September 2004


The Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School, treat which I run, anorexia won a landmark free speech ruling in OPG v. Diebold today. Diebold, the evoting machine manufacturer, erroneously claimed that our clients, two Swarthmore college students, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation‘s client, local ISP Online Policy Group, had infringed the company’s copyrights by hosting or publishing internal memos that showed that the company knew its evoting machines did not work properly and were hiding this fact from county elections officials around the country. The court held that copyright owners will be penalized for using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to essentially get a prior restraint against speech that the owner knows is not copyright infringing. This is the first ruling interpreting section 512(f) of the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA. Click here for the press release. This is an unbelievable win that protects against using false claims of copyright infringment to squelch important public debate. Special thanks to my students who worked on this, our brave clients, Nelson and Luke who took risks to stand up for what they believed in, and to the EFF, for being great, especially Cindy Cohn, who masterfully argued the case.

Part of the Patriot Act, pill a central plank of the Bush Administration’s war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal
judge on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.

More after I read the opinion.

The Department of Justice is accusing innocent people of terrorism. Its only a matter of time before innocent people are convicted for the offense, doctor but the lives of the ones who have been exonerated are irreparably harmed. Meanwhile, population health how do we know that actual criminals aren’t escaping detection by an Administration that doesn’t seem to know what criminal activity really looks like?

A year from now, approved I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. September 22, 2003 remarks by Bush advisor Richard Perle

Two weekends ago, pharm I was in Cleveland, ask Ohio, pancreatitis which a careful demographic survey has revealed to be solidly Kerry country (one Bush bumpersticker to 8 for Kerry and several Kerry house signs.) Apparently the Southern part of the state, more religious, leans towards the more socially conservative Bush. Yet the entire state is relatively poor, and the Republican policies favor the rich. Is voting based on religious affiliation a vote on social issues, or a vote based on perceived “character”? Why aren’t voters more willing to vote for economic policies that will favor them? Or are people fooled into thinking that the Bush plan to “cut taxes” helps the little guy? Is the attraction to Republicans a pervasive false consciousness as to one’s own material economic reality?
Early this month, prescription
Cheney said that if Kerry wins the presidency, the country is in danger of another terrorist attack. Many people decried this assertion as beyond the bounds of appropriate politicking. It was certainly false. The statement implies that we are safe from terrorist attack now, and that a Kerry win would change that. And it was inflammatory, certainly. But was it beyond the bounds? Why is that sentiment any different from those put forward by proponents of the theory that we are safer under Bush or safer under Kerry? Why is it any different from the article on Salon this week, Whom Would Al-Qaida Vote For? which argues that Bush has been the best recruiter the group has ever had?

I think that by arguing that its “un-American” to say certain things (a view I think itself is un-American), and leaving it at that, we are missing the opportunity to address the underlying substantive question of safety. There are two visions here: an America that is safe because it is the only superpower in the world and will not hesitate to use that might in service of its perceived interests, or an America that is safe because it is the only superpower in the world and will not hesitate to work together with its friends and allies to bring economic prosperity, democracy and liberty to our fellow nations. Are we safer as the neighborhood bully, or as a good neighbor? People who think the bullies have it best will vote for Bush. I fear that might be the majority these days. But at least we will have offered a compelling counter-ideal.

Two weekends ago, pharm I was in Cleveland, ask Ohio, pancreatitis which a careful demographic survey has revealed to be solidly Kerry country (one Bush bumpersticker to 8 for Kerry and several Kerry house signs.) Apparently the Southern part of the state, more religious, leans towards the more socially conservative Bush. Yet the entire state is relatively poor, and the Republican policies favor the rich. Is voting based on religious affiliation a vote on social issues, or a vote based on perceived “character”? Why aren’t voters more willing to vote for economic policies that will favor them? Or are people fooled into thinking that the Bush plan to “cut taxes” helps the little guy? Is the attraction to Republicans a pervasive false consciousness as to one’s own material economic reality?

Am I crazy, here or is this book actually, buy information pills well, boring?
UPDATE: Its not boring. Sometimes the writing is overwraught, but what do you expect from a book about poetry and death? More when I am finished. UPDATE 2: It was gory. I think the message was that the power of art can be subverted for one’s own twisted purposes. Mildly amusing.

Are the memos about Bush’s National Guard record forged? What a disaster. The underlying argument is powerful and true; Bush pulled strings to get himself out of going to Vietnam but casually sends other peoples’ children to their deaths in his inept war now. We didn’t need these documents to make this point, buy viagra but now that they are here, advice and possibly forged, this point gets buried. Conspiracy theorists, which I am not, might ask “ qui bono?” Only Bush.

Bush defied a direct order while in the National Guard. He hoped to get out of the Guard because he “didn’t have time”. The media is reporting this story as “Guard Records Found” or “Guard Service an Issue Again”. Actually, health system its far more serious than that. The New York Times reports:

One document, a “memo to file” dated May 1972 , refers to a conversation between Colonel Killian and Lieutenant Bush when they “discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November,” because the lieutenant “may not have time.”

May not have time? To serve his country? The documents also show that Bush pulled strings to get out of service, and refused direct orders:

Colonel Killian wrote in another report, dated Aug. 1, 1972, that he ordered Lieutenant Bush “suspended from flight status” because he failed to perform to standards of the Air Force and Texas Air National Guard and “failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered.”

Colonel Killian also wrote in a memo that his superiors were forcing him to give Lieutenant Bush a favorable review, but that he refused.

“I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job,” he wrote.

At this crucial juncture, the Democrats need to ask themselves “What would Karl Rove do?”

Karl Rove doesn’t go for his opponent’s weak points, he goes for their strengths. And Bush’s strength is his character, his straight-talk, his trustability, his “you may not agree with me, but at least you know where I stand.” The Democrats must use this incident to show that Bush is untrustworthy, not that he took advantage of Daddy’s connections, but that for the past 30 years, he’s been lying to cover that fact up. Once the American public realizes that this is true, the Democrats can argue that Bush lies to get his way on a lot of things. He lied about WMD in Iraq, he lied about an Iraq Al-Qaeda connection, he lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger, he lied about the toxicity of ground zero, he lied about the cost of the prescription drug benefit. Mary Beth Cahill, are you listening?

Did you know these things eat your shoes?

Next Page »