Shuckin' Fit!

Over the past few years there have been some fleeting uses of profanity on television during live programs. The FCC decided to outlaw such occurrences and fine broadcasters for allowing them. To protect themselves broadcasters use a few seconds delay so a censor can ensure Bono doesn't let go with another "really fucking brilliant" at another awards ceremony. However the courts reversed the FCC who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is going to hear the case.

The case to be heard first on Tuesday is, in fact, about profanity — what two widely used, vulgar words mean, at least in legal terms, and what the government can do about punishing their use, at least on radio and television in daytime and prime time.

For an entertaining read that's related to the topic, please check this out.

But I Can Dance with Two Left Feet

Today I brought my shoes, shorts, and t-shirt so I could go for a run at lunch. Halfway through changing clothes I discovered the pair of shoes I brought consisted of two different shoes made for the right foot.

Well, I suppose it could be done. But not comfortably.

At Least Jesse James Was Up Front About It

From an article in The Nation:

The swindle of American taxpayers is proceeding more or less in broad daylight, as the unwitting voters are preoccupied with the national election. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson agreed to invest $125 billion in the nine largest banks, including $10 billion for Goldman Sachs, his old firm. But, if you look more closely at Paulson's transaction, the taxpayers were taken for a ride--a very expensive ride. They paid $125 billion for bank stock that a private investor could purchase for $62.5 billion. That means half of the public's money was a straight-out gift to Wall Street, for which taxpayers got nothing in return.

The president of the United Steel Workers is paying attention.

"This is no different than if you paid me $10,000 for a car for which no one else would pay more than $5,000," writes Leo Gerard. "You bought it for $5,000 and gifted me the other $5,000."

A final looting of the public treasury before a change of administration? Of course not! What kind of people do you think they are? Or do you live in a not-so-pro-America part of the country?

Say, where's your flag pin?

A Four-Seater Tandem

A fellow in Texas shows some creativity in making room for the kids on a tandem. I wonder if he uses bungee cords on the water pipes in his basement.

Clear As Mud And Plain As Day

What does this mean exactly?

"[w]hoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in [§ 1028A(c)] knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.”

Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican national, was convicted of aggravated identity theft. You can read a synopsis here. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the law says that he had to know the identification he was using actually belonged to another person. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction (PDF) stating:

On appeal, Flores renews his argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires the Government to prove that a defendant knew that the means of identification belonged to another person. Section 1028A(a)(1) states that “[w]hoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in [§ 1028A(c)] knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” The Government argues that “knowingly” modifies only “transfers, possesses, or uses,” whereas Flores argues that “knowingly” modifies not only “transfers, possesses, or uses,” but also the phrase “of another person,” which would require the Government to prove that a defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and decide just exactly what the law means. How will they do that? Justice Scalia wrote in A Matter of Interpretation (start at page 31) that what matters is what the law says, not what Congress intended. So the history of how the law came about and what Congress intended to do with the law has no weight whatsoever. It will be interesting to see what the court comes up with next June.

I imagine some law clerks will be consulting some English professors.

Look At The Bright Side

With the season's oncoming darkness and coldness--no, he was elected eight years ago--I return to riding the STA bus to work. I take the 124 Express from Hastings Park 'n' Ride. When that route started early this year a multitude of parking spaces in the lot were at my disposal and I would luxuriously sprawl across two seats, if luxury exists on a STA bus, quietly sing along with my iPod and disturb not a soul. All that has changed. If I catch the 7:00 am bus, I have to arrive almost 15 minutes beforehand--when the 6:45 bus leaves--in order to park in the lot. Otherwise, I am relegated to the street with the other unlucky patrons. The bus is packed with riders and I must pile my gym bag and backpack on my lap and I sing along with Death Cab For Cutie in my head.

It's great this many people are not driving those extra 9 miles to work.