Ken Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia, and the guy whose court case to declare the universal mandate as unconstitutional just won a victory (granted by a judge who co-owns a consulting firm which represents Republicans trying to kill off the Health Care Act), likens the universal mandate for health insurance to a similar mandate for gun ownership:

Um, Cuccinelli, there has been something like that. It’s called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Remember, this amendment’s draft had a clause for conscientious objection right up until the final draft, and was more a mandate for militia service than anything else.

Now, it did not force everyone to buy a gun–instead, it expected that everyone would want and get one naturally, just as with health insurance today–but neither would the Health Care Act force everyone to buy insurance, as there are hardship exemptions and individual states may opt out of the mandate if they can provide comparable insurance options for their citizens. Massachusetts, which has an individual mandate (thanks, Mitt Romney!) has about 4% of people not signing up for it. In fact, Massachusetts’ plan is popular in the state, with more people signing up than expected, and even the individual mandate is supported by a comfortable majority.

The vehement objections we hear about and the backlash against the legislation are 99% politically motivated (remember, Republicans were for this kind of plan before Obama brought it to realization), and the likelihood will be that most Americans will be glad for the expanded coverage–though not for the gouging that insurance companies and the health care industry in general will (and would have anyway) inevitably attempt. But that’s a battle for another day–me, I would gladly impose cost controls and a profit ceiling for anything related to health care.

It will be interesting to see how the decision Cuccinelli won will stand up to appeal and decisions in other cases, considering the judge’s clear bias, questionable financial conflicts, and the fact that most other judges will not be as quick to supplant the law with their own personal preferences.

As part of some overdue maintenance, I figured I’d check out and empty the Spam box for the blog… and discovered that almost all of it, or at least 60 comment’s worth, was for a single post: The White House White Board post on jobs. Many were the traditional arm’s-length list of spam links, many had the innocuous-sounding “love this place, just peeking in” message along with a site link to spam, several Russian-language spam ads, several longish comments which, when read, are pretty much gibberish (with spam links), and many were the more involved long post on a tangentially-related (if even that) subject which have links (often formatted for forum links styles) to, of course, spam sites.

Makes me glad for spam blockers, despite their occasional inconveniences, and reminds me of the days when blog comment spam was still new and had to be deleted by hand.

By the way, since I brought up the White House White Board, I see they have a new video up–this time on the tax cut issue. Thought I’d put it up here as well.

This one I’m not so crazy about. Obama says that we have to give Republicans the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to save the tax cuts for the middle class, but the truth is if he and the Democrats had not been such idiots from the beginning they wouldn’t have to be doing this. Republicans are still the black hats here, but Obama and the Dems are the dumb sheriff that let them get away with holding up the train in the first place. Obama says we have to give in to the hostage takers–but the first rule of hostage negotiation is that you don’t give in, because that will just encourage them to take hostages every time. And Obama says we’ll fight them in two years–seriously next time, though he was supposed to be serious this time–and the fact is, in two years, the story will be exactly the same as it is now, only the Republicans will be stronger and more emboldened by then.

Olbermann had a good discussion on this the other day.

The Japan Maritime Self Defense Forces have been known in the past to be somewhat, erm, unconventional in their public outreach efforts, such as the infamous dancing-sailors “Seaman Ship” commercial. This time, they’ve come up with an iPhone app to teach you the correct Naval salute, using the phone to test angle, speed, etc. Also, they have this cute video with comic overtones to show how to do it. Nicely done.

Here’s a Canadian columnist’s reaction to the skeptic Centre for Inquiry’s campaign to promote reason:

A group of atheists is planning a national publicity campaign comparing belief in God to belief in Bigfoot, or fairies. … Here’s the question: Why do atheists care what other people believe? … Atheists are defined by their disbelief. i.e. the biggest thing in their life is that they don’t believe in something. But rather than just go around quietly, not believing, Trottier and his pals feel compelled to make other people not believe either. Their only faith is in the rightness of not having faith.

Isn’t that just a bit strange? I don’t happen to believe basketball is that interesting. Sorry, just don’t. I tried, but it bores me. Mainly I just keep it to myself. But if I was Justin Trottier, I’d be out there raising money to run ads in subways and streetcars, trying to convince other people that basketball is boring. The ads would say: “If you think basketball isn’t boring, you have to prove it. Just like Bigfoot.”

