Mama Se Mama Sa Mama Coo Sa

Yay, though his career peaked many moons ago and some fairly well-substantiated rumors of pedophilia have taken the luster off of the inscriptions surrounding his likeness as a demi-god in the hallowed halls of our collective pop-consiousness, he will forever be the sounds of my childhood. His name and music will never fail to conjure images of poorly imitated walks on the moon, or one-gloved grabs of the loin.

Though some will not smile when others speak of you, and they might ask "how has he affected us?," they will never be able to question how deeply. Rest in Peace MJ. I will remember you as a P.Y.T., deserving of our T.L.C.

Michael Jackson - Smooth Criminal
Uploaded by Tina007. - Watch more music videos, in HD!

This is hilarious

This is also two blocks away. I want to go see him in person...er...bird.

http://frontstreetattackbird.blogspot.com/

Fotos de Argentina (y algunas de Uruguay)

Here are a few snapshots from my trip. Enjoy!

I ate a few things that looked like this:


Cemeterio de recoleta:

Velez v. Boca:

Cataratas de Iguazu:


Magritte-esque clouds outside of Almacen del Sur.

The son of the winegrower, working the new oil press:





Small town in the Andes:
Aconcagua:


Punta del Inca:


Different punta, supposedly crossed by San Martin on his way to liberate Chile:


Colonia, Uruguay:



Calle de los suspiros:

Dear Human Race,

WTF is wrong with you?

Two people shot at Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington - Los Angeles Times

Posted using ShareThis

Hasta

I will be on vacation (in Argentina! Woo hoo!) for the next two weeks, so I won't be posting for a bit. Though my posts have been intermittent of late, so many of you probably won't know the difference.

This also means that I will not be here when the California Supreme Court hands down its decision in the cases involving Proposition 8 (h8) on Tuesday. I am not expecting anything good from that decision, but still. It kind of makes me sad. Then I saw this defacement of public property today on the bus I take, and I thought to myself...yeah...I wish the sign really did say that.

The Persistence of Gitmo

I saw a GOP talking head last night on some show say that Obama's recent decision to keep military tribunals was an implicit endorsement of the turd's war on terror. This incredibly ill-founded statement caused me great consternation: apparently enough to motivate me to break my blog silence of late. So I'd like to set a few things straight. You know, for the reasonable people out there.

One of Obama's first acts as president after his inauguration, was to announce the closure of Gitmo within one year. For those of us who have thought (and said) since its inception that Guantanamo was this country's most tragically embarrassing rejection of the rule of law in recent history, this came as welcome news.

So what to make then of what has been termed Obama's "back tracking" on this issue?

A few points.

First, even those who feel as I do cannot honestly say that Guantanamo should be shut down immediately. Others have been charged, but have not had any sort of preliminary hearing. There are also detainees (about 60 or so last count) who have been cleared of all charges, but who cannot be returned to their native countries because of likelihood of torture. This is an affirmative obligation that the United States has under international law. So in a slightly ironic way, international law is preventing the immediate closure of Gitmo. You can't just hit the "off" switch on Gitmo and walk away. The previous administration has left quite a legal limbo laden quagmire to sort through.

Many are also concerned about Obama's decision to reinstate military tribunals. This was not a total surprise since he called for a 120 days suspension of prosecution, so it was not unforeseeable that after such time, they might begin again (although they are not actually beginning again, since he announced a new 120 day suspension, pending changes to the tribunals). However, he has changed some of the more egregious rules, such as:

First, statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial. Second, the use of hearsay will be limited, so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability. Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel. Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify. And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.
From White House Press Statement.

So the playing field has been leveled, to some extent (don't ask how #5 will work because I have no idea). Will this be the same as an Article III court? No. Of course not.

Much more than a democrat, I am an advocate of the rule of law. I think our rules of evidence and procedure (that are used everyday in our own criminal courts, such as the one that convicted one Timothy McVeigh) are the best tools we have to sort out the guilty from the innocent. So is it disappointing? Yes. Is it an implicit endorsement of the turd's war on terror? Hardly, and no more so than cleaning up after an oil spill is an endorsement of the oil spill.

I think some version of the existing tribunals will be necessary. Republican congressmen have made it very clear that they will oppose any changes that will mean the detainees will be housed in maximum security prisons within the United States. So this will make access to regular Article III courts somewhat difficult, given that the turd decided to put his kangaroo court on a fricking island. I guess their fear is that the acquitted detainees might be freed and walk around Main street USA.

Since that what acquitted people do.

And the Senate just rejected the money requested by the administration to shut Gitmo down.

So what to do? Here's what I think. Keep the tribunals, but import material provisions of Federal law, e.g. Federal Rules of Evidence, Criminal Procedure. No NIMBY problem, and you will now have all of the safeguards of US law. All those acquitted get to go live in Crawford Texas.

Problem solved.

Here is a much better post on all the things wrong with the tribunals that will remain wrong.

