Archives for October 2002
Young Lawyers’ Faustian Bargain, or My Sad Future
Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:
- The Moleskine GTD tabs hack
- No choice but to get things done (on retro computing)
- How to subscribe to toilet paper
If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.
Slate’s take that the memo belies a “psychological tragedy” and a “cry for help” and “deprogramming,” is probably, as we say in law school, on point.
Oh, no: Colombia has oil
A Colombian friend recently asked me why President Bush was so eager to give all sorts of military aid to her country when its president, Alvaro Uribe, visited Washington last month. My thoughts immediately where of the drug war and tangentially about the war on terrorism in the form of counterinsurgency. But it turns out there’s more.
As AP reports, today a car bomb went off in front of a school in the Colombian town of Arauca killing two police officers and wounding 11 others, just hours before Uribe was to visit. Arauca is part of a special militarized zone declared by Uribe last month that gives the army the power to search and arrest citizens without warrants, as well as impose travel restrictions and curfews in the region. Arauca is also oil rich.
I didn’t know it, but U.S. Special Forces have been sent to the area not to help fight the drug war, but to train two army brigades to protect a pipeline that carries oil for U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum. That pipeline was bombed 170 times last year, causing losses of $520 million. It was bombed earlier this month causing it to shut down.
Colombia probably has reserves of 47 billion barrels of oil, according to government estimates. They’re seeking foreign investment to explore and exploit these resources. As Forbes notes:
The government of President Alvaro Uribe wants to improve security to lure investors to produce more oil — which is the country’s number one export-earner. But large parts of the country are controlled by Marxist rebels or far-right paramilitaries fighting a 38-year-old war which claims thousands of lives a year.
So, once more, we have to turn to Dick Cheney’s National Energy Policy report to figure out America’s foreign policy. I’ve commented on that paper before. It’s the administration’s plan for “global oil security.” My favorite line in it is, “The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S.international energy policy, but our engagement will be global, spotlighting existing and emerging regions that will have a major impact on the global energy balance.” Would you call Colombia an emerging oil region?
I’ve always been critical of the New York Times, but lately it’s really been winning me over. Maybe we’re on the same page when it comes to American imperialism. But the point is that I found a recent article that you must read: “New Role for U.S. in Colombia: Protecting a Vital Oil Pipeline,” by Juan Forero. Among lots of interesting facts, it reports:
Colombia will never be the sole solution to America’s voracious appetite for oil. But the country is known for high-quality oil that is cheap to produce and easy to refine, and is thought to have significant potential reserves that could be rapidly exploited if the guerrillas and paramilitaries could be brought under control.
So, Colombia, good luck to you if you have oil. On the one hand, the U.S. may help you rid yourselves of the FARC. But on the other, the U.S. may help you rid yourselves of the FARC. How many Iraqis are looking forward to the U.S.’s “help” in getting rid of Saddam? Help usually comes in the form of daisy cutters and depleted uranium ordnance.
RELATED: Perhaps U.S. help will name a Latin American axis of evil composed of Cuba, Venezuela, and Brazil (now that leftist Ignacio Lula da Silva has just been elected president). Pal Deroy Murdock uncharacteristically agitates about a renewed Brazilian penchant for nuclear weapons and how that country’s new president is in cahoots with Castro and Venezuela’s Chavez.
Jackassing towards Gomorrah
So yesterday I went to go see Jackass: The Movie. It couldn’t have better exemplified what George Will means when he talks about the moral decay of America. But the way I see it, if you’re on a cruise ship to Hell, you might as well enjoy the ride and double up at the buffet table.
The New York Times’ review calls the movie, “crude, brutal and obscene.” And they’re right. You normally expect the Jackass gang’s antics to make grandma blush, but some of the things they did in this movie (that apparently they couldn’t do on TV) go beyond pranks or stunts. I’m thinking about eating a urine-soaked snowball and giving themselves paper cuts in the webbing between their toes and fingers.
