http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tKh9WX9rQ&feature=player_embedded
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
WTF?! -- you may have seen the crash, but this guy was ON the scene
Watch the driver actually got ejected as the car broke apart, flew off, BOUNCED off the road, slid across THREE LANES of asphalt, landed 10 ft in front of the guy's car as he slid to a stop!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tKh9WX9rQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tKh9WX9rQ&feature=player_embedded
Friday, August 20, 2010
Judicial Tyranny -- is there really such a thing?
A lot of conservatives, esp. Christian right-wing folks, such as Pat Buchanan, wrote that it is nothing less than "judicial tyranny", when Judge Walker overturned California's Prop 8, which banned "gay marriage".
But what exactly *is* judicial tyranny? Nobody is sure exactly. According to wikipedia entry, judicial tyranny can be traced back all the way to Thomas Jefferson, who lamented that a judge, who was often appointed for life, was able to exert his views upon the nation, even though the party that appointed him had long since faded from the scene.
However, that is not how Pat Buchanan used the term. He is basically saying that the judge is defying will of the people. Since he's only one person, and there are bazillion votes in California that said yes to Prop 8, the judge had a tyranny over them.
Let is ignore the issue itself, which is controversial enough, and focus on the "idea" of judicial tyranny, and its cousin, "judicial activism", and its opposite, "judicial restraint".
--------
I had previously wrote that any judge that seem to have acted against the "majority" is considered a "judicial activist". Apparently, a "judicial tyranny" is just an extreme form of "judicial activism", and if the judge simply rule for the majority, he acted with "judicial restraint".
But isn't an activist "good"? Activists are championing a cause, right? So why is "judicial activist" considered an epithet? Is that why they invented this new term "judicial tyranny"?
All laws are passed by the majority, are they not? And if the law is determined to conflict with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the "law" loses by default, correct? After all, it is the law of ALL US of A, not just California. US of A is a BIGGER majority than California, right?
Our Constitution is written so the three branches, judicial, executive, and legislative, can provide checks and balances upon each other (and states). So the judicial branch is expected to act against the legislative and executive branches if they get out of hand, and vice versa. If there was no judicial branch, Congress (legislative) can vote to get rid of all the Latinos, or Chinese, or whoever, and nobody will say anything about it. It is the "majority decision". But it can't be done, because it'd be unconstitutional, and the judicial branch will slap it down.
Judicial branch have the judges, and a judge's job is to interpret law, and if laws are in conflict, resolve the conflict, sometimes by making new interpretations, due to changing circumstances, at other times by striking down some or all provisions within the law. Judges are NOT supposed to care about "will of the people". Indeed, ALL laws reflect "will of the people", but some laws are stronger than others... such as the Constitution.
So does a judge have the power to overturn laws passed by the will of the people? Absolutely. It is given to them in the Constitution. And it is to protect your rights, so the majority can't abuse their power to take away your rights.
Thus, there is no such thing as judicial tyranny, or judicial activism.
What does that leave the people who is screaming "judicial tyranny"?
Sore losers.
--------
Again, this analysis does NOT concern itself with the issues, but merely with the concept of judicial tyranny / judicial activism / judicial restraint. The label has been slapped on too many judges, as political epithets, when judges are apolotical (or at least, is supposed to be).
One more note: judge's influence on the laws are limited to what cases were brought before them, and most courts use random schedules to make sure nobody has an exclusive on certain types of cases. So accusing them of activism, again, to me, is sour grapes.
But what exactly *is* judicial tyranny? Nobody is sure exactly. According to wikipedia entry, judicial tyranny can be traced back all the way to Thomas Jefferson, who lamented that a judge, who was often appointed for life, was able to exert his views upon the nation, even though the party that appointed him had long since faded from the scene.
However, that is not how Pat Buchanan used the term. He is basically saying that the judge is defying will of the people. Since he's only one person, and there are bazillion votes in California that said yes to Prop 8, the judge had a tyranny over them.
Let is ignore the issue itself, which is controversial enough, and focus on the "idea" of judicial tyranny, and its cousin, "judicial activism", and its opposite, "judicial restraint".
--------
I had previously wrote that any judge that seem to have acted against the "majority" is considered a "judicial activist". Apparently, a "judicial tyranny" is just an extreme form of "judicial activism", and if the judge simply rule for the majority, he acted with "judicial restraint".
But isn't an activist "good"? Activists are championing a cause, right? So why is "judicial activist" considered an epithet? Is that why they invented this new term "judicial tyranny"?
All laws are passed by the majority, are they not? And if the law is determined to conflict with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the "law" loses by default, correct? After all, it is the law of ALL US of A, not just California. US of A is a BIGGER majority than California, right?
