More Palin

Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.

The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.

After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.

There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.

I'm not discounting the possibility that this is true. Shit, even *I* can discuss a court case or two, though certainly not well.

Add one pinch of Habermas to taste

From the incredible AutoAdmit case:

Bartow believes the problem lies in technology outstripping the law and our cultural responses.

Um, yes. Unquestionably, especially our cultural responses.

Or, as Jeff Goldblum once argued in Jurassic Park: "We were so busy worrying about whether or not we could, we never stopped to think whether or not we should."

Or, as an instructor of mine once argued in a debate about whether or not cloning was ethical: What we think is ethical or not doesn't matter, as someone, somewhere, is going to do it anyway, and what's important is not our approval or disapproval, but having a coherent, comprehensive response.

I think the latter holds true here.

Habermas, of course, would probably categorize this as a byproduct of the colonization of the lifeworld (if that goes over your head.... don't worry about it).

[LCSD] Possible Ethics Violation?

It's nice to be in one's mid-20s. Lots of one's friends are still in school learning interesting things. Look what a conversation I had led to me looking for and finding:

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client or the lawyer’s own interests, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by a lawyer on that subject unless:

(a) the lawyer has the prior consent of a lawyer representing such other person;

(b) the lawyer is authorized by law or by court order to do so; or

(c) a written agreement requires a written notice or demand to be sent to such other person, in which case a copy of such notice or demand shall also be sent to such other person’s lawyer.

In other word, a lawyer cannot speak directly to someone who is represented by another lawyer unless one of the exceptions applies; instead, they must speak to the person's lawyer.

That's from the Oregon Code of Professional Conduct. You know, the one that applies to lawyers... like Jay Jackson.

If, as has been alleged, Jackson really sat down and wrote the amendments to the PIE contract with Josh Wineteer, then it sure looks like Jackson violated this part of the code in regards to Paul Dakopolos, the LCSD legal counsel, doesn't it?

Heck, if that's true, then think about all those contacts between Alexander or Wineteer - arguably clients of Paul Dakopolos - and Jackson that occurred without authorization, written permission, prior consent, or a court order.

I am not a lawyer. I don't know that what Jackson did is a violation of anything other than plain ol' ethics. I don't know if this part of the Code applies to organizations like the LCSD or only individuals. But Jackson could be in a world of hurt on this one. In fact, I would not be surprised if the words 'lost' and 'license' were used in the same sentence here soon.

The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct can also be found in PDF form here.

[LCSD] An argument in support of Jim Robinson suing his own district

I've wondered what goes through Jim Robinson's head when he's thinking about filing lawsuits against his own district (I am, of course, assuming he does think about - and he'd be a fool not to). That must be a terrible feeling, and not just because he ends up costing his down district money. It's clear that Robinson wants the district to succeed (your definition of success and/or preferred method of getting there may vary, possibly significantly), and the decision regarding whether or not he's going to take legal action can't be an easy one.

Note: My money is on lawsuit, for the record.

That said, given the latest shenanigans, and Josh's apparent inclination to try and marginalize the district superintendent while he's still under contract, I think there's a strong argument to be made in favor of Robinson filing a lawsuit for breach of contract:

Precedent.

Specifically, the idea that the school board can simply ignore parts of the superintendent's contract they don't like.

Remember, renegotiating the contract is one thing - clearly defining the job responsibilities of each party before anyone signs is certainly acceptable, and if the school board wants to take a more active role in hiring, they should make that clear to future employees and in future contracts.

Ignoring a signed contract that's still in effect is a bad idea.

What superintendent in their right mind would want to work in a district where the school board feels free to ignore the contract they signed?

For that matter, what other contracts the school board has approved does Josh feel like he can ignore? Maybe someone should ask him in the public comments section of the next meeting...

In any case, as I was wondering the frigid chilly streets of Corvallis with my pistachio-and-mint-chocolate gelato earlier this evening, I realized that one could argue that Robinson is practically, if not literally, obligated to sue his down district if for no other reason than to maintain the strength of the position for future superintendents.

Well? What say you, audience that only reads when I post about the LCSD? Am I on to something, or was that gelato laced with more than yummy flavors?