The Times also says that the movie’s stunts “provok[e] a spasm of revulsion that mutates into shocked, involuntary laughter.” And lots of it. The whole time I had that belly pain you get from laughing too hard. Considering all the crap that Hollywood wants to convince us is comedy these days, I’d say I got every penny’s worth.
I won’t ruin it for you by recounting all the stunts, but one of the best is the opening scene that is depicted in the movie’s poster. Johnny Knoxville and the rest of the gang are in a giant shopping cart going downhill. They are in their usual regalia and are shoving and punching each other mercilessly. Then cannons begin to fire bricks and pieces of concrete at them as they zoom by. It’s a beautiful thing.
The New York Post calls it “the worst movie of the year.” E! Online says it’s “the funniest film of 2002.” I say don’t miss it. And take grandma with you.
Our future? Look at the Moscow hostages
C-SPAN is probably the best thing on the air today, but the people who call in are usually people with nothing better to do and it’s reflected in their comments. But a caller this morning made a great point. The fantastic taking of 700 hostages at a Moscow theater by Muslim Chechen separatists is just the kind of thing we can likely expect here in the U.S. if we invade Iraq.
Granted, we don’t have a separatist Muslim state within our borders, but things can still get ugly. I was talking over dinner with some friends about the worst case scenario if we go to war. Alina agreed with me that it’s almost certain that Hussein will chem/bio attack Israel (not to mention our troops) if he’s attacked. Old man Sharon won’t play around and respond with nukes. If anything will radicalize the mythical “Arab street,” this will. Governments in Saudi, Jordan and Pakistan could fall. If Pakistan falls to Islamists, then they’ll have The Bomb. Will India feel like they have to attack preemptively? How’s China going to feel about this?
Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations just released its Hart-Rudman report that concludes, “In all likelihood, the next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy.” The report lists all the ways in which the U.S. is vulnerable. Al-Qaeda could pick it up to get some pretty good ideas:
Few of the ships, trucks and trains that enter the United States each day are searched, the report said. Emergency personnel are unprepared for chemical or biological attacks. Oil refineries and energy distribution lines could be sabotaged. State and local police still lack access to State Department terrorist watch lists.
And this threat exists today. The FBI has also just released the most specific terror alert I’ve heard since right after the attacks. It says trains could be attacked by “operatives who have a Western appearance,” and that “operatives may try a variety of other attack strategies, such as destroying key rail bridges and sections of track to cause derailments, or targeting hazardous material containers. Recently captured Al Qaeda photographs of U.S. railroad engines, cars and crossings heightens the intelligence community’s concern of this threat.” But hey, we don’t want to panic anyone, so we’re still at Yellow Alert.
Rumsfeld: Square peg, round hole? No problem
The New York Times reports that Rumsfeld and his pals aren’t happy with the facts that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community have reported. So, they’re going to come up with some facts of their own. They’ve created a new intelligence task force to make sure they find “information on Iraq’s hostile intentions or links to terrorists that the nation’s spy agencies may have overlooked.”Anybody doubt they’ll find the “overlooked fact” that Osama and Saddam go fishing together all the time or something similar?
Wolfowitz has balls. In explaining why they won’t accept the intelligence community’s consensus and why they’ve had to create this group, he told the Times:
He described “a phenomenon in intelligence work, that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won’t, and not see other facts that others will.”
“The lens through which you’re looking for facts affects what you look for,” he added.
Lens indeed. Let’s roll!
More sniper’s advocate
Perhaps I spoke too soon. Perhaps the sniper himself will open to floodgates to criticizing the taskforce out to get him. The Washington Post reports today that in his last letter to police the sniper complains of calling their hotline to get in touch with them six times only to be “ignored.” From the story:
It even named some of the people who had taken his calls. They had hung up, the letter stated; that was “incompetent.” “Five people had to die” because of it, the letter said, according to one law enforcement source who has seen a copy of the letter.
Again, in all fairness, I know the cops must be swamped with all sorts of calls. But if the real sniper calls you six times, you’d think you’d figure it out on at least one occasion.
