10 million in grants to Georgia-based nonprofit organizations.

You know things have gone horribly wrong for your organization and that you're in the midst of a PR nightmare. Keep in mind, all of this comes after a very disappointing season where you unexpectedly missed the playoffs and had to fire your head coach.

Again, I have no idea if he's guilty of anything other than really poor judgment in friends and hangouts, but things are going very badly for him right now. At a minimum, how can he concentrate on his job with a federal investigation hanging over him, and knowing that anyone who defends him will wind up like Washington Redskins RB Clinton Portis. And he needs to concentrate after last years set-back season. As of now, Vick's all alone and under the blade.

For those of you who care deeply about the topic of dog fighting, here's a link to the Humane Society's campaign against Amazon.com. Apparently Amazon.com sells dogfighting videos and Cock Fighting magazines.

Pardon me?

Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has received his sentence, 30 months (plus a quick primer on sentencing guidelines), all the talk is about will he/won't he be pardoned. I will admit here that the actual crime and sentencing acts are waaaay out of my area of expertise. Maybe it was huge, maybe it was minor, maybe 30 months is excessive, maybe its too light. No idea. Also, I understand that the Presidents powers of Pardation (my word) are unlimited, but as this article points out, there are "guidelines" (by way of note, anytime you see guidelines in quotes, the quotes mean "these marks render the world guidelines totally meaningless. Do what you want, and have fun"). Anyway, here they are.

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

My take is that pardons are like national parks. Presidents name national parks and give out pardons at the last minutes as "gifts" to the nation, to establish legacy, and to pay back debts, so I don't get too worked up about them. But at my core, I like parks, don't like the power of the pardon.

In any case, I do feel that government officials should be exempt from pardation (I'm going to keep using the word in hopes that it becomes part of the national dialog). It creates a scenario where someone could lie under oath, or commit some other crime at the behest of the President, with the President saying, "Don't worry, I'll pardon you." And, even if that is not the case, it could be inferred, or perhaps worse, look that way to the public, killing the public trust. Such a powerful tool and incentive creates both too tempting an option and too dangerous a perception.
I also understand that this "solution" could also create a scenario where Congress uses its legal powers to harass the Executive branch, and that pardation keeps that potential at bay. That's really the only real use for Pardons. Kind of like diplomatic immunity.

What I do find interesting are the Republican answers to the "Would you pardon Libby" question. The next generation of GOP hopefuls seem to continue the trend of an all powerful White House. Keep in mind, all of this comes before the outcome of any Libby appeal.

Mitt Romney: Tries, as usual to have it both ways.

noting that during his four years as governor, he didn't pardon anybody "because I didn't want to overturn a jury."But, he said a pardon for Libby would be "worth looking at"because the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, "clearly abused prosecutorial discretion" by going after Libby when Fitzgerald knew he was not the original source of the leak.

This is a great quote because, one, as I said it is classic Mit "Both Ways" Romney. Two, it shows that Mr Romney believes that he has a better grasp of the case than the Judge and Jury. Thus, he feels he may need to sweep in and correct this terrible wrong. Unilaterally, and uniquely correcting a wrong will be the typical answer from the others.

Rudy Guilani: At least Mr Guiliani says he will wait for the appeals process to work, but then renders it meaningless by announcing that he feels the sentence was

"way out of line." Adding, "I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment."

See, if the Court of Appeals finds his way then the ruling will stand, if they find in a way that displeases him, he will overturn it. Love that respect for Checks and Balances. Also, does this mean that Mr Giuliani will personally review all court cases and determine if the punishment was "excessive?"

John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter: Dodged it, but left open the "Rudy Out" of waiting to see what the appeals process brings. Why does it matter?

Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore: No pardon for Mr Libby. But these guys have about as much chance of winning as I do.

Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo: It's Pardon Time! Whoo Hoo! Uh, oh, according to polls these guys are on the Paul/Gilmore boat to "waitingtodropoutville."