Wow. A lot stuff in there which seems to say a lot more about the attitudes held by people like the author than anything else.

First, the idea that for an atheist, “the biggest thing in their life is that they don’t believe in something.” I didn’t know that this had to be the biggest thing in one’s life. What if it’s not? Are you then not an atheist?

But more so, you “don’t believe in something”? Well, everybody does that. Religious people do that almost as much as atheists do–they usually disbelieve in all faiths except one, for example–but they would not characterize it that way. Neither would an atheist, who would say that they believe in reason, fact, science, humanity, etc.

But the most disturbing thing in this article is the idea that it is somehow unreasonable for atheists to spread their beliefs. Now, if this person also equally felt it was unreasonable for religions to do so also, then I could see that–but their whole point is that it is somehow nonsensical to popularize disbelief, meaning that spreading belief is OK.

Part of this stems, it seems, to the mistaken perception that atheism is a negative rather than a positive. But it also comes across as sounding like atheists don’t have the same legitimacy as other belief groups.

The answer to the writer’s question, of course, is the same reason we teach Critical Thinking in college: so people can apply reason to information that comes their way and see life more clearly.

Perhaps it is not surprising that this author sees such a thing as being a bit strange.

“Off” is perhaps one of the most intentionally abused prepositions in Japanese English. “Big Off,” “Off Sale,” “Hard Off,” etc. Here’s another one:

An interesting question to print on a trash can:

Then throw it away.

Well, I had to struggle through in Japanese and deal with reps who like to say “that’s not my department” or the like, but I seem to have resolved that WiMAX simply is not an option for us–yet.

I imagined that we would get the WiMAX account and have a WiFi router at home, while I took a portable pocket WiFi router with me to work, using it on the train and wherever else.

Alas, UQ is having none of that. It turns out that while they allow any number of devices to use a WiFi signal from any WiFi router, and they have an option that allows you to access the same WiMAX account from two different WiFi routers (extra charge for that), they do not allow two WiFi routers to access the same account at the same time.

Meaning that if Sachi is using the Internet at home and I start using it at work, Sachi gets kicked off–and then I get kicked off if she tries to re-establish a connection.

In short, they really just want one location using the connection at a time–a deal-killer for us.

Now, I suppose I can understand this–if they didn’t do that, there would be nothing stopping two friends living in different locations, say, from sharing one account and splitting the difference.

The problem is, WiMAX’s whole appeal is its portability–and not allowing home and away to access at the same time completely obliterates that advantage for anyone who lives with other people. For us to use it the way I’d hoped, I would have to get two accounts. However, that would have zero advantage over simply keeping our current fiber-optic connection and adding WiMAX to it, and we’re not going to pay for two concurrent Internet connections. Not when we’re already paying for mobile data plans to boot. I was ready to give up F/O speeds for portability, but paying double is simply not something I’m willing to do.

Ah well. Now we’ll just have to wait until they come around on that part of things. If they ever do. At this rate, however, 4G/LTE will probably roll around and obviate WiMAX’s advantage before they get their act together. Too bad.

Yes, time for those in the vast majority, who already enjoy their beliefs having predominance in the culture, and who regularly oppress others, to make themselves feel better by acting like they’re the victim: the now-traditional right-wing celebration of the imaginary and invented War on Christmas™.

In the town of Tulsa, OK, the organizers for the annual parade, for the second year running, are calling it a “Holiday” parade instead of a “Christmas” parade. Conservatives are (still) outraged.

If only there were some term that could be used instead of “Holiday” which would include Christmas instead of excluding it!!

Seriously, the question is, why are the wingnuts offended? “Holiday” includes Christmas, so Christmas is not being snubbed. On the contrary, “Holiday” includes everyone, meaning that if you celebrate other traditions, you will now officially be included in the festivities. Using “Christmas” only, and in particular protesting the more general, inclusive term, means that you are offended when other people are included in the celebration.

Essentially, they want to celebrate their holiday alone and tell everyone of differing beliefs to go screw themselves, they’re not welcome. This is America, where only Christianity is welcome, and if you don’t like it, then shut your yap or move to China, you treasonous commie punk.

The rest of us would like a nice, enjoyable celebration for all.

Sorry if the word “bigot” offends anyone, but as they say, if the label fits.