The story goes on to explain that the sniper had to tell them what number to expect him on and at what time. But because the police didn’t open up the letter immediately, the time of the call passed unbeknownst to them. Check out the Post story. It’s the most informed chronology of events I’ve seen.
UPDATE: CNN criminologist Casey Jordan says the fact that the sniper waited until this late in the game to make his $10 million demand is baffling. But is it really if you factor in that he tried to call the police in vein? The sniper says in his letter that “five people had to die” because of this. This means that he tried to contact police right after his initial attention-getting spree on Oct. 2 & 3.
MORE… I don’t know how much to trust CNN, but they are reporting that the letter is written in “broken English.” If this is true, and given the demand for money (a “reasonable” sum), expert getaways, and Chief Moose acknowledging that this “is about something more than violence,” perhaps the Frech deserter theory isn’t too far fetched.
Seven days ’til 24
Since starting law school, I have hardly watched TV at all–catching only BBC World News on a somewhat regular basis. I’ve been very happy to avoid this Quadrant IV activity. But now I’m afraid I’m going to have to revert to old ways.
That’s right, friends. After five months with no reason to turn on the telly, the best fictional serial since Twin Peaks returns for its second season this coming Tuesday. Of course, I am speaking of “24.”
This show’s gimmick is that each episode takes place in real time, and after watching 24 episodes you would have seen 24 consecutive hours in the life of the people involved. But although this gimmick certainly adds lots of drama, the show really excels elsewhere. In its character development.
There are three types of characters. Those who you know are good guys, those who you know are bad guys, and those you’re not sure of. The good guys aren’t like the invincible heroes of every other show. They have secrets, weaknesses, vices, vanities, and prices. The bad guys are really bad. They rape women and kill innocents in cold blood. And the one’s you aren’t sure of keep you guessing and never betray themselves.
Added to this are excellent performances. Dennis Haysbet as presidential contender Sen. David Palmer gave an awesome performance, especially in scenes with his character’s son. Those who make fun of Keiffer Sutherland saying he’s too old and chunky to play a secret agent miss the point. Sutherland is playing what a real ex-military counterterrorism agency chief would be like. His character’s daughter, although a good guy, is supposed to be an annoying, snotty, spoiled teen, and Elisha Cuthbert, who plays her, manages to exasperate viewers every time. And let me not leave out Dennis Hopper who was coolly evil while pulling off an accurate Serbian accent.
This is a show that fits our times–times of terrorist threat and rogue snipers. Major characters die or turn out to be traitors. Everyone has their own agenda and nothing is what it seems. The characters have a murky depth, so you can never guess where the plot will take you.
So if you haven’t watched before, here’s your chance to tune in and get hooked. Do it now because by the third episode you won’t be able to catch on to what’s going on. The first episode will be sponsord by Ford and will run for one straight hour without commercials. Since I’m in class when it airs (Tuesdays at 9 p.m. EST), I’m going to have to go buy a VCR this week.
I’ve stayed away from all the spoilers, but what I’ve heard is this (Don’t read on if you haven’t seen season one and plan to get the DVD box set–something that would really make a fan’s Christmas. Cough.): Palmer is now (the first black) president. Jack has been inactive since (his partner and ex-lover) Nina (who turned out to be a double agent) killed his wife, Terri (who was pregnant). There’s some sort of madman terrorist from within the government who is threatening the country. So, Palmer calls Jack back into service to save the world and somehow he is teamed-up with (his daugther) Kim to do this. I really hope Nina comes back and that (token Hispanic who makes us all proud) Tony is still around.
So, with what I think is my longest post ever complete, let me say that I plan to post my thoughts here after each episode this season. Since I no longer have a water cooler to go to (and no Mary Kay or Christine readily available), I’d like to propose that you use the comments feature of this blog to post your views. I’ll reply and hopefully others will too. In no time we’ll be bigger geeks than we were before. But hey, as Americans we’re so rich and disaffected we can afford to take TV shows seriously.