Why is it that not one potential winner said, "This man was charged and tried before of jury of his peers. He had the ability to find top notch defense, made said defense and was found guilty. He was then sentenced. I believe the sentence was too harsh, and will work with Congress to rationalize the sentencing of all Americans facing Mr Libby's crimes. But the pardation of one man will not change what allowed this excessive punishment to occur." None of the frontrunners showed any respect for Checks and Balances, and from reading the transcript, all seemed to go right for the unilateral and unchecked power of whim.

All I'm saying is that I find this very interesting.

Cows of Jackson Hole, Rejoice!

Terri Gregory, the Public Health Manager for the Teton County Board of Health (Jackson Hole, WY to you and me) has decided to ban tongue and genital (owwwwww) piercing as well as branding, lacing, and scarification (though I'm sure the cows are happy to hear about the branding part).

Say's Jackson Hole's only tatoo/piercing parlor, Sub-Urban Clothing Tattoo's Susan Woodward,

But I'm incredibly disappointed more than anything. I still don’t understand their rationale behind the ban. There isn’t any information showing there is risk factor problem here. No statistical evidence. It is pre-emptive.

"Pre-emptive" she says. Hah, what a conspiracy theorist. For a counter, let's turn to City of Casper-Natrona County Health Department Environmental Health Specialist Ruth Heald

We did it as more of a pre-emptive move. We had the impression that it was too invasive and had high potential for infection.

Ummm, oh. Well, lets turn to Ms Gregory,

We looked at medical information both pro and con. With tattoos, there is much less health risk than, say, tongue piercing. From a nursing standpoint, the deeper you are penetrating, the greater the risk."

How much greater? How much more risk? Also, can I assume that this means that all forms of elective procedures that go deeper than tattoos will soon be banned?

I leave the final word to Ms Woodward.

The problem with banning is we have already seen home brandings and piercings being done...It won't stop it. It will make people do it in an unsanitary environment.

And she's right. Is this really a necessary rule? Is it a good rule? Is it an effective rule? I say no to all three. Banning popular things doesn't stop them. Taking piercing and the like underground only makes the risk of infection and harm greater. In the end, this rule creates exactly what Ms Gregory says she wants to avoid. Just like most laws in the nanny state.

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

The NRA supports Terrorists!

No they don't, they support you and your rights under the Constitution, but their opposition to a bill that would strip citizens of their right to buy a gun if they are a suspected terrorist would clearly put them in that camp if they weren't the NRA. Any other group, especially a "lefty" group, that did something similar would earn the wrath of the right. Soft of terrorism, they don't get it, this is what you can expect from them, more surrender talk, etc.

For the record I agree with the NRA. At some point the nation needs to understand that terrorism is a crime, not an invasion and act accordingly. Just as you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun if they're suspected of car theft, you can't deny someone the right to buy a gun because of some arbitrary, and legally ambiguous, label of terrorist "suspect." Just look at how screwed up the national no-fly list is. Denying thousands of citizens of their constitutional rights because they are merely suspected of doing something wrong definitely goes against "innocent until proven guilty." This isn't a Brittney Spears fan club membership we're talking about, its you're Second Amendment Right. I'm really uncomfortable with a law that strips you of your Constitutional rights without trial, and without you even knowing it. Seriously, how do you get on the list, how do you get off the list? How do you defend yourself? The bottom line, this is an unannounced stripping of your Constitutional rights. How is that defending what America stands for?

Also note that this bill will add to the list of things that can deny you of your Second Amendment rights, won't be the last.

Non Smoking Cigar Bars? Only in America

CO, in the midst of an anti-smoking fury, will now make it illegal to smoke in cigar bars. See there are three kinds of poor ideas, misguided, dumb, and radically stupid. This ban falls into the "radically stupid" category. While I've written before on smoking bans (one, two, three), I couldn't let this pass.

"Cigar Bar" folks, the name says it all. If you don't want to be around smokers, it's hard to imagine a better warning label than "This is a cigar bar." I also have a hard time imagining that non-smokers (like me) feel like their favorite cigar bar is being ruined by the smokers.

