|
Friday, August 29, 2003
Commenting
Just noticed that Rate Your Music and YACCS are down due to a server failure. If you wish to post comments to my journal, you can use the Livejournal feed. Once YACCS has been restored, I will recopy any responses into my regular comments section.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Standing armies among us?*
Back to Iraq writes about how the Pentagon is breaking with yet another tradition. Quoting Christopher, "instead of specific theater ribbons, which is a military tradition going back over a century, Afghanistan and Iraq -- and presumably future conflicts -- will instead be folded into the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal." Among the advantages to the administration, describing Iraq and Afghanistan as just further battles in a continuing war provides a defense against accusations that we're losing.
I forwarded this story to Ian, and he noticed a far more significant point buried within the original Army Times article:
The Expeditionary Medal will recognize service in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Service Medal will recognize duty in Operation Noble Eagle, the homeland defense mission against further terror attacks, as well as duty in support of operations...
This was the first I heard of Operation Noble Eagle, so I started searching for more info. (Should I feel paranoid that so many of the pages are gone and only Google caches remain?) So far, I've only found descriptions of it in press releases. "Operation Noble Eagle...
Isn't this a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it a criminal act to use the military for domestic law enforcement!?
18 U.S. Code, Section 1385: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
Here are some facts about posse comitatus, from military and legal education sites:
I just thank Gd that the military swear their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, before promising to obey Presidential orders.
*Title of this post comes from the Delcaration of Independence. This was originally to be part of a longer post, but the more I looked into this, the more I thought this needed to stand alone so it wouldn't get lost in the shuffle.
How do you say that?
Having been a rather bookish person since childhood, I've often been troubled by words where I understand the definitions perfectly, but don't know the proper pronounciation. This comes from having only ever seeing the word in print and never hearing it. It's embarrassing, but I've found it's a not uncommon trait among avid readers.
This evening, Ian and I wandered over to a nearby chain bookstore to flip through Al Franken's new book. I came upon a passage that particularly tickled me, and started to read it aloud to Ian. After stumbling over one particular word several times, I realized that I didn't know how to pronounce the word "miscegenation."
And you know, I don't think that's a bad thing.
The fact that an educated, well-informed adult in modern society can't recall hearing the word "miscegenation" enough to know how it's pronounced... Well, to me, it's a positive sign that shows how far attitudes have evolved, since the concept has become so alien that we no longer need a word for it.
BTW, I don't buy so many books any more because I start far more books than I ever finish. Because my tastes have gotten so picky and the odds so long (plus other reasons), I generally find it sufficient to wait for a library copy and just buy the ones I like. But flipping through Lies and the Lying Liars, I was so tempted to just buy it on the spot... I talked myself out of the store by pointing out to myself that it was a chain, and there are so many good independent stores in the Boston area that I can at least wait to get to one of those.
Graven error: two quotes about the Alabama monument
This is another issue I've avoided discussing, because it will either get long and pedantic or emotional and inflammatory, and so many others in the blogosphere are handling those extremes so well, I don't feel like expending the energy.
But I simply can't let these two quotes slip by without drawing attention to them. I shall, however, post them without comment, to let y'all draw your own conclusions:
- "They can move it out of view but they can't move it out of our hearts," said Rick Moser, 47, of Woodstock, Ga.
- -- Associated Press via Sisyphus Shrugged
- "Get your hands off our God, God haters!" yelled the wildly gesturing, red-faced man.
- -- FoxNews via Tom Spencer/Thinking it Through
It's hard not to respond to those quotes, but I'm trying to just let them speak for themselves.
As an addendum, I am amused by South Knox Bubba's eBay find.
You heard it here first
Compare the following quotes:
Nobody ever said compassionate conservatives are colorblind. On the Bush '04 campaign's new Web site, there is a "photo gallery" feature for each of the president's policy priorities. In the "compassion" photo gallery, 16 of the 20 shots feature Bush with non-white faces (the other four are studies of Bush). By contrast, all 16 of the photos in the "environment" gallery display what appear to be white complexions.