Playing sniper’s advocate
I know that I don’t know everything the police knows, and I know that they are doing their best to catch the sniper. That said, I’m surprised the media and people generally are still to this point reluctant to criticize the investigation. Perhaps the 10th victim will be the proverbial straw. Maybe I should get the ball rolling.Is it just me, or does Chief Moose not inspire a whole lot of confidence? Is it just me, or does it seem like the sniper is calling all the shots? Is it just me, or does the FBI not have someone with more experience in dealing with cases of this nature and magnitude?
In all fairness, Moose does have a Ph.D in criminology, and I’m usually the last one to complain when the feds stay out of what is [for general purposes] a local matter. But it’s difficult to accept what seems apparent: that the cops aren’t any closer to catching this guy than on day one.
Senators in the sniper’s crosshairs?
“U.S. senators were warned earlier this week that those who play golf may be targets of al Qaeda snipers on golf courses and were given tips on how to protect themselves,” CNN Reports. Apparently Capitol Police got some intelligence that prompted them to notify senators “that al Qaeda snipers might be looming near golf courses, ready to pick them off.”I really don’t think the Beltway sniper is connected to international terrorism. If he was, a terrorist group would have taken credit already. I know al Qaeda hasn’t taken credit in the past, and has even denied their part in some attacks. But in those cases it was obvious what the message was–usually, U.S.A. get out. Also, terrorists don’t leave behind tarot cards.
So has al Qaeda gotten some ideas from the success of the sniper? Why are they only warning senators? I guess representatives aren’t so “precious.” I wonder if senators have also been advised to zig-zag on the golf course.
Thanks to Paul Benjamin for the link.
Why I’m loving law school
After three hours of reading and briefing cases for torts, it’s an exercise problem like this from Prof. Grady’s textbook that makes it all worthwhile:5. Diana’s rat poison. Diana, a restaurant owner, stored her rat poison in a can marked “Flour” on a shelf above the gas stove. The rat poison was a fine white powder that looked just like flour. The original container, which Diana threw away when she poured the rat poison into the flour container, said that the rat poison was deadly to humans, even in small amounts, but gave no indication of its explosiveness. Nevertheless, the heat from the stove caused the rat poison to explode, and the flying shrapnel struck Paul, a busboy. If Paul sued Diana for negligence, the element that would raise the greatest obstacle to his recovery would be:
A. Duty.
B. Breach of duty.
C. Cause in fact.
D. Direct-consequences proximate cause.
E. Reasonable-foresight proximate cause.
Speaking of law school, Walter Williams’ new column is about why my school, George Mason University, is incredibly awesome. [Link via Joanne] Among other things, Vernon Jordan, law and econ prof, was just awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.
I’ve been robbed
I don’t know if I’m happy or sad about this, but I’ve discovered that someone has apparently written the book that I planned to write once I settled in to the life of reflective scholarly work that I’m going to lead after I’m done with a rewarding legal and business career.The book is called Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom, and its by Paul H. Rubin, a professor of law and economics at Emory. It looks like it’s a natural selection analysis of political systems, but since it’s just published I can’t find a review anywhere. The ‘evolutionary origin of freedom’ part is what I was planning to write about to get my Nobel Prize. If only I believed intellectual property was legitimate!
I really can’t wait to get my hands on it–I hope it lives up to its title. The author will be speaking at AEI next Monday and Charles Murray and Bill Niskanen will be commenting on the book. [P.S. It always makes me giggle that spellcheck’s first suggestion for “Niskanen” is “insane.”]
The obligatory sniper post
Living in D.C. and going to school in Arlington, Virginia, I guess I should be expected to say a few words about “the sniper.”
First, I do think it’s just one man because it’s hard enough to imagine that one person could be this deranged. What are the chances that two or more sick individuals would meet up and agree to engage in a continuing rampage? Second, I do think it’s a man for the same reason most people think it’s a man: it’s very rare for women to act like this. But I could be wrong on both counts. When there have been female serial killers, they’ve usually been accomplices to men.