Just wanted to know if anyone reading this has tried WiMAX in Tokyo, knows how to deal with UQ, and can give advice. I am thinking of switching to the service, but their plans are, erm, rather “detailed.” Looks like with a one-year subscription you can get a good rate (¥3,880 per month), but cannot make out the technical details associated with it. They also have a “multiple devices” option, which I would need if Sachi uses the Internet at home while I use it away, but I can’t discern if by “device” they mean a device which changes the WiMAX signal to WiFi, or if they mean a device which gets on the WiFi network created by that device. Huge difference–we have half a dozen computers and mobile devices we would use with WiFi. There’s also a trial you can do for free–as you can imagine, with all these, there are so many details, dealing with just a web form is less than ideal.

I created a special temporary email address, shown in the image below (sorry, even temp addresses get scammed almost immediately); if you have any info, I’d very much appreciate it if you could let me know. Alternately, you could leave information in the comments. Naturally, when and if I get the service myself, I’ll be blogging on the experience.

Thanks!

The whole WikiLeaks thing is becoming a bit ridiculous. Whatever you think of the leak itself, the nature of diplomacy, and the motivations of Julian Assange, how the government is handling the incident is somewhat absurd. I am not speaking of the rather heavy-handed way Assange is being treated–you may find it excusable or even a good idea so as to discourage interruption of diplomatic efforts. Instead, I refer to the way the government is dealing with the spread of the information.

So far, WikiLeaks has been removed from a variety of servers, and various URLs have been revoked. Sorry, but this is rather stupid. If I wanted, it would be child’s play to get the data. Not only did they find an alternate URL (U.S. news outlets link to it in their articles), but mirror sites have popped up all over the Internet. Additionally, file-sharing sites are spreading the documents as well. If you can’t stop the recent cam of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows from spreading like wildfire, how can you stop this? It’s a practice in futility, makes Assange into a martyr, and steels the resolve of people who believe this stuff should be made available. In this day and age, once information is out, it’s out.

Worse, there’s the reaction against Americans reading the WikiLeaks documents. Federal workers and contractors, including all members of the military, have been warned that they must not view the documents. Even college students have been given notice that the documents are off-limits to them as well, and could kill their career prospects–especially if they demonstrate that they have viewed the cables through their posts on social networking sites. Government contractors, trying to stay in line with this campaign, are blocking any URL with “WikiLeaks” in the address, like they’re the Chinese government trying to keep foreign influences away from its people.

This also is nonsensical. Not just because the information is out there, and not just because it would be near-impossible to monitor home usage (or would it?)–instead, it is bizarre because everyone else in the world knows this data, and has access to it. All they’re doing is trying to keep Americans from knowing what their government is doing–which is supposedly the reverse of what such secrecy is usually about, namely keeping the information out of foreign hands. It’s like it was back in the Cold War, when information was already well-known by the Soviets, but the U.S. government kept it classified from its own people. It didn’t make any sense back then, and it makes no more sense now.

All that is being accomplished is that the U.S. government is coming across to its citizens and the world at large as being both inept and oppressive. Were it to simply now treat the information as being “out there”–which it undeniably is–and focus solely on investigating the origin of the leak and the prosecution of those who released it, then they would at least come across as reasonable and responsible in their reaction to the event.

There was a smallish quake a few minutes ago; the initial reading has it as a 4.2 on the Richter scale, and put the epicenter a few miles northeast of Chiba City. We felt it here as a short but solid jolt.

I had my first social-insurance health check in a long time yesterday. In Japan, you have two basic types of public health insurance: first, there’s shakai hoken, which you qualify for if you work more than 30 hours a week, and your employer pays into it along with a pension plan. Then there’s kokumin hoken, which you usually get if you don’t qualify for the first type, and which you have to pay for yourself and has no pension component. For years I’ve been on the latter type, but due to a local redefinition of work done outside the classroom and office, I’ve gotten onto the shakai hoken plan.

One of the fringe benefits of the plan is that the employer also spring for a yearly health check, where you go in and have a battery of tests carried out. I had this check-up years back–I don’t even remember when–but it was not quite as involved as it was this time, as they seem to have added a few new tests. Since it’s standard nationwide, large numbers of people are doing it all the time. So when you go in to have it done, it’s not like you’re doing it alone. When I went in for mine yesterday, I was with the afternoon group–about a hundred or more people. And that’s just the men’s floor.