[Bush's] re-election site features a "Photo Album" section, grouped by topic. Every Single Photo in the Compassion section features him surrounded by people of black or brown skin. Twenty photos and the only ones without non-Caucasian faces are pictures of Bush standing alone, one of which is set before the National Urban League and the other in front a map of Africa. <snip> If the whole site showed such diversity, that would be a positive. However, <snip> I think there's one African American park ranger off to the side in one photo of the 16 on the Environment.
Does age matter?
I wasn't going to comment on the Arnold Schwarzenegger interview, but then I started to notice a curious familiarity in how it's being reported and spun:
The Smoking Gun discovered that California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger made revealing comments about his sex life (including a gang bang) and drug use (grass and hash) in 1977, when he was 29 years old.[*] Pundits and (GOP) supporters are defending Schwarzenegger by pointing out how young he was, that it took place so long ago (the times were different then), and that it's over -- therefore it shouldn't be relevant to the electorate or newsworthy.[*][*]
In 1998, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Salon.com revealed that House Judiciary Committee Chairman had a five year extramarital affair beginning in 1965, when he was 41 years old[*][*]. He discounted his actions as a "youthful indiscretion." (GOP) supporters defended Hyde by pointing out how young he was, that it took place so long ago (the times were different then), and that it's over, -- therefore it shouldn't be relevant or newsworthy.
During the 2000 election, reporters revealed
Texas governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush lied about an undisclosed DUI arrest in 1976, when he was 30[*]. Also, Bush said that he hadn't used illegal drugs in the previous 25 years, but refused to answer any questions about drug use before 1974, when he was 28.[*] Campaign staff made a great deal out of the fact that Bush gave up drinking on his 40th birthday. And Bush has discounted his actions as "youthful mistakes." Again, (GOP) supporters defended Bush by pointing out how young he was, that it took place so long ago (the times were different then), and that it's over -- therefore it shouldn't be relevant or newsworthy.
Are you beginning to spot a pattern here?
I might not mind so much if they held everyone to this standard, but they don't. How often have they slammed Bill Clinton for things he was alleged to have done in 1969 -- earlier and younger than any of the above? How many of them have worked to try minors -- children under 18 -- in the adult criminal courts, rather than through the juvenile system? (Under Jeb Bush, Florida sentenced a 12-year-old to life in prison without parole!)[*] And how many support the death penalty for minors? I could go on and on with the punitive measures recent Republicans have enforced upon youthful offenders, but why bother repeating them all? You get the point.
Consistency is in short supply with this crew. We all know that. The ongoing litany of offenses by Enron, Harken, Halliburton and others that involve administration officials dwarf even the most outlandish accusations of Whitewater. Obstruction of justice? Contrast Cheney's attempts to sabotage a congressional investigation into his office[*] to Sidney Blumenthal, who Ken Starr investigated over merely talking to the press. For that matter, compare the privileges and secrecy and confidentiality this administration is claiming (remember, they're our government) to the way others in the GOP went all the way to the Supreme Court to force staffers and Secret Service agents to testify... Disgusting.
It's an attitude of win-at-all costs opportunism, using whatever argument is necessary at the time. No principles involved beyond victory. And they're supposed to be the conservative ones?
BTW, going back to the issue of youthful GOP offenders, last month Ashcroft ordered federal prosecutors to file reports with the DOJ any time any judge gives a more lenient sentence[*]. Maybe they ought to start with the one who bent over backwards for Jenna and Barbara Bush[*].