As much as you try to be reasonable about it, you don’t feel completely at ease walking around Northern Virginia. Every day I trek a short but solitary stretch from the Metro to school. The walk takes me in front of the large expanse of lawn in front of the FDIC–great sniping ground. You can’t help but quicken your pace and look around for white vans.
And it looks like it might be this way for a while. The average serial killer isn’t caught for four years. But of course most serial killers also don’t kill this often. Still, if this guy stopped right now, he might never be caught, and people would continue to be terrorized.
Posse Comitatus expert Gene Healy has a very thoughtful analysis of the Pentagon’s involvement in the manhunt. If I was still at Cato, I’d tell them to get more radical, oppose military involvement, and then book them on O’Reilly. But alas, temperance and nuance are to prevail, and liberty… well, we’ll see.
The oily face of war
I’ve talked about this before, but I have to bring it up again. It’s so disappointing that there is no talk in the U.S. about alternative rationales for the new war with Iraq. If you assume–as the CIA does–that Hussein isn’t really a threat, but will become one if attacked, then there’s got to be something else behind the administration’s policy. They seem so bent on war at whatever cost, and their reasons are so fluid and changing.
Now, you have to take the Guardian/Observer with a grain of salt, but here’s an interesting report that explains how oil is driving the war machine and Russian opposition to it. It reads in part:
Russian business has long-standing interests in Iraq. Lukoil, the biggest oil company in Russia, signed a $20bn contract in 1997 to drill the West Qurna oilfield. Such a deal could evaporate along with the Saddam regime, together with a more recent contract with Russian giant Zarubezhneft, which was granted a potential $90bn concession to develop the bin Umar oilfield. The total value of Saddam’s foreign contract awards could reach $1.1 trillion, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2001.
[An unnamed Russian official] said his government believed the US had brokered a deal with the coalition of Iraqi opposition forces it backs whereby support against Saddam is conditional on their declaring - on taking power - all oil contracts conceded under his rule to be null and void.
‘The concern of my government,’ said the official, ‘is that the concessions agreed between Baghdad and numerous enterprises will be reneged upon, and that US companies will enter to take the greatest share of those existing contracts… Yes, if you could say it that way - an oil grab by Washington’.
Here in the U.S., when someone does bring up this issue and says that the war “is about oil,” what they usually mean is energy independence. But no matter who is in power in Iraq, we will always be able to buy their oil. And at competitive prices–cartels are not sustainable. Our cars, planes, and other machines aren’t going to run out of oil as long as the black stuff is in the ground in the Middle East.
So it’s not just about having a steady supply of oil. It’s about being the supplier of oil. It’s about having the concession. It’s a sad mix of Pax Americana imperialism and plain old colonialism. We have come so far.
Hitchens’ right and wrong
I just got back from a very nice evening on the town with my friend KJT. We went to see the new documentary “The Trials of Henry Kissinger” based on the book by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens and the movie’s writer/producer Alex Gibney took questions after the screening.
I would very much recommend the the film and I think it certainly does make the case that Kissinger is a war criminal. Especially with regards to Cambodia and East Timor–the movie doesn’t get into Cyprus and Bangladesh. But I do want to say one thing about Chile.
At one point they show an interview with Kissinger where he says that people are wrong to equate personal morality to morality between nations. He said that leaders are often confronted with the choice between evils. The audience laughed at this.
Although I think that Kissinger is probably criminally responsible for political assassinations in Chile, there was a choice between two evils: Pinochet or Allende. If I had to make the choice, there’s no question I would have chosen Pinochet. It’s not provable, but I think Chile was lucky to be spared from Allende. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that Kissinger and Nixon didn’t have to make that choice.