When you come in, they take the forms you filled out, along with a sample you had to collect at home (ahem, you probably know what unpleasantness I’m talking about), and ask you to take a seat. Then they call you up to the desk and give you a number. You go in to the locker room, strip to your skivvies and change into two-piece jammies with the shirt being a tie-off. You then go back to the main room and sit in the seat with your number on it (I was #23), and wait for the tests to begin. They take urine and blood samples, measure your height and weight, take your blood pressure, give you a chest X-ray, an EKG, vision and hearing tests, and the thing where the doctor listens to your heart and breathing and asks to see your tongue. Between tests, you sit back in your chair, reading the usual waiting room magazine fare–unless you brought your own materials. I seemed to be the only one there who did that–I had my iPad, which was quite nice.

After all those standard tests, there’s one more they seem to throw in for fun: they put you on a motor-controlled X-ray platform starting at a 90-degree angle, so you begin standing up. They then give you a packet of seltzer which you you have to gulp down with what had to be a quarter-teaspoon of water, and then–without burping up any of the air that starts to build up in your stomach–you have to gulp down a large cup of gloopy white barium solution, which at least did not taste terrible, but nonetheless was hard to get down with your stomach bursting with gas. If you belch out any of the gas before the test is done, they make you drink more of the stuff.

But that’s just for starters. Once you have this explosive combination in your stomach, they then start rotating the platform, while demanding that you constantly roll over, again and again, in that small, restricted space, while they call for you to stop at various angles so they can take X-rays before telling you to roll over yet again. For giggles, they roll the platform at all angles, including one where you’re angling down head-first and it’s impossible to hang on without sliding [note to health center: friction pads on the handles would be nice], but they keep taking X-rays until you do. Then just to be thorough, a mechanical arm with a large pad on the end is extended to press down hard on your stomach–and you still better not belch out the gas.

One hopes this is some vital test, because if it’s not, then no way it’s worth it. At some point I gotta find out exactly what that was for. When I got off the stand, I asked the technician, “So am I ready for the Space Program?” He didn’t seem to get it. I then belched, long and loud.

Even that wasn’t the end of it. Despite giving no warning whatsoever in the pre-check materials, they then give you laxatives, so the radium doesn’t stay in your system. This being some time after they asked you to choose whether or not you would stick around an extra hour or two after the exams end to get a consultation with the doctor. I was glad I asked them to mail the results–though I found out that you can change your mind afterwards–because they gave no guarantees on when the laxatives would kick in.

As it happened, I chose correctly–they kicked in just as I arrived home. Had I stayed for the consultation, they easily could have kicked in while I was on the hour-long commute back. That would have been fun.

Further hilarity ensues when, after experiencing what Sachi branded as “the white craps,” you find that the barium solution is damned heavy, which results in your thanking the fact that you have a toilet brush.

Were it not for the barium thing, the check-up would be a breeze. With it, once a year seems a bit excessive.

Boy, this would definitely not have happened with the FTC under Bush. The commission is recommending that online users have a right to expect online privacy, and propose that Congress pass a “Do Not Follow” system in which, by pressing a button in a browser, a user could opt to not have his or her online activity monitored.

Before you get all excited, it is not (necessarily) about the RIAA tracking your IP address as you download the latest Black Eyed Peas album from The Pirate Bay. Instead, it’s about advertisers collecting, analyzing, combining, using, and sharing your “purchasing behavior, online browsing habits and other online and offline activity.”

What caught my eye in this report was a statement in protest of this proposal, by Mike Zaneis of the Interactive Advertising Bureau:

Most people would rather get a relevant ad rather than an irrelevant ad, which is by definition, spam.

This explains a lot. First, the guy thinks that a message is spam only if it’s not relevant. That’s an interesting definition–and dead wrong. Spam is unsolicited advertising, not non-relevant advertising. Now, spam is less annoying if it’s about things you want to buy, but it’s still spam. But Zaneis didn’t even use the term “wanted,” he said “relevant,” which is a significant distinction.

Second, the statement completely sidesteps the more important issue–privacy–as if a user’s expectations of privacy were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, when in fact they are absolute in this case. This is not about annoying people, this is about protecting people from invasion and predation.

Of course, when advertising is your business and predation is your primary tool, you would naturally want to redefine unfavorable terms describing exactly what you do as being something else.