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Amusing but impractical
I just discovered the medieval vocational personality test:
 | Your distinct personality, The Benevolent Ruler might be found in most of the thriving kingdoms of the time. You are the idealistic social dreamer. Your overriding goal is to solve the people problems of your world. You are a social reformer who wants everyone to be happy in a world that you can visualize. You are exceptionally perceptive about the woes and needs of humankind. You often have the understanding and skill to readily conceive and implement the solutions to your perceptions. On the positive side, you are creatively persuasive, charismatic and ideologically concerned. On the negative side, you may be unrealistically sentimental, scattered and impulsive, as well as deviously manipulative. Interestingly, your preference is just as applicable in today's corporate kingdoms. |
I'm somewhat amused by the final sentence. So, has anybody heard of any openings for benevolent rulers in today's job market? I intend to ignore any suggestions involving candidacy for governor of California or president of the United States, as I do not qualify for either at the present time (five months too young for the latter).
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
IANAL, but can get anal when I want...
Over the weekend, I noticed some bloggers describing (yet another) disturbing clause in the proposed VICTORY Act, which would (in the words of WIRED):
Remove gradations of sentencing for those convicted of selling amphetamines so that anyone convicted of possessing more than 250 meth pills would automatically go to jail for 200 years
Amphetamines are often prescribed for treatment of attention deficit disorders. At a dosage of three pills per day, that could criminalize anybody possessing a 90-day supply of their medication. It all depends how narrowly or broadly the proposed law was written.
I had to research this. And I think, though I'm not certain, that for once the reality isn't as scary as the rumors. The law's still not great, but the portion attributed to the VICTORY Act is not as bad as threatened.
Here's what I came up with, if you would like to doublecheck my logic. [Or, follow this link to skip directly to my conclusion.]
Via Patriotwatch, I found a full text draft of the VICTORY Act. This appears to be the relevant text (or, at least, it's the only one that mentiones amphetamines):
| Page | Line |
| 61 | 8 | SEC. 306. RESTORATION OF ORDERLY GRADATION OF SEN- |
| 9 | TENCES TO PUNISH LARGE-SCALE DRUG |
| 10 | TRAFFICKERS. |
| 11 | | (a) IN GENERAL.-Pursuant to its authority under |
| 12 | | section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accord- |
| 13 | | ance with this section, the United States Sentencing Com- |
| 14 | | mission shall, not later than 30 days after the date of en- |
| 15 | | actment of this Act, amend section 2D1.1(c) of the Fed- |
| 16 | | eral sentencing guidelines, and related policy statements- |
| 17 | | | (1) with respect to heroin, other Schedule I or |
| 18 | | | II opiates, cocaine, other Schedule I or II stimu- |
| 19 | | | lants, cocaine base, PCP, PCP (actual), LSD, other |
| 20 | | | schedule I or II hallucinogens, fentanyl, fentanyl |
| 21 | | | analogue, marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, to re- |
| 22 | | | store base offense levels 40 and 42 as they existed |
| 23 | | | prior to amendment 505, which was promulgated by |
| 24 | | | the Sentencing Commission with an effective date of |
| 25 | | | November 1, 1994; and |
| 62 | 1 | | | (2) with respect to methamphetamine, meth- |
| 2 | | | amphetamine (actual), ''Ice'', amphetamine, amphet- |
| 3 | | | amine (actual), Schedule I or II depressants, and |
| 4 | | | flunitrazepam, to provide for appropriate drug quan- |
| 5 | | | tities to be assigned base offense levels 40 and 42, |
| 6 | | | respectively, for amounts above the minimum |
| 7 | | | amounts for these drugs under section 2D1.1(c)(1). |
| 8 | | (b) RESTRICTION.-The Sentencing Commission |
| 9 | | shall not promulgate any amendment that- |
| 10 | | | (1) alters or repeals the amendment described |
| 11 | | | under subsection (a)(1); or |
| 12 | | | (2) is inconsistent with subsection (a)(2). |
|
Pretty cryptic. But here's what I've been able to make out so far:
- From Section 2D1.1(c) of the 2002 Federal sentencing guidelines:
- This seems to cover sentencing guidelines -- mandatory minimums -- for drug offenses, including possession.