Some comments on Hitchens: Again, tons of kudos to him for bringing Kissinger’s misdeeds to public attention–I plan to read his book. (It’s been on my Amazon wish list for a while. Hint, hint.) But he was undone by the first question of the Q&A session. He was asked how he could reconcile his condemnation of the U.S.’s invasion of Cambodia with his pro-war-with-Iraq rhetoric. He couldn’t. He gave a feeble answer about how Saddam was evil and a theocrat (which is incorrect).
He also displayed his true colors when someone asked him why his other movie (about Mother Theresa being the worst kind of despot) hasn’t been broadcast. He said that he had met with network execs in New York and they had said that they were all Jews in that room, but there were many Catholics in New York. If they broadcast that movie, they said, they would be accused of being Jews bashing Catholics. So they wouldn’t air the film. To which Hitchens added that “There’s First Amendment free speech protection for you!” As if the First Amendment gave you a right over someone else’s broadcasting tower.
But in sum, the movie was great and, again, I recommend it. Also, Hitchens apparently will be reading at Olsen’s Books near Metro Center on Thursday.
Greenhouse on Eldred
Linda Greenhouse, The New York Time’s Supreme Court reporter has an excellent account of the hearing yesterday and the issues at play in today’s paper. From her article:Before the court opened this morning, the line of people hoping to get a glimpse of the most important argument in years about intellectual property was already around the block. The lucky few who got in witnessed a fast-moving tutorial in which the justices clearly came prepared to listen and learn. Although they had many questions for Professor Lessig and Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who argued in defense of the law, the justices uncharacteristically appeared to go out of their way to permit the lawyers to answer with a minimum of interruptions.
And I thought Lessig was getting interrupted like hell! Olson wasn’t interrupted for the first five or six minutes of his argument, which seemed like a long time. And when Lessig came back, after Olson had finished, to offer a rebuttal, they didn’t interrupt him at all and it was terrific.
Me at Eldred v. Ashcroft
Now that I don’t work full-time anymore, I have a lot more time to take advantage of some of the neat things Washington, D.C., has to offer. It would be hard to think of a cooler experience (for a geek like me, anyway) than sitting in on oral arguments for a historic case before the Supreme Court. And that’s what I got to do today.
Eldred v. Ashcroft is historic because it’s the first time a retroactive copyright term extension granted by Congress has been challenged. It will be very historic if at least some part of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act is stricken down.
I won’t try to give you a news account of what happened at the hearing. There are professionals who do that much better. If you’d like to read about what happened in court, see Drew Clark’s account of it here. I’d just like to offer some general observations.
The justices are ancient. By her looks, it’s unbelievable Justice O’Connor can still move around. Yet she’s sharp as a tack. Same goes for Justice Stevens.
Justice Thomas didn’t ask one question–as expected–and actually seemed bored out of his mind. At one point he was reclined back in his chair staring at the ceiling, then looking at his nails, then rubbing his face. Meanwhile, Scalia didn’t say a word to Larry Lessig (his former clerk), but did drill Solicitor General Ted Olson–sometimes to help him out. Breyer did the opposite. He helped out Lessig and grilled Olson.
A funny moment was when–I think it was Justice Stevens–asked a question of Lessig that Lessig began to answer in a high-faluting manner. Breyer interrupted him and said, “So isn’t what you’re trying to say to Justice Breyer…” and proceeded to give a clear-cut explanation. Lessig seized the opportunity and turned to Breyer and said, “What I mean to say is…” and repeated what Breyer had said verbatim. Everyone laughed.
Rehnquist has the voice of God. Ginsburg is a pit bull. Lessig’s summation was brilliant.
The hearing started at 10 a.m., but I woke up at 4 and got there by 5 a.m. I thought I’d surely be one of the firsts. But people had actually camped out with sleeping bags in front of the court. Somebody once called Lessig a rock star for Internet geeks. I guess they were right.
I met some very nice people in line. Two of the persons in front of me where professional place holders. They were just saving spots for paying customers who came at the last minute (I can’t wait to be a rich lawyer!). There was also a young German law professor who was very nice, an older copyright attorney and his friend who were very funny, and a group of students from Georgetown spearheaded by a nice girl who turned out to be half Cuban.