Naturally, the industry would prefer to keep on doing what they’re doing: invade your privacy, usually in an aggressive manner you are not even aware of, and bury you in ads. Allowing people to navigate the Internet without such predation is not what they want:

The online advertising industry, Mr. Zaneis said, would suffer “significant economic harm” if the government controlled the do-not-track mechanism and there was “a high participation rate similar to that of do not call.”

And if the government were to make it illegal to point a weapon at people and make an aggressive plea for monetary transfer, the mugging industry would also suffer “significant economic harm.”

Here’s an idea: Give people the option of telling you which ads they want to see. It does not have to be tracked by name, location, or IP address–instead, have a dialog box in the browser where a person can select categories of ads they would prefer to see, with the option of adding keywords. That data would then be used to target the ad types, while keeping user data anonymous. This allows advertisers to deliver targeted ads, makes the browsing experience much more pleasant, and protects privacy, all at the same time.

Add the ability to state a preference for static (non-moving) ads, and I myself would probably uninstall my ad-blocking software.

More later, you probably have heard….

Update: OK, that was a 6.9 quake–about 500km south of us, in the Pacific Ocean off the Ogasawaras. Surprisingly, it was rated just a “3” on the Japanese scale here in Tokyo, and there is no tsunami warning as of yet.

However, here in Shinjuku, it felt pretty major. The building (we are on the 6th floor) swung as hard as I can remember any quake I have been in. It went on for quite some time, too, that and the swaying nature letting us know it was distant. But had that hit us directly, I would have expected that to be rated at least a “4” on the Japanese scale.

Sorry I was so short in the original post, I was in the middle of work….

If you own an iPhone or an iPad, it’s still not too late: a lot of developers are discounting their apps for Black Friday. I’ve downloaded at least a dozen and a half apps, many of them just to try because they were free, and found a few good ones–and paid no more than a dollar apiece, even though some are usually $5 ~ $8. It looks like most of these discounts will be good for the weekend, but of course there are no guarantees.

One very nice one: a Dictionary app, “English BigDict.” Apple neglected to include the Oxford Dictionary in the iPhone and iPad, and most dictionaries are online, requiring an Internet connection, and are kind of slow. This one–weighing in at 306 MB–resides on your iOS device. The interface is very nice, and it seems to have an excellent selection of words–220,000 “keywords and phrases,” whatever that means.

It is now going for free–for how long they don’t say.

---

Another good $8 app, this one discounted to $1, is Sketchbook Pro. I have only played around with it for a short time, but it seems like a very nice, powerful drawing app, the best I’ve tried out so far.

This one allows you to select from a wide variety of brushes, with a very nice color picker. The interface is not that hard to learn. More importantly, you can work with layers, allowing you to sketch at one layer and then draw in a background on a lower layer. The main drawback seems to be that it does not have the ability to smudge–at least not that I can find so far. If it really is missing, it’s a huge oversight… but as I mentioned, I am still figuring the app out. There are probably user tutorials on YouTube, and I should check them out when I have time.

---

One I got for the hell of it is SDK Tutorials HD, previously $5 (though often vacillating between $2 and $5), now $1. It seems to give a very quick rundown of how to make an iPhone app using the Apple Xcode app. I did not expect it to be comprehensive, and it seems to expect some prior understanding, but should be a good help when using a more extensive training book on Objective C and iPhone apps.

One big minus point to this app: the font size is way too small and hard to read. Legible enough for someone who doesn’t mind squinting a bit, but this developer definitely needs to make it easier to read in the next version.

---

For the iPhone–and for the iPad if you don’t mind a bit of the jaggies–two NFL game apps, NFL 2011 and Madden NFL 11. Both usually go for $5, both are on sale now for $1 each. NFL 2011 often drops to $3, but Madden’s just as often goes up to $8. When checking out reviews, each had its defenders and detractors. Each game seems to have a different interface and quality of graphics. I figured, what the hell, they’re just a buck apiece, and picked them both up. Again, I haven’t had enough time to really get used to them, but they look like they could be fun. Both have up-to-date rosters and, I am assuming, play out according to the actual players’ and teams’ real-life strengths and weaknesses.

From NFL 2011:

From the Madden App:

So, keep checking the app store until Sunday or Monday, there should be some more deals waiting. For a powerful and very useful site to search for and keep up-to-date on apps, try AppShopper.com, which not only allows you to search and sort by a lot of very helpful categories (alas, not by specific prices or price ranges except for free or paid), but also gives you a history of each app’s pricing. They also have a free app for that.