- The higher the level, the longer the sentence, as shown in this sentencing table.
- Possession of "[l]ess than 250 [pills] of Schedule I or II Depressants or Schedule III substances" is classified at Base Offense Level 7.
- Possession of 250 but less than 1,000 pills is Base Offense Level 8.
- These are the lowest levels in the drug quantity table, although the guidelines do include other mitigating factors that may raise or lower one's level.
- According to the sentencing table:
- The highest possible sentence at these levels (presuming a lengthy criminal history) is 24 years.
- The lowest possible sentence at these levels (presuming no criminal history) is 0.
- It isn't until Level 9 that the lowest possible sentence actually requires time.
- Level 30 is the lowest level that includes a sentence greater than 200 years (presuming a lengthy criminal history).
- Level 35 is the lowest level that can sentence somebody to 200 years without a criminal history.
- Now, those refer to Schedule II Depressants. Most ADHD medications are Schedule II Stimulants, which are not listed separately but appear to be lumped in with general amphetamines.
- Less that 250 MG of actual Amphetamine or Methamphetamine or 2.5 G of a mixture containing those substances.
- Possession of any of those is a Level 12 offense, base minimum of 10 years.
- The typical dosage for amphetamines to treat adult ADHD ranges from 5 - 25 MG per day. Averaging those to 15 MG/day, that means a 17 day supply is illegal. And I don't see any mitigation on this page for having a doctor's prescription.
- Currently, the highest Offense Level based upon drug quantity of any drug is Level 38.
- The minimum sentence at Level 38 (with no criminal history) is 235-293 years. The maximum sentence can be life.
- For Schedule I or II Depressants, that requires 30,000,000 pills or more.
- For Amphetamines, that requires a 15 KG mixture or 1.5 KG actual.
- From further reading, I have discovered that:
- Drug sentences used to range as high as Level 42 offenses.
- In 1995, Amendment 505 (listed on page 330 of Appendix C) lowered the maximum penalty down to Level 38. [This was then retroactively applied to 1994.] It appears that was part of an effort to flatten some of the disparities between crack and powder cocaine.
- Section 306 of the VICTORY Act, above:
- Section a1 reverses Amendment 505, increasing the highest levels from 38 back up to their pre-1994 levels of 42.
- Section a2 requires the sentencing commission to come up with quantities of amphetimines and Schedule I and II depressants that would qualify for these higher sentences.
Presumably, these would be higher quantities than are currently Level 38 offenses (which I listed at bullet A8 above).
- Section b restricts the Sentencing Commission from ever altering, repealing or modifying the changes in Section a.
Which definitely sucks. [More on that in a minute.]
However, the original accusation was that:
Remove gradations of sentencing for those convicted of selling amphetamines so that anyone convicted of possessing more than 250 meth pills would automatically go to jail for 200 years
First of all, as you may have noticed above, the law measures methamphetamines by weight. The only drugs where number of pills are used to determine sentences are "Schedule I or II Depressants, Schedule III substances (except anabolic steroids), Schedule IV substances, and Schedule V substances"
Under current law, someone can be sentenced to 200 years minimum (Level 35) for possessing over 500G of amphetamines or methamphetamines. That could be done with 250 pills, if each pill contained at least 2 grams of actual amphetamine or methamphetamine. But I believe most prescription doses are measured in milligrams.
From what I read, it looks like they're only increasing the ceiling, not tweaking other intermediary levels. So this provision doesn't/shouldn't modify that.
Now, I may still be wrong. Other provisions in the VICTORY Act reduce other mitigating factors, and may modify the table or increase other penalties.
So, the veracity of the WIRED statement above is still entirely possible, but given all this, seems unlikely.
Mind you, I still don't like that provision in the VICTORY Act.
If the Sentencing Commission had legitimate reasons for lowering the penalties in 1995, then it's the height of hubris for Ashcroft and Hatch to not only overrule their decision, but prevent them from using their own discretion to set sentences in the future. Ashcroft and Hatch need to set forth reasons why such a change is necessary, preferably using actual criminal cases as examples.