Yeah, that about sums it up

So, I've been on a bit of a hiatus lately from teh internets. Work has been busy, and there is a palpable feeling in the air to establish one's usefulness at work so as to stay gainfully employed. I've fallen behind on my personal emails and just about everything else that I access through this box on my desk.

So instead of trying to catch up with all that is wrong in the world, be it Somali Pirates or this Swine Flu, I am just going to post the following picture, which I feel sort of sums up what is wrong with television politics contemporary America right now. I'll be back soon with some additional intelligent and cutting analysis of issues affecting the global community more words sooner, rather than later.


From the LA Times via Defamer

National Be Kind to Lawyers Day

Today, apparently according to someone, is National Be Kind to Lawyers Day. This kind of reminds me of the time when I asked my Grandmother why there was a day for mothers, fathers, and grandparents, but no day for kids.

"Every day is children's day," she said.

But for all you lawyers out there doing god's work (you know who you are), who are not making a kabillion dollars a year, we are all indebted. And for so many of you who are out of a job, take heart. Things will pick up.

Outside Lands Announces 2009 Lineup

With regards to the headliners, I think I would have been more excited if this were 1994.

But there are some interesting bands on there:

Calexico
Lila Downs
Dengue Fever
Thievery Corporation
Kinky
Q-Tip
Samba Da
Raphael Saadiq

I'm kind of glad there is no band that would tempt me to try and navigate the gigantic cluster fuck that was last year's Radiohead show that was, incidentally, worth the headache to experience.

Who wants to guess that even though you'd think that MUNI would have learned a lesson last year, they will do almost nothing to improve the public transportation situation to and from GG park?

Auditions for Anti Same-Sex Marriage Advert Reveal Just How Full of Crap They Are

Wow. Just Wow. Check out this post from Sfist about what the Human Rights Campaign has uncovered. I'll restructure the gist of it here though.

First, Watch the anti-gay ad:



and now you can click and watch the auditions for it! That doctor who was so upset about having to choose between her faith and her profession for a reason she doesn't mention because it DOESN'T FRAKING EXIST?* An actor! The New Jersey guy who says his church was punished for not supporting gay marriage?** An Actor!! In fact the whole thing is filled with specious inaccuracies!

And I love how they couch it as being about their "freedom." It takes some pretty twisted logic to conclude that one's freedom extends to the "freedom to decide with other like-minded people how other people should be treated under the law." That's not freedom at all. That's tyranny by the majority. Anyway, here is one part of the auditions.




* This has been determined to reference the Benitez decision, which held that a health care provider cannot refuse a patient treatment based on their sexual orientation. Hardly necessitating a decision between your faith and your profession.

** I think I've mentioned this case on here before, because the Mormons used it in their prop 8 blitz. But anyway, in New Jersey the state offers a tax exemption to private property owners who open up their land for the use of the public, provided they follow all state laws. The unincorporated community of Ocean Grove that is very religious took advantage of the program, but then refused to allow a same sex couple to have their civil union ceremony on the grounds, which runs afoul of the state anti-discrimination policy. So the state is contemplating revoking their ability to claim a tax exemption. That is hardly being fined for not supporting same sex marriage. New Jersey doesn't even have same sex marriage.

I Really Really Hope This Is Good

Otherwise I know several generations of 5 year-olds who will not be happy.



The Arcade Fire Song is a nice backdrop, so you're off to a good start Spike!

Isn't that where syrup is made?

Vermont now joins the list, as its legislature legalizes same-sex marriage over the governor's veto.

D.C. has voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

While all of this makes me a little sad for California, it makes me very happy for all those couples who can now get married.

In Other Legal News, Iowa Supreme Court Gives Ok to Same Sex Marriage

Yes, really. I wonder if the Prop 8 people have any money left to pour into an amendment to Iowa's constitution. How many courts and legal scholars (and bloggers!) have to weigh in before we all realize that banning same sex marriage violates the Equal Protection clause. It won't ruin your schools, it won't teach anyone to be gay (whatever that means), and it doesn't mean you have to marry someone of your own sex. It only extends the same benefit (ONLY the rights wielded by the state, no religious significance is given or required. Your religion can still discriminate if it wants to.) we all enjoy to the gay community. That's it. Come on people.

UPDATE:

Apparently it is much more difficult to amend the Iowa Constitution than ours, and it requires going through the legislature first. Rich out-of-state social conservatives might be SOL. I might have to get a map and actually find this state.

Right to Habeas Extends into Afghanistan

It seems ages since Boumediene v. Bush was handed down, holding that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay had a right to petition for habeas corpus in federal civilian courts. But yesterday, the decision was the basis for a significant ripple in federal jurisprudence. Yesterday, a federal judge determined that, under the rationale used in Boumediene, detainees that are being held at Bagram Afghanistan also have a right to petition for the great writ.

Well, not everybody. It turns out that Bagram has become a sort of terrorist holding tank for prisoners picked up all over the region, not just in Afghanistan. The judge ruled that the writ extends to prisoners who are NOT Afgahn nationals. So the decision concluded that three of the four (two Yemenis and a Tunisian) have a right to file habeas petitions, but due to possible friction with the host country, the Afghan does not.