The RIAA claims it has stopped, but certain movie producers have not, and this is a practice that goes way back: large corporations, suspecting piracy, send out mass mailings to people accusing them of stealing, and demand thousands of dollars in “settlement” money or else they will be taken to court. Even if the defendants win, it winds up costing them more than the settlement would have cost–even just if measured in time lost and hassle caused.

I remember when it started back in the 1980’s. Then, it was pay TV broadcast via microwave signals that you needed a special satellite dish to receive, and a special box to decode. Back then, there were pirate kits to unscramble the signal. The media companies took a similar slant to today’s: they assumed guilt. They sent people around neighborhoods to see if they could spot parabolic dishes on houses, and if they found any, checked them against subscriber rolls. If there was no subscription, then whammo–you get a letter threatening a lawsuit unless you cough up three hundred bucks, or whatever.

A key point in demanding such a settlement is that it is a lesser amount than one would spend in legal fees in one’s defense. While this could, in one respect, seem lenient, as it allows violators to get off lightly, it is, in another very important sense, highly unethical: it essentially forces people innocent of any violation to choose between paying a large amount of cash which also is a de facto admission of guilt, or paying a much larger amount of cash to defend their innocence–and risk losing and paying crushing amounts. Either way, innocent people–many who cannot afford any such expenditure–are give no choice, no recourse, and are forced to pay money to avoid prosecution.

Should this kind of lawsuit be legal? It seems to be the very definition of extortion, the classic case of the powerful shaking down the little guy. Yes, many of the targets are legitimate–but what about the ones who are not? Are they simply “acceptable losses” in such cases?

The US Copyright Group (USCG), representing certain movie producers, has “sued” 16,000 people without even naming a single one–all they have are IP addresses, and are guessing at who owns them. And as we have seen in the past, this is far from an exact science.

Organizations like the USCG don’t care–they see all people they charge as guilty, or at least want to because otherwise they can do nothing. They don’t want to be held to the standard of proving guilt, they want to try people in civil court simply because they might be stealing. They have gotten around the sticky issue of being incapable of definite identification by simply not giving a damn, and use the legal system as a club to make people pay.

Even just asking the courts to issue an order allowing the plaintiff to demand ISPs hand over detailed records of IP addresses is objectionable. Most ISPs do hand out this data, though they should never do so to anyone except law enforcement. The ISPs that hold out do so not because of principle, but because it’s too much trouble for them. They should refuse simply on the grounds of not betraying customer expectations of privacy–but if that is not good enough, then because many networks are unprotected or could be hacked, and so identifications could lead to false prosecution.

Not to mention that the plaintiffs here don’t give a damn about who is innocent and who is not–they’re like the Medieval crusaders who said, “Kill them all and let God sort them out.” Not a legal practice I would think we should allow.

Imagine that a newspaper distributor has a newspaper vending machine. He notices that after stocking 100 copies in a machine, only 66 payments were made–meaning that perhaps half of the people who got newspapers took an extra one for free. The vendor got video of everyone who used the machine, but could not identify them or say from the video who took one copy and who took two–however, they did get license plates. If the vendor went to court demanding the judge issue an order for the DMV to release all the names and addresses of the vehicles in the video so that the vendor could threaten them all with lawsuits unless they paid exorbitant “settlements,” would a judge grant such a request?

I would hope not.

Without proof, it is doubtful such a plaintiff would win–and the attempt to shake down people like that would not exactly be seen as kosher. And yet, that is exactly what the RIAA has been doing, and what the USCG is picking up on. They are guessing as to who is stealing their stuff, we know that they are wrong in many cases, and with unprotected WiFi networks and wardriving being a factor, even a correct IP identification is not conclusive. Were the industry one which reacted more with caution, dropping suits that even seem improbable–like the paralyzed stroke victim in Florida accused of downloading music in Michigan–or dropping cases against people who are sympathetic and clearly unable to pay, like the disabled single mother from Oregon–they would at least come across as slightly more legitimate. And although they do drop some of the more ludicrous suits, like the one against the 66-year-old grandmother who supposedly downloaded rap songs on a computer that couldn’t even run the software, their usual stand is to stick to their guns, and demand the $3000–or else.