Also, the current law seems rather scary for anybody who's taking a controlled substance under doctor's orders, particularly given the way health plans these days use financial incentives to encourage people to fill prescriptions in 90-day increments. A 90-day supply of 15 MG of amphetamines per day is Level 18, punishable by a minimum 27 year sentence for first-time offenders.
I'd really like it if somebody more knowledgable in the law can tell me where and how I've got this wrong, because that can't be right.
I've often heard that ADHD is more prevalent among criminals than in general society. Well, as the slogan goes, if ADHD treatments are outlawed, only outlaws...
Some utterly unsurprising quiz results
Sorry for the dearth of postings lately; once again, real life has intervened. Meanwhile, let me entertain you with:
 Which Silver Screen Siren are you? brought to you by Quizilla
This, of course, gives me yet another opportunity to repeat my favorite Hepburn quote, when she portrayed a librarian in Desk Set:
"Oh, I did a little research on you. You were born in Columbus, Ohio on May the 22nd. That makes you a Gemini. You're a graduate of MIT with a PhD in science. You're a Phi Beta Kappa, although you don't wear your key, which means either that you're modest or you lost it. You spent World War Two in Greenland, working on something so top secret that even I couldn't find out about it. You're one of the leading exponents of the electronic brain in this country and the inventor and patent holder of an electronic brain machine called EMERAC -- the Electromagnetic Memory and Research Arithmetical Calculator. That's all I found out so far, but I only had half an hour."
Customs warning for TorCon attendees
This weekend, WorldCon 61 is being held in Toronto. If you're a USA resident and plan on driving, bring plenty of reading material for the drive back. Hesiod has discovered some confidence-inspiring news. Because the money has run out, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection laid off 27 Customs agents working on the U.S./Canadian Border in Michigan. According to Frank Stanczak, president of the union that represents the workers, Local 46 of the American Federation of Government Employees:
'To pull them on Labor Day is almost unthinkable . . .it means to the public our national security is at stake.'
He said travelers should expect longer lines at border crossings because many of the laid-off inspectors are longtime employees with years of experience.'
I've been in one of those loooong holiday weekend border-crossing lines coming back from a vacation in Canada since 9/11, and it's not pretty under NORMAL staffing levels. [via BT!]
Monday, August 25, 2003
This may be too much information, but...
...I am so not feeling well today. It's a combination of the sudden drop in temperatures over the weekend, an increase in the pollen counts, cramps, an upset stomach, and having gotten insufficient sleep last night because of all those.
I'm rather impressed with myself that I've made it this far in the day, but all I want to do is collapse and go to sleep. But that's not possible for a while yet, as after work I've got to show the apartment to some prospective tenants.
<Yawn>
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Three items on the lighter side:
- Via mactavish, this worksafe photo of pussy eating. [Oh, this should get me on some interesting filters for sure.]
- Yet another demonstration of one of the things I love so much about my husband.
- My results from the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com:
| You are 51% geek |  You are a geek. Good for you! Considering the endless complexity of the universe, as well as whatever discipline you happen to be most interested in, you'll never be bored as long as you have a good book store, a net connection, and thousands of dollars worth of expensive equipment. Assuming you're a technical geek, you'll be able to afford it, too. If you're not a technical geek, you're geek enough to mate with a technical geek and thereby get the needed dough. Dating tip: Don't date a geek of the same persuasion as you. You'll constantly try to out-geek the other. |
Honestly, I'm surprised I scored so low. I initially came out a 46% but Ian pointed out that I forgot one of our TMBG CDs. Also, I disagree with some of the quiz choices -- they list no hybrid cars, pizza qualifies as both, and I counted my Weird Al albums, even though they're on vinyl and cassette rather than CD (I've been listening to his music for that long)
|