“Marge, the toilet recommended a restaurant…”
The New York Times today has an interesting article on Japan’s toilet culture, which I encountered there earlier this year. Apparently the toilet wars are heating up with one company deploying “a toilet seat equipped with electrodes that send a mild electric charge through the user’s buttocks, yielding a digital measurement of body-fat ratio,” and also:
a toilet that glows in the dark and whirs up its lid after an infrared sensor detects a human being. When in use, the toilet plays any of six soundtracks, including chirping birds, rushing water, tinkling wind chimes, or the strumming of a traditional Japanese harp.
This is just a little bit of further evidence to support the conclusion that I reached on my visit that the Japanese are insane–by our standards anyway. They are very methodical and somewhat neurotic.
Gaijin can understand autoflush and heated seats, but soundtracks are more difficult to reconcile. It turns out that for some reason the Japanese find the sound of tinkling (that is, urine hitting the toilet bowl’s water) unbearable. Toilets, therefore, will often have music or at the very least a mechanism that has, as its sole purpose, splashing the water around to muffle the tinkling.
Alas, smart toilets are not all fun and games and there are some grave dangers to be expected. Civil libertarians in Japan, the article says, are worried that toilets that examine your waste and then transmit the results to your doctor could pose a threat to privacy. “There will be police investigators who see this as a great tool to find people who use illegal substances,” a sharp JCLU official points out.
Me on Eldred v. Ashcroft
Yours truly has written a new article on the Eldred v. Ashcroft copyright case that will be heard before the supreme court this week. I explain the case a bit and then try my hand at analyzing what the conservatives on the court might do. Take a peek and let me know what you think — I’d love to get your feedback.No Gattaca Olympics for now
The International Olympic Committee has prohibited “the non-therapeutic use of genes, genetic elements and/or cells that have the capacity to enhance athletic performance,” according to Reuters. This means that designer babies that grow up to have superhuman abilities will be banned from competing at the Olympics. Which begs the question, isn’t that discrimination? The kids didn’t pick to be that way. Is this rewarding what would then be mediocrity?
Like the geneticist in Gattaca said to the expectant parents, the baby “is still yours, its just the best of you. You could conceive a thousand times and never get this result.” The superhumans will still be humans.
Gattaca is one of my favorite movies (not the least because Uma Thurman is a perfect portrayal of what designed female perfection would be). I don’t take its cautionary tale lightly. But I for one look forward to the day when the NFL (or some other football league set up for this purpose) allows the use of any performance enhancing drug or genetic modification. If we enjoy watching incredibly talented athletes perform today, why wouldn’t we enjoy freakishly agile and strong ubermensch even more? Is it because we like to think that we could be just as talented if we set our minds to it? Give me a break.
On a similar note, do not miss a debate on cloning I’ve helped organize for AFF. It’s this Wednesday, Oct. 9 at 7 p.m. at the Fund for American Studies in D.C. Will Wilkinson and Julian Sanchez will take on Ramesh Ponnuru and Justin Torres and hopefully once and for all make them understand that a ban on human cloning is a bad idea. (Just cos I work for AFF doesn’t mean I can’t take a side.)
More Sidekick info
In his NY Times column today, the ever unfunny-but-informative David Pogue reports on the T-Mobile Sidekick and a couple of other all-in-one cell phone combos that will hit the market this fall. He concludes that the Sidekick is the most attractive offering, but points out its drawbacks. The biggest one is that its hardware and software are completely proprietary, so it’s not compatible with anything. For example, you can upload your contacts and calendar to a Web site that the Sidekick syncs to, but you can’t connect your PC to the Sidekick.-
Welcome.
This is the personal site of Jerry Brito, a lawyer and writer in Washington, D.C. He’s an academic researcher and the creator of Unclutterer and several other blogs. More »
Categories
Search
Presently Reading