Yes, the article says that some bars will try to abuse the exemption. But look, if you're doing $50,000 in tobacco revenue, or even 5% of your total revenue, no matter how you slice it, your customers are smokers. It's really hard to imagine that such places are running off their non smoking customers. Either they don't have many, or the non-smokers don't care (more on this).

Then there's McLieberman's comment to another entry.

The right to smoke is one thing, there is however, a legitimate case to made for protecting employees. It is one thing to socially avoid establishes that allowed smoking but without a smoking ban, barteneders and waitresses will be in unhealthy environments in order to make a living.

This is a very typical reason for the ban, its just not a good one. First, no one is forcing anyone to work in a smoking establishment. You could say that in a high unemployment environment, people will choose jobs that are physically damaging because they have to eat. One, that's just not the case today, nor really, ever. Second, if you close cigar bars, your taking jobs out of the market. Just no way to argue against that, and how does that help. But here's the thing. This well intentioned argument overlooks one simple question, "What if the employee doesn't care?" Or for that matter, what if the non-smoking customers don't care? Everyone in the country (except for Mr Malone) knows that smoking is harmful, yet there are millions of smokers and some of them even have non-smoking friends. They've all made a choice. Why take that choice away from employees and customers? An employee/friend/customer may not care, may not believe, or may be aware enough to know that if the damage of actual smoking can be reversed after a year of quitting, then surely the damages of second hand smoke can be reversed too. Speaking of, the dangers of second hand smoking are hardly proven, so why eliminate jobs that people want just because you happen to be worried? Why mess with the market? Why should your whim matter that much? If enough people are worried about working in a cigar bar, then the cost of labor will have to go up until it reaches a point where people will take the job. Its a self-correcting mechanism. Honestly, if McLieberman really believes his argument he should be looking to ban smoking period. He should be worried about spouses, children and friends of the smoker.

Look, I think smoking is a nasty habit. I think it will greatly increase your chances of not reaching your natural age. I think smokers are pawns to a very well thought out advertising campaign that makes it seem rebellious to do exactly what billion dollar multi-national corporations want you to do. That's just genius. But I also like it because its the closest thing to an "I'm a moron" sign that I can get people to wear. In any group, scan the room, pick out the smokers, and you'll find your morons. It saves loads of time.

However, smoking is legal and smokers are legal. The anti-smoking movement is slowly making a legal product illegal without ever tackling the issue head on. The tactic is underhanded and dangerous. Just because you may not be a smoker, doesn't mean that you can or should look the other way.

By the way, rented "Thank You for Smoking." Great movie. Also a great book.

Run RNC

The RNC and the White House want it both ways on the e-mail issue. Law states that staffers doing political work cannot use their White House email, which is why they all have parallel RNC emails (and also why every Congressman has an office just off the Hill to do political/fund-raising work). Hence, if you're doing the work of the people (all of them, not just Republicans) then you use the White House address, if its political, or personal use something different. Everyone knows this, its the law. Using the WH address gives you protections, but is also more public, and you have to obey the law. Using another address surrenders protections, but is more private, and you have to obey the law. Assuming everyone obeyed the law, RNC emails are just another private account independent of the WH. Why should the WH care? Clearly they weren't under WH jurisdiction, or they would have had a WH address. So why then is the White House insisting on having all relevant RNC email's reviewed by WH lawyers before Congress gets them? The way I understand it, the RNC is a private organization with open membership. Clearly some members of the RNC work for the WH, just as some members of AAA work for the WH. However, the way I remember my high school civics, Congress and the White House are equal. So why, in an investigation of a NGO, should the White House get preferred treatment? Unless, of course, WH staffers and RNC staffers were co-mingling their jobs. Maybe giving the RNC inside information or extra access to the WH, who knows? Just speculation, but my bet is that the 5 million "lost" emails aren't all related to Gonzo's woe's. More likely, there are/were many, many embarrassing and potentially illegal emails among and besides the AG references.

But in a legal investigation, the WH can't jump in front of a subpoena just because it may be embarrassed by its own actions. Equal branches boys and girls.