NYT Article

Decision

Pointy Hat-ed Pontiff Ribbed (or Unribbed Perhaps) by Facebook

According to the Telegraph, a few Italians have started a growing facebook campaign to inundate the Vatican with prophylactics. The campaign was started in response to comments the Pope made about how condoms aggravate the spread of HIV. Organizers claim that 60,000 have signed up so far. If you are one of the participants, might I recommend sending the condoms with the reservoir tip as they actualy kind of look of look like the aforementioned pointy hat.

Kidding aside, this policy is just plain deadly. I read that the Pope made these or similar comments on a recent trip to Africa. As Africa has about 22.5 million people currently infected with HIV and 20 million have already died from it, his suggestions that the disease could be defeated through chastity and abstinence is tantamount to homicide in my book. Africa has enough indigenous and cultural problems dealing with the disease with out adding any more to it. Harvard researchers last year estimated that the approach of South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki had led to 330,000 needless deaths. Mbeki, you may remember, said that there was not enough evidence to prove that HIV caused AIDS. This lead to bad policies such as not providing antiretroviral drugs to those already infected.

So Mr. Pope, if you are listening, I ask you, which is the greater evil?

Speaking of Weirdness

I think I now know why both clowns and Fergie scare me, and why I was such a strange little kid. Look at what I used to watch!

Joaquin Phoenix's New-Found Weridness

I caught part of his interview on David Letterman last month, and now I saw this headline about him getting into an altercation with a heckler at one of his hip-hop performances.

Yeah, hip-hop. Is he on tour or something? If so, has anyone out there actually been or bought a ticket?

I'm guessing this is one big Andy Kaufman-esque thing. It does sort of sound that way, and I kind of hope it is. I think Hollywood and the media (especially all the gossip rags) need a good shaking up again.

Friday Freestyle

I am saddened that I had not seen this before. If you want to stop laughing, check out the violence at the end and the racist youtube comments that follow the link.

California Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Proposition H8

Well, they're off, in theory, as argument was supposed to begin at 9 a. m. PST. I have been unable to access the sites that are supposed to live stream the arguments. Like this one. But they are supposed to last 3 hours, so I guess I can just try again in a bit.

The LA Times reported that the demonstrations in front of the court were "slow to start," but I don't think that a "couple of hundred" people who were there an hour before the hearing even started is really a "slow" start when it comes to demonstrating in front of court houses.

However you feel about the issue, there are some interesting questions before the court. Such as, is this a "revision" of the constitution rather than an "amendment" because prop 8 "revised" the previously interpreted breadth of the Equal Protection clause? Or is it an amendment since it only revised an interpretation of the EPC, rather than the EPC itself?

I heard that the Supreme Court has rejected such challenges in the past, but I'm not sure if any of them dealt with the EPC which, I think everyone would acknowledge, is in a more fundamental and separate category from the rest of the (enormous) California Constitution.

Even if the court does uphold the proposition, what of the people already married? Should it be retroactive?

Tough questions. I guess we'll know in 90 days or less.

Detour to Africa Via Den Haag

The Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Interestingly, and some would say incomprehensibly shamefully, the warrant does not include the charge of genocide.

Apparently the PTC did not even think they could establish the low standard of "resonable grounds" necessary to include the charge of genocide in the warrant. I have to imagine that perhaps this was ultimately a political decision aimed at minimizing the reaction in Khartoum. Either way, I have to share in other commentators' dismay.

But there might be other factos at work too. I imagine that establishing Bashir's genocidal "intent" might be hard to establish. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the ICC can only consider conduct that occurred after the entry into force of the Rome Statute in 2002, so Bashir's activities during the pre-Darfur civil war with the SPLA in Southern Sudan during the mid-to-late nineties and early naughts would not be able to be considered. So I think the lead prosecutor's case will have to be based on mostly the conduct in Darfur.

He has been charged with:

• five counts of crimes against humanity: murder – article 7(1)(a); extermination – article 7(1)(b); forcible transfer – article 7(1)(d);
  torture – article 7(1)(f); and rape – article 7(1)(g);
• two counts of war crimes: intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities – article 8(2)(e)(i); and pillaging – article 8(2)(e)(v).

The reaction in Khartoum, however, has been quick. Protests were almost instantaneously started and the Sudanese seem to have revoked the licenses of several NGO aid organizations that operate in the country. Apparently this is Bashir's way of punishing the West by further punishing his own people.

Now at the risk of sounding clinical, this is going to be an interesting experiment, as it will be testing ground for the ICC in a new area. It will be a new chapter in the ongoing argument between those who think that impunity cannot be tolerated and that those who are reasonably believed to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity should be tried in the Hague if the local country is unwilling or unable to do so, and those who are not sure if the meddling of the international community will help, and might only make wounds fester.

For further information about the long civil war in Sudan, the one that preceded Darfur, I highly recommend a book by David Eggers entitled "What is the What."