Our Constitution is written so the three branches, judicial, executive, and legislative, can provide checks and balances upon each other (and states). So the judicial branch is expected to act against the legislative and executive branches if they get out of hand, and vice versa. If there was no judicial branch, Congress (legislative) can vote to get rid of all the Latinos, or Chinese, or whoever, and nobody will say anything about it. It is the "majority decision". But it can't be done, because it'd be unconstitutional, and the judicial branch will slap it down.
Judicial branch have the judges, and a judge's job is to interpret law, and if laws are in conflict, resolve the conflict, sometimes by making new interpretations, due to changing circumstances, at other times by striking down some or all provisions within the law. Judges are NOT supposed to care about "will of the people". Indeed, ALL laws reflect "will of the people", but some laws are stronger than others... such as the Constitution.
So does a judge have the power to overturn laws passed by the will of the people? Absolutely. It is given to them in the Constitution. And it is to protect your rights, so the majority can't abuse their power to take away your rights.
Thus, there is no such thing as judicial tyranny, or judicial activism.
What does that leave the people who is screaming "judicial tyranny"?
Sore losers.
--------
Again, this analysis does NOT concern itself with the issues, but merely with the concept of judicial tyranny / judicial activism / judicial restraint. The label has been slapped on too many judges, as political epithets, when judges are apolotical (or at least, is supposed to be).
One more note: judge's influence on the laws are limited to what cases were brought before them, and most courts use random schedules to make sure nobody has an exclusive on certain types of cases. So accusing them of activism, again, to me, is sour grapes.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
RANT: Someone who knows just enough to be dangerous
Image via WikipediaFirst, Ross claims ST:TNG is anti-religion. His evidence? One episode of ST:TNG.
"Such a story [TNG: Who Watches the Watchers?] is so blatantly hostile to theistic religion, that it is astonishing that it provoked neither comment nor protest. Perhaps the messages contained in science fiction television are simply not noticed."
Perhaps Ross failed to recall that 1) in the episode The Mintakans have no god (that we've seen), but are superstitious, until the main character got the incomplete mind wipe and decided "the Picard" is their god. 2) Liko was about to sacrifice Troi (disguised as a Mintakan), due to a storm which he believe "the Picard" had sent to demonstrate his anger. That was only averted when Picard returned to offer proof that he is mortal, not god.
This episode is about trying to REPAIR the damage to Prime Directive. Picard is NOT a god, and refuse to be treated as one. The episode is NOT anti religion, but anti-belief-of-someone-who-is-not-god-as-god. Didn't one of the Ten Commandments read "Thou shall not worship false gods before me"? Mintakans are not prohibited from believing in god. Mintakans were just pursuaded to not worship Picard as god. If they choose to believe some other deity of their own creation, that is their choice to do so.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Interesting: does Circuit Court of Appeals even HAVE jurisdiction regarding AZ?
According to this article, a lawyer, based on direct reading of constitution, says that ANY lawsuit involving the state as a party must be filed with the SUPREME COURT, not Court of Appeals.
"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 [of US Constitution] says:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
How can Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US of A, not know this part of the US Constitution?
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal
"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 [of US Constitution] says:
How can Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the US of A, not know this part of the US Constitution?
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal
Friday, July 23, 2010
RANT: when health Gestapos strike
Image via WikipediaThe story begins with a famous taco truck of San Francisco, the "Tonayense", is parked near a school. The problem with this fact: the truck was there first. Really. The school opened later.
So what's wrong with the taco truck parked near a school? It's actually against city law. Sometime in 2007, San Francisco city council passed a law prohibiting any "mobile food vendors" from selling food within 1500 ft of any school, to complete the "wellness policy" of schools, advocated by a "parents group".
(For comparison, most restraining orders against domestic abuser only require the abuser to stay 500 ft away from the victim)
So why was this policy in place? The advocacy group claims that 1) the mobile food vendors sell unhealthy food 2) it creates two classes of students: those that can afford to dine outside, and those who don't 3) it hurts the school cafeteria by depriving it of income.
The principal of the school in question had NO complaint about the taco truck at all. He eats there almost every day, and he had seen NO STUDENTS AT ALL. Several city papers also staked out the place. No students.
As for the claims... A1) The tacos and burritos and whatnot are no less healthy than any national fast food stores A2) only seniors in the high school are allowed off campus for lunch, and almost all of them consider the taco truck too expensive A3) San Francisco school policy for cafeteria is to feed EVERY student that comes through, whether they can pay or not, so cafeteria CANNOT be hurt by students eating elsewhere. It is not in the money earning business any way.
The taco truck was forced to move two blocks, but not before it raised a stink through a series of hearings, and many charges and counter-charges of misrepresentation, lies, and whatnot in public.