Technically, I suppose it is legal for these people to send out these mass settlement “offers.” The question I have is, shouldn’t there be a law that protects individuals from the legal shakedown now happening on massive scales?

A recent case which highlights the real agenda these people have is their lawsuit against a lawyer who sells $20 legal kits to people included in the mass-extortion cases, like the 5,000 anonymous defendants in the Hurt Locker suit. The legal kit includes several motions and an affidavit with meticulous instructions on how to fill them out correctly and serve them to the court.

Why is the lawsuit against this lawyer telling? Because the forms would allow potential defendants to defend themselves much more cheaply, thus making the multi-thousand-dollar “settlement” payoff unlikely. Clearly they don’t want to see all the defendants coming back with lawyers, if they fight so hard against even preliminary attempts at a legal defense–something which would turn the tables as it would cost the plaintiffs more money than it would be worth to prosecute. Which means that they were expecting most of the defendants to simply pay the thousands of dollars like nice little extortion victims and not make a fuss.

Even if their actions were not so transparently flagrant, such mass suits should simply not be allowed.

Bush says he tortured because Yoo, the lawyer, said it was legal. Yoo says just because he said it was legal, Bush didn’t have to do it. Both attempt to dodge responsibility for their actions, in a way that suggests they both know it was wrong but cannot bring themselves to admit it. Meanwhile, this petty, self-serving back-and-forth within the context that there’s nothing wrong with torturing people effectively spits upon what was the hallowed essence of our national spirit.

I simply remember a time when America had these things called “principles.” Bad guys tortured, not us. Bad guys started pre-emptive wars, not us. And constitutional rights always outweighed a false sense of security.

That America no longer exists, courtesy of people like Bush and Yoo. May they vacation in London, where at least a few people possess a modicum of sense.

Ha. It seems that Republicans will cry “Voter Fraud” not matter who the other candidate is. In Alaska’s (R) vs. (R) fight between Murkowski and Miller, Miller–the GOP’s new Sore Loser (and Norm Coleman’s weak echo)–is now claiming what is assumed to be massive voter fraud for a Republican candidate. Among the devious criminal enterprises are, according to Miller, many ballots with suspiciously similar handwriting and votes cast by voters without correct identification–add that to all the ballots misspelling “Murkowski,” which Miller insists are protest votes against Murkowski.

This after Miller’s people ran a campaign to flood the write-in candidate list with names so that people would have trouble finding Murkowski’s name.

This would have to be massive fraud as Miller is behind by 10,000 votes and yet still seems to be fighting to win.

After Minnesota two years ago, I have to admit it would be rather amusing–and yet still wrong–if Miller were able to hold up Murkowski’s appointment for several months. Not that that is going to happen, for various reasons–including the obvious lack of GOP support, as well as the fact that Murkowski is the incumbent.

Still, it is amusing enough that Miller is using the standard baseless, asinine, and fraudulent sore-loser claims against Murkowski that right-wingers tend to fling out whenever they lose elections fair and square.

In Bellevue, WA, just outside of Redmond, Microsoft opened a new Microsoft Store, just three doors down from the pre-existing Apple Store.

In the past, Microsoft Store openings have been lackluster, with only a few hundred people at the opening (photos look crowded because a lot of the people are Microsoft staff), and the crowds dry up after just a few hours when the hoopla has ended.

So when Microsoft opened their new store just a few miles from their HQ, they undoubtedly figured that they had to do something to avoid looking like losers.

The answer? Make it a day-long event so crowds don’t leave too early. First, get Dave Matthews to play live (make sure he plays later in the day so people will hang around). But hmm, that may not be enough. So let’s also give away 4000 free Miley Cyrus concert tickets (which, according to reports, was the real reason most people came). While we’re at it, let’s bring in a DJ and a dance group to entertain people in line, and serve them meals from a food truck. And let’s use the event to give a few million dollars to local schools and non-profits so people from those places will be obligated to show up. And just to be safe, pack the store with 50 employees, trained to act all excited and get people pumped up.

All Apple has to do is open the doors. I’m just saying.

Pure comedic brilliance. It wouldn’t be as funny if Beck weren’t so ironic in his characterization of George Soros, it being a far more apt and accurate description of Rupert Murdoch. Stewart starts from there and creates a classic. It’s worth it just for the random way the puppets hit Stewart.