Sometimes lawyers make good points

"My question is, if he fired the guy who fired us, why is he standing by the dismissals?"

Fired Seattle AG John McKay regarding US AG Alberto Gonzales' handling of both the AG firing and his firing of Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson.

Of course McKay is famous for his great quotes. One of the all time best from his days as Head Coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers when asked about his team after another loss,

"What do you think about your team's execution?"
McKay responded, "I'm all for it!"

UPDATE: Lafayette Marijuana and Judge

Quick update on a recent post about Lafayette Judge Leonard Frieling's decision to step down in protest of the city's decision to increase the penalty for possession of less than one ounce 10 fold from $100 to $1000 and up to one year in jail.

First the Honorable Judge Frieling responded to our post, meaning much like the Libertarian party boasts on and on about their sheriff, we can now claim an actual Judge among H-Blog readers!

Speaking of Judges, on to the update. As Judge Frieling says in his now famous reply to the post, the City of Lafayette reversed course and withdrew the Ordinance. Judge Freiling's decision to step down, and not "work from the inside" (really bad comment on my part, since when have I not championed the bold gesture?) was clearly the catalyst. The resulting media attention and resulting local outcry killed the ordinance. We at Hydrablog humbly accept our small role in this action (the great thing about a group blog like Hydrablog is that those contributers who don't support an action pressed by another, are along for the ride. So while the rest of the H-blog gang may not support the Council's Ordinance withdrawal, we're all in it together. Much like when Stalin finally pulls off replacing the Star Spangled Banner with Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" as our national anthem, I'll be dragged along with him.).

Some fun facts.

53% of Lafayette citizens supported Colorado Amendment 44 , which would have decriminalized possession of less than that very ounce that the City Council wanted to increase the penalty for holding. Much like the South Dakota Abortion Bill, this shows a real disconnect between legislators and citizen.

"Lafayette Judge Marijuana" gets 123,000 hits on Google. Again, Judge Frieling's decision to step down was the correct one.

Again, with the disconnect between the city council and the citizens, all it took was the right catalyst to get everyones attention. 123,000 Google hits was more than enough to alert the Lafayette citizens that their legislators weren't acting in accordance with their wishes. And the the 123,000 hits came from on man's decision to take action. This is also the time to congratulate the City Council for reversing course rather than stubbornly continue down a path at odds with the citizenry. Believe it or not, this is roughly how a democracy is supposed to work.

But Seriously...Life?

The thing about the Michigan Life for Adultery article is that it highlights what I think is one of the biggest problems facing the nation, or not if you like the direction. As I've written before I see an increasing trend towards "Judging from the Assembly" (I'm still playing with the words, I need to hire Frank Lutz) which is the opposite side of the coin from "Legislating from the Bench." The interpretation by Judge William Murphy, sarcastic or not, shows the damage that taking a "literal" interpretation of statues "regardless of the consequences" is not only stupid, but un-American. To take a literal interpretation means you believe the same group of people that routinely garner low 30's in approval rating (I'm not sure what MI's Assembly gets, but I got a dollar that says its max low 50's) can write laws that cover every possible situation while sitting in their office, writing bills, amending them, and passing them is not only naive, but stupid. What happens is that statute exceptions are too many, too cumbersome, poorly written, and overlooked, and a "blanket" rule is passed because its easier to encompass everything than deal with reality. The problem is that its not a security blanket, its a plastic bag.

The Court system insures that common sense prevail in extraordinary circumstances, it is also an independent Third Branch of government. What's the point of having an independent judiciary if they can't be independent? Saying the Court must interpret statutes literally, combined with mandatory sentencing takes away that independence and robs We The People of one of our great protections.

This is what happens when everyone goes all aflutter and buys into the media hype about "Activist Judges." Less freedom for all.

Life in Prison for Adultery?

Michigan Judge says "maybe."

My question? How's that worse than a life sentence of marriage?

Wow, my wife walked right into that one, like shooting fish in a barrel.

"N" word no-no and a dog

I'm on a bit of a state and local government kick, so bear with me.