Much ado about nothing, I say.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
D*** opportunists; looters in protest rallys
Any time there is some sort of a large protest rally, some opportunists and anarchists have to spoil the cause.
The Mehserle trial in Los Angeles returned an "involuntary manslaughter w/ gun enhancement" guilty verdict. So what happens in Oakland? A peaceful rally starting a 6PM allowed people to get out of downtown Oakland if they want to... And the supports and anarchists and looters to gather about. Once it gets dark (9PM) the mess started.
The threat is from all over. The anarchists are instigating incidents by cheering on and starting attacks on police. Oakland PD exercised considerable restraint when they retreated one block after another at about 7PM to establish perimeter around the area. However, when it's dark, the police are concentrating on the main group, trying to contain them to downtown, and picking up the instigators / anarchists whenever possible. Then the bands of looters started to appear... Groups of 6-10 wearing hooded sweatshirts (known as "hoodies") with the hood up rushed shoe stores, phone stores.. Nothing too expensive to require extensive alarm, but contains something desirable. TV cameras covered a Foot Locker getting looted, and the damn looters are brave enough to rush in EVEN WHEN SURROUNDED BY CAMERAS. One even got his hood up as he ran in.
Volunteers in downtown, armed with just cellphones and their voice, yelled at potential looters, most of whom when on to search for unobserved shops to loot. And other OPD units are on hand chasing down looters.
And the tally says it all: more than half arrested are NOT Oakland residents.
The Mehserle trial in Los Angeles returned an "involuntary manslaughter w/ gun enhancement" guilty verdict. So what happens in Oakland? A peaceful rally starting a 6PM allowed people to get out of downtown Oakland if they want to... And the supports and anarchists and looters to gather about. Once it gets dark (9PM) the mess started.
The threat is from all over. The anarchists are instigating incidents by cheering on and starting attacks on police. Oakland PD exercised considerable restraint when they retreated one block after another at about 7PM to establish perimeter around the area. However, when it's dark, the police are concentrating on the main group, trying to contain them to downtown, and picking up the instigators / anarchists whenever possible. Then the bands of looters started to appear... Groups of 6-10 wearing hooded sweatshirts (known as "hoodies") with the hood up rushed shoe stores, phone stores.. Nothing too expensive to require extensive alarm, but contains something desirable. TV cameras covered a Foot Locker getting looted, and the damn looters are brave enough to rush in EVEN WHEN SURROUNDED BY CAMERAS. One even got his hood up as he ran in.
Volunteers in downtown, armed with just cellphones and their voice, yelled at potential looters, most of whom when on to search for unobserved shops to loot. And other OPD units are on hand chasing down looters.
And the tally says it all: more than half arrested are NOT Oakland residents.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
RANT: Presenting opinions as facts
Image via Wikipedia"No. A [no]CD crack is not illegal. It's just a simpler way to play your games if the game requires you to have the CD in the drive every time you play. If the disk is scratched and isn't working properly, then it would be highly unfair to need to purchase the game all over again. [no]CD cracks just bypass a ridiculous, unneeded, annoying process.The problem here is out of the five sentences, there are no less than FOUR opinions, or hypothesis, when there should be only one, the hypothesis that the subsequent facts are supposed to prove or support. You can't prove an opinion with more opinions.
CD cracks are available LEGALLY at gamecopyworld.com"
-- larry.riverside, on Yahoo!Answers, in response to "Are no-CD cracks illegal?"
- "CD cracks is not illegal" is the hypothesis and an opinion. That is what he's trying to prove.
- "CD cracks makes your life simpler, so you don't have to insert the media every time" is a fact.
- "If you damage your CD media, you should not have to buy the media again" is an opinion. "Should" indicates an opinion.
- "CD Crack just bypass an annoying process [copy protection]" is an opinion. If he had written "CD crack bypasses copy protection", that would be a fact.
- "CD cracks are available legally at gamecopyworld.com" is an opinion. If he had written "CD cracks are available at gamecopyworld.com" that would be a fact.
In fact, if you rewrite the last two opinions as facts, by taking out the editorial adverbs, they do not support the hypothesis either.
"CD crack bypasses copy protection" does not prove "CD cracks are not illegal".
"CD cracks are available at gamecopyworld.com" does not prove "CD cracks are not illegal".
Thus, the entire argument is a big FAIL.
I have to make one thing clear: this is NOT about the morality of noCD cracks. This is about LEGALITY of noCD cracks. The fact are simple: noCD cracks are in fact illegal, as they violate the "anti-circumvention" provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I think there are some circumstances where noCD cracks are justified, but that is an opinion, not a fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)