The Packbats' Weblog

I just got my copy of the Washington Monthly "The Stakes" issue! This will be totally influential as to my vote in the November 4th U.S. Presidential elections!

Hat tip to baxil for the link: Paul Krugman just got a link sent to him (how many layers of indirection am I up to?) of a little piece John McCain submitted to go in Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries.

As the man says, you might want to sit down for this.

I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Ouch.

Hat tip to Jim Macdonald @ Making Light for the news -from the AP, Chicago, Monday, May 19th:

Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.

The likely GOP presidential nominee made the criticism Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.

"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.

For those of you who would like to add numbers to just how absurd this is, hilzoy has the analysis.

Via Fred 'Slacktivist' Clark:



I remember - sometime last year - reading a blogger talking about Barack Obama who said that Obama was too kind, too positive, too unwilling to be harsh. I remember the fellow talked about Kennedy and others, said that they were certainly not the plaster saints that Obama seemed to be imitating, and that his refusal to use aggressive tactics would most likely sink his campaign.

In the months since, it's become clear that it's quite the opposite.

Via the_gneech, crisper, goblinpaladin, and active_apathy (I steal the post outright from the last):

"I would like the world to remember me as the guy who really enjoyed playing games and sharing his knowledge and his fun pastimes with everybody else." (Source)

Ernest Gary Gygax, 1938-2008

(And, for the terminally irreverent among you: Penny Arcade, The Ferret's list.)

I would take a moment here to congratulate the Hollywood writers on a successful strike. Their cause was worthy, and I applaud the studios for acceding to the bulk of their demands.

That is all. Thank you.

(My opinions of the remaining Presidential candidates are still incomplete - sorry, roaminrob...)

Monday evening, Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee stated his intention "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards".

It is conceivable that a fair number of people may be unconcerned by this statement. However, to quote Fred "Slacktivist" Clark's excellent take on Huckabee's statement:

The main point here is sweet fancy Moses this guy wants to rewrite the Constitution to align it with his idea of "God's standards"!

Comments are open, as always.

Subtitle: KBR Told Victim She Could Lose Her Job If She Sought Help After Being Raped, She Says.

I don't know if the story is true. True or not, I can't even think about it right now.

Link via dietrich.

Psst! Word on the street* is, The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007 includes the following delicious language:

Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--

(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and

(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

( Read more... )

Why is this objectionable?

1. "Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title" - that is, the entire education section of the U.S. Code - that is, any institute of higher education taking any money at all from the government, including by teaching students that receive government grants - is obliged by this language to both deter illegal filesharing and pay for alternatives like Ruckus.


2. The only means universities have for effectively deterring illegal filesharing are, well, means like these.

* Formally known as "Slashdot".

Via Mahablog, which reposted from Orcinus: The President has just issued this, titled 'Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq'.

You, who is reading this: if you are in America, and you do not believe that the war in Iraq is succeeding, you should be terrified.

I will not quote the whole text - it's legalese, and dense - but here's some of the crucial bits to explain myself.

First, the declaration of motive.

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps [...]

A declaration that acts against Iraq are extraordinary threats to the United States could, in a newspaper article, be excused as an ill-thought overstatement. In an executive order, it suggests either (a) that the chief executive lacks connection to reality or (b) that he is exaggerating to justify the measures he proposes. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is worse.

Second, the penalty.

(a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in[.]

This one is pretty clear: if you are named by this act, all your possessions are frozen. Credit cards? Bank accounts? Pocket change? You are here banned from using them.

Third, the targets.

any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. (emphases added)

You notice I highlighted two bits. The former I'll get to in a second. The latter ... well, any resemblance to Article 58-11 is surely coincidental.

But that's a low blow. Ignore it. Read the first one.

Now, what constitutes undermining efforts? Undermining sounds simple, exact, but how can you be sure that any particular act is not undermining something? And how can you be sure that the government isn't being ... overenthusiastic in its prosecution of the law?


One last note:

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order. (emphasis added)

In light of which, I leave you with a reminder of the words of William Rivers Pitt, from last September.

UPDATE: Insofar as I can tell, executive orders are, in fact, susceptible to overturning in two ways. First, by the passage of a bill by Congress specifying the law more exactly – legislation overrules executive orders. (Yes, they'll probably need a two-thirds majority.) Second, by a court ruling that states the order is unconstitutional. (Which has only happened twice in history.) While some claim that an executive order only becomes law if Congress does not overturn it within 30 days, I have seen no official source verifying that.