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

RANT: when health Gestapos strike

Image via Wikipedia

Health Gestapos are everywhere, and in the name of "healthy kids", they set their sights on... taco truck that no student even patronizes.

The 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.

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.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Oakland Police Make Arrests in Verdict Riots (foxnews.com)
• BART verdict: Oakland damage extensive from unrest; at least 80 arrested (latimesblogs.latimes.com)

RANT: Presenting opinions as facts

Image via Wikipedia

When presenting information, it is VERY important not to present opinions as facts. It ruins the presenter's credibility otherwise. Yet you see people everything failing to separate facts from opinion, and tries to prove an opinion with more opinions. Here is one example:

"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.

CD cracks are available LEGALLY at gamecopyworld.com"
-- larry.riverside, on Yahoo!Answers, in response to "Are no-CD cracks illegal?"

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 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.

The only fact presented, "CD crack makes your life simpler", does NOT support "CD cracks are not illegal". The two are not relevant. The fact does not prove the opinion. There is no "A, therefore B" causality.

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.

China's labor class: doom for the existing government?

The labor class is supposed to be the backbone of any communist society, such as China. Yet, it seems that the labor class has always been the one being exploited in China. According to communists, only those doing honest labor, such as farmers and laborers are "good", and any sort of owner (store owner, land owner) are "bad". Yet the only way the current government earn money is by selling things, and that is mainly done by selling the labor of all the laborers to foreign companies. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, making products to HP, Apple, and so on, using Chinese labor.

The problem with the idea is when the labor class gets tired of being exploited, you have a revolution. Can the government manage the tight-rope walk between exploiting its labor force / citizens, and convincing the outside companies to continue to invest money?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Labor-Day-Foxconn-and-Chinas-Labor-Problem

Related articles by Zemanta

• As China Aids Labor, Unrest Is Still Rising (nytimes.com)
• What China's Labor Unrest Means (time.com)
• Honda Strikes Challenge Beijing's Authority (online.wsj.com)
• Second strike hits China Toyota supplier (reuters.com)

Stupid claims by Gaza activists

The Israeli raid of the so-called "freedom flotilla" trying to run the blockade was a PR disaster for Israel, but some of the accusations by the pro-Gaza activists are just way out of line. The activists have claimed everything from high-seas piracy to unprovoked attack and so on. When they use hyperbole like that, and press cover them, but does not reveal the truth, the media has succumbed to the "spin".

The truth is the flotilla had been warned multiple times they are sailing into an internationally announced blockade of a terrorist organization, Hamas. They were warned before they sailed, after they sailed, AND once again before they entered the blockade area. In fact, the Israelis offered to escort them to Israeli port where the goods can be transshipped to Gaza... after inspection.

The international law on blockade zones is actually pretty simple: if the ship knowingly sails into a blockade zone and/or suspected of carrying contraband, does NOT stop upon being challenged, and/or actively resists being stopped, the ship can be attacked. Frankly, the ship can be SUNK, legally. The Israeli commandos actually exercised considerably restraint as they beat back the the 60-100 metal bar wielding thugs without causing even MORE casualties, other than 9 of the thugs killed.

For what laws are in effect, read this:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Gaza-Aid-Flotilla-and-Israeli-raid-International-law-perspective

Arizona's "Safe Streets" act, i.e. SB1070 -- safe from court challenges

Do you know why Arizon's SB1070 (and its revisions) are safe from any court challenges from ACLU and other organizations?

In order to challenge a law in court, one must demonstrate that the law in question is in conflict with an existing law, and the conflict must be resolved by the court, who then must rule. The resolution can be a full overturn, or explain that there is no conflict, or anything in between. 

The primary approach expected to challenge SB1070 is the preemption argument. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some constitution law scholars claim that Arizona law is preempted by Federal immigration laws. The US Constitution specified that only Federal government may enact and enforce immigration laws, not the states. Thus, Arizona law is preempted by the Federal laws on immigration.

The secondary approach is the rights argument, specifically 14th Amendment, in that States shall pass no law abridging any citizen or lawful resident of their Federally guaranteed rights. Their argument would be that the normal citizen or legal resident rights are violated by SB1070, and therefore SB1070 must be repealed.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-Court-Challenges-to-Arizona-SB1070-will-fail