[Hasso Hering] Best. Headline. Ever. (Almost)

A recent Hering editorial headline:

Why prisons are full: Crime

Seriously, what the hell? I get that headline space was likely short, but COME ON. I. CAN'T. TAKE. IT. ANYMORE.

Oh, and then there's the actual editorial, which was shockingly decent:

The answer to the swelling prison population is not to relax the sentences but to seek ways of preventing crimes from being committed in the first place.

When I read that, what's left of my tiny little brain melted. It's easily the most sensible thing Hering has ever said, as far as I can tell.

So kudos, Hasso. This editorial - except for the headline - doesn't get mocked. It proposes a decent solution to a problem you illustrate with facts.

UPDATE: I forgot about the very last line. It suggests something I think is flat-out wrong:

Instead we have to make a more fundamental change. We have to get back to a system of values in which it is the height of virtue — which is looked up to and rewarded — not to harm other people and to leave their property alone.

Reverence for property is most certainly not the answer. But it is very consistent with Hering's other writings. Valuing people, on the other hand, would be nice. Maybe we could start by changing US policies as an example?

P.S. This, of course, is the best headline ever.

[RIAA] Evidence? Who needs evidence?

From a Slashdot summary:

The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'.

The fact that this is even being debated blows my fucking mind.

A private entity can sue someone in civil court and not reveal their evidence and collection methodology and not get laughed out of the courtroom?

People, we have ceded entirely too much headspace to corporations.

Or, as one /. commenter puts it:

These legal claims by the RIAA just blow my mind. I'm in the physics community, and I'm just trying to picture how these type of statements would play out in my arena.

Me: ...and as a result, we have discovered [blank].
Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods?
Me: No
[5 seconds of silence]
Entire conference hall bursts into laughter

I think that's as a good as illustration of the laugh test as I've ever seen.

I Give Up; Hasso, You Win [Especially For Folks Who Tune Out When They See the Words "Hasso Hering"]

I can't compete with Hering anymore - after all, I am just some dude with a blog... who apparently is more of a journalist than Hering.

Why do I say that? And how am I so full of myself as to be dead serious?

This:

Michael Hayden, the new chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, is trying to explain to Congress why the agency under his predecessors destroyed videotapes it had made of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Congress wants to know. But why?

According to testimony Tuesday, the questioning in 2002 produced immediate results in the capture of the 9/11 mastermind. Suppose those tapes showed waterboarding or any other normally indefensible way of interrogating suspects? It would not do the country any good to have them lying around, to be leaked and played on YouTube worldwide.

Whoever destroyed the tapes saved the country a lot of additional and needless grief. (hh)

To quote the person who sent this to me: "When does a journalist ever advocate the destruction of records?"

I agree completely.

Real journalists don't advocate the destruction of records - especially records almost guaranteed to show criminal acts up to and including violations of the Geneva Convention. That's the role of Republican Party operatives. REAL journalists value the truth.

Hering is actually very clear here: When it comes down to supporting the U.S. (my country, right or wrong!) or supporting the rule of law, Hering has no interest in supporting the rule of law.

Which is shameful, and kind of sad, and a whole long list of things that aren't fit to say in public.

The question is not can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper, it's should he be?

The answer is clearly no.

UPDATE: Apparently there was a standing court order against destroying the tapes.

Piling on Althouse

Lots of the feminist blogs I read have an intense dislike for Ann Althouse, and it's been present since before I started reading them, so I have never been quite sure what the deal is.

I think I understand now, thanks to Stoller's post about the pink locker room. Check out her comments in this Inside Higher Ed piece:

Ann Althouse...“It just seems to me that you’ve got a long tradition at a big football school and you’re picking on something that’s going to make people think that feminists are very prickly and touchy and have no sense of humor or they don’t respect the male tradition of sports. I just don’t think that that’s helpful to the feminist cause to pick that battle,” said Althouse...

Translation: Feminists shouldn't object to things that bother men, because then men will think feminists aren't any fun.

What the hell kind of argument is that? And she's a law professor?

The last time I checked, feminism was about justice, not making friends with the boys on the playground.