First, found this article on Foxnews.com (I'm waiting for my high-five Mr. Malone) about a small town, Brazoria, Mayor in Texas named Ken Corley who wants to make using the "n" word a $500 fine, but only if its used in "an offensive fashion." And what's the threshold for "offensive?"

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

Hmmmmm. How does it protect those who use this horribly offensive word as a "term of endearment" if the deciding factor is someone else's feelings or interpretation? I may call Muscles for Justice a "serial rapist" and mean it with the most love, but if files a complaint I get charged. So just how was I "protected?"

I love it when unconstitutional laws are also poorly thought out and written.

Over in Washington State, State Senator Ken Jacobsen introduced a bill that would allow dogs in bars with their owners. Two things I want to point out. One, as in other posts, however silly, I like to point out and give an H-Blog Hear Hear to anyone who attempts to roll back government. While hardly a cornerstone of the Libertarian platform, or the Senator Jacobsen's motivation, allowing bar/restaurant owners to decide if they want dogs in their establishments, and allowing patrons to decide if they want to eat and drink there is a step in the right direction. Two, if this bill passes into law, dogs will be allowed in bars and restaurants, but not smokers. I'll give you, the reader, the final comment on that as we head into break.

XM X-ed out?

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled that the music industry lawsuit against XM + mp3 can proceed. The gist? The industry says XM is infringing on their rights by allowing users to record broadcast music on their mp3, XM says their protected by existing law saying people can record music onto tape players for personal use. Are too, am not, etc.

First off, I have to admit I don't know much about the technology, don't own a satellite receiver and don't listen to much radio (aren't I fun?). Given that, here's my take.

As you know, I do think that technology changes things. So I get that a cassette recording is different than mp3, with the mp3 having the potential to be mass distributed in a way cassette's never could. So crux one for me is the exportability of the mp3's derived from the satellite's feed. If there is none, then I think this is a dead issue, if it's there (and not, "You have to be a super geek to make it work") then I think the industry has a point. Unless, obviously you can record mp3's from regular broadcasts, then it loses that point. I'm a fickle pointer.

However, I think the music industry is making a huge mistake with this. I don't know the history of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (the act that allows you to record from broadcast) but I assume that the music industry was going through one of it's periodic troughs and freaked out that people were recording songs from the radio, killing sales (funny how it's never simply that the industry is putting out bad music, or is in transition from one fad to the next). Anyway, lots of hullabaloo from all sides and presto the AHR comes about. My point is this, cassette recording for private use didn't destroy the industry. I think it's unlikely that mp3's will either.

However, mp3's may save it. Personally, and I get that I'm probably not mainstream, most of my listening at home and car comes from my iPod. I'll occasionally listen to the radio but mostly I don't like their mixes and few things bug me more than radio banter. A close second is when I finally do hear a new song that I like and, despite all the banal banter, no one tells me who it was. So off I go, definitely not buying a new song for my iPod. However, let me record it on the spot, and I can take the time to figure out who it is, or better yet my understanding is that XM tells you right on the screen who it is. Now I can go by a song or album. Isn't that good for the music industry? Furthermore, with XM I can listen to music broken down by my favorite genre (Come onnnn Hair Metal - make that comeback!). Thus I'm more likely to hear a new song I like and go buy that one. Again, isn't that good for industry? Rather than look at this as a threat, see it for what it is, the future. And not necessarily a bad future, if the industry embraces it, XM can actually help boost sales, even XM + mp3.

But I don't expect that. The music industry is famously backward looking. It's also fearful. Despite all the panic about mp3's and digital downloading, I own exactly zero pirated songs. Granted I know some folks that were big into back in the day, but now even the biggest of them doesn't do it. iTunes is a buck, and it's great quality, why bother? Plus people are basically law abiders. But even if someone has a handful of "Pirated" songs, odds are they've bought a whole bunch legally. I know I've bought more music over the last three years than I did in the three years previous to the purchase of my first iPod. The music industry needs to quit fighting customer service and add-on features and embrace them. Expand the market by offering more, don't shrink it by offering less.

