Sunday, October 29, 2006

Interesting post on how TV/Movie corporations are getting a bit lawyer-happy, from WindyPundit, using both The Daily Show/Colbert Report and Firefly/Serenity as examples.

Saturday, October 28, 2006


Anyone care for a puppytini?

Monday, October 02, 2006

I concur:

For years, international resentment builds as the Internet has any vestigial connection to the American government, which merely designed and developed the Internet at great expense and then magnanimously gave it to the world gratis....

America and every country around the world have much at risk if the Internet were governed by an incompetent or a politically motivated organization. While many in America would prefer that our government had retained more control over the Internet, many more individuals around the world would prefer to sever all remnants of a relationship between the Internet and America. Icann is far from a perfect administrator of the Internet, but it is far better than the alternative being conceived at the United Nations.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Twins wins Central; Mauer first AL catcher to take batting title

WOOT! After opening the season 25-33, they finished 96-66. Way to go Twins!

A decent (if a tad overbearing at first) editorial by George Will discussing the "stealthy repeal of the First Amendment" otherwise known as Campaign Finance Reform. For those of you who haven't been paying attention, so far about all these laws have done is ensure a heckler's veto over political speech:

When [Washington state's] government imposed a 9.5-cents-per-gallon increase in the gas tax, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur of station KVI began advocating repeal by initiative. Proponents of repeal put up a Web site, hoping to raise 1,000 volunteers and $25,000. In two days they had 6,500 and $87,000. Needing 224,880 signatures to put repeal on the ballot, they got 400,996.

Appalled by this outburst of grass-roots democracy, some local governments, which stood to gain many millions from the tax, unleashed a law firm that would gain substantially from handling the bond issues the tax would finance. The firm set out to muzzle Carlson and Wilbur, using the state's campaign regulations.

It got a judge to rule that the broadcasters were not just supporters of the repeal campaign, they were agents of it. Why, they had even used the pronoun "we" when referring to proponents of repeal. Their speech constituted political advertising, and their employer was making an "in-kind contribution" to the repeal campaign. The judge said a monetary value must be placed on their speech (he did not say how, he just said to do it that day). The law says reports must be filed and speech limits obeyed or fines imposed.

It doesn't stop there, of course:

A few people opposed to a ballot initiative that would annex their neighborhood to Parker, Colo., talked to neighbors and purchased lawn signs expressing opposition. So a proponent of annexation got them served with a complaint charging violations of Colorado's campaign-finance law. It demands that when two or more people collaborate to spend more than $200 to influence a ballot initiative, they must disclose the names, addresses and employers of anyone contributing money, open a separate bank account and file regular reports with the government. Then came a subpoena demanding information about any communications that opponents of the initiative had with neighbors concerning the initiative, and the names and addresses of any persons to whom they gave lawn signs. They hired a lawyer. That has become a cost of political speech.

Once again I renew my objection(s) to the abomination of the McCain-Feingold Act and its censoring ilk.