CO prepared to side-step Electoral College

CO's Senate is preparing to vote on a bill that would enter the state into an agreement with other states to give all of their respective Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote (Yayyy!) while CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just vetoed a similar bill (Awwww.).

The idea is backed by a group cryptically called "National Popular Vote" and they claim that they have bills sponsored in 29 states (As a quick side note, they discuss CA right up to the point where Arnie vetoes it, and they still list CA as one of the states. Maybe technically true, but I wasn't able to find anything about the the bill's sponsors looking to override the veto.)

Anyhoo, I'm for the bill. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College, I think we have more than enough technology to allow for direct voting. I also don't but the argument that the EC makes small states relevant (no democrat campaigns in Wyoming and no Republican campaigns in Rhode Island, in fact nobody campaigns in either - Cheney doesn't count.), while the fact is that the current system makes all but a few key states irrelevant, and renders democrats in Texas and Republicans in NY completely irrelevant.

Since I doubt that I'll ever see a formal scrapping of the EC, I support this as the next best option. Hopefully if this passes with enough numbers, we'll go ahead and get rid of the thing altogether.

All Day Happy Hour?

Don't know why I'm on this alcohol bender, but here's one more.

SC's State House is getting ready to vote on a bill allowing all day drink specials (but still not less than half-price), as opposed to just one hour.

Beyond a rant long time readers (Hi Ma!) can now probably write for me, I'm stuck trying to figure out why the first law exists in the first place (and why the "not less than half-price" condition). My first thought was that it was some kind of prohibition left-over, but the fine, "at least three months in jail and a fine of $100" seems more modern. Anyway, the only thing I found particularly interesting about this is that I didn't know that the concept of "Happy Hour" was bracketed by law.

Steve Horner wants no friends

Apparently attempts to draw large amounts of inebriated women to one location deeply offends Mr Horner, and he's mad as hell and he's not taking it anymore. So Mr Horner filed suit to stop "ladies night" at bars in Colorado.

Why? Well legally its because he's being "discriminated" against. Funny, I didn't know that bitter, women hating divorcee was a protected minority. But the real reason? The article says that Mr Horner has "been on an anti-feminist crusade since his wife left him with two young children several years ago." Yes, clearly the feminist ideal that Gloria Steinem envisioned was, in fact, half-price drinks for ladies at bars across America, all the better if a wet t-shirt contest is thrown in. Well done Mr Horner, you've struck a direct and devastating blow against feminism! What will Ms Steinem do now that feminism has been set back so? (As a side, my bet is that Ms Steinem was no big fan of "ladies night," potentially throwing this into the upper reaches of the comedy scale.)

At the risk of putting words in Mr Horner's mouth (and also at the risk of killing the comedic genius of such mighty calls to arms as, "I will now make it a point to visit as many ladies nights as I can every week. I'll have my rights violated, then I'll sue them in county court and collect my $500 (the maximum penalty in county court for each incident of discrimination)...I feel it could net me $3,000 to $4,000 a week easy, and I'm going to do it"), I think he means that he's been on an "anti-women" crusade since his wife left him several years ago. Why anyone would want to leave such a fun loving guy is a real mystery.

Now ladies night may be a thing of the past (I think a bigger hit that the smoking ban). Soooo, to summarize, in the era before Mr Horner, ladies night meant that women got half-priced drinks, men got to hit on drunk women, and the world was a happier place once a week. Mr Horner, doing his best to bring back the He-Man Women Hater's Club, felt that this was an abomination, sued, won, and now ladies night is at risk. Wow, what a guy. He doesn't like ladies and has now ruined a good thing for all those who do. That's it, I hereby revoke his "guy" card. Revocation of said card means that guys everywhere are free to wedgie, wet willie, and titty twist (aka "Purple Nurple") Mr Horner at will, with the addition of a maximum of one swirly a week.

Lest we think he's done, Mr Horner adds, "It takes me five minutes to be discriminated against." Yes, and five seconds to sound like a complete idiot.