Photos on social networking sites come back to bite defendants

Photos on social networking sites come back to bite defendants

By Eric Tucker

The Associated Press

updated 1:37 p.m. ET, Fri., July. 18, 2008

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunken driving crash that seriously injured a woman, the 20-year-old college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner. Pictures from the party showed him in a black-and-white striped shirt and an orange jumpsuit labeled "Jail Bird."

In the age of the Internet, it might not be hard to guess what happened to those pictures: Someone posted them on the social networking site Facebook. And that offered remarkable evidence for Jay Sullivan, the prosecutor handling Lipton's drunken-driving case.

Sullivan used the pictures to paint Lipton as an unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital. A judge agreed, calling the pictures depraved when sentencing Lipton to two years in prison.

Online hangouts like Facebook and MySpace have offered crime-solving help to detectives and become a resource for employers vetting job applicants. Now the sites are proving fruitful for prosecutors, who have used damaging Internet photos of defendants to cast doubt on their character during sentencing hearings and argue for harsher punishment.

Just a reminder. I am not saying that I agree that prosecuters and police and employers are right to use info taken from social networking sites to make decisions about individuals, but it seems they do. So we all might want to be a little careful.--don't be a jackass and post it online.

I recall in my second year one of the students in one of my review sections totally disappeared for half the semester. I emailed him repeatedly to tell him his absenses could cause him to get an F. Nothing. Then he shows up in the last two weeks of class. I tell the professor about it, and she says "fail him. The absence policy is clearly stated in the syllabus." He shows up to appeal, and says he has lupus and had gone back to his parents' house because he got sick in the middle of the semester. So the prof checks him out little on Facebook. Not surprising, his page is full of pictures of him drunk and frat parties and posted throughout the semester. And what's worse, he even bosts about how good he is about lying to profs and getting around paper deadlines and missed classes--his recommendation: "claim to have a chronich disease." So he failed the class.

Barak condemns detainee shooting

Footage released by an Israeli human rights group

Israel's defence minister has condemned an incident caught on film in which a soldier seems to shoot a rubber bullet at a bound and blindfolded Palestinian.

Ehud Barak said the case was "grave and wrong" and that the military would exact the full extent of the law.

Footage released by human rights group B'Tselem on Sunday shows the detainee being held by one soldier as another fires at his legs at close range.

The Palestinian man has said the rubber bullet hit his left big toe.

A 14-year-old girl reportedly filmed the incident on 7 July from the window of her home in the town of Nilin, which has been the scene of violent protests against the West Bank barrier.

Immediately afterwards, an inquiry was conducted by the brigade commander responsible, but no action was taken, reports say.

'Edited parts'

However, after examining the footage on Sunday, the Israeli military advocate general ordered military police to open an investigation.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) also issued a statement calling the incident "grave" and in "direct contradiction" of its values.

Warriors do not behave like this Ehud Barak Israeli Defence Minister

In televised remarks to Labour Party MPs on Monday, Mr Barak promised that those involved would be held to account.

"[The] incident was a grave and wrong one and is not indicative of the IDF's norms. The military will exact the full extent of the law in this case," he said.

"Warriors do not behave like this."

Earlier, military spokeswoman Maj Avital Leibovitz said questions remained "about the edited parts" of the video, referring to a moment shortly after the weapon is fired, when the camera moves away briefly before showing the Palestinian detainee lying on the ground.

A spokeswoman for rights group B'Tselem, Sarit Michaeli, said the girl had accidentally stopped filming when she was startled by the gunshot and continued as soon as she became aware she had pressed the stop button.

The group also said the footage appeared to contradict a statement by the soldier's commander, who was present at the scene.

The Israeli military originally said that the lieutenant colonel had been unaware of the incident and that the door of his patrol vehicle had blocked his line of sight.

However, the footage appears to show him holding the Palestinian detainee's arm when the shot is fired. The Jerusalem Post also reports that the commander told the soldier: "Shoot him, shoot him."

Not much reason to comment, I am just repeating myself again and again. The video clip posted here is taken from youtube because I couldn't imbed the clip posted on the BBC. It's the same clip, just that this one is a bit longer and has an audio dub of the girl who filmed it explaining why there is a jump in the video after the shot. It also has a really annoying cell phone ringtone going off in the background, so sorry for that.

Long-Lost Reels From 1927's 'Metropolis' Recovered

Morning Edition, July 21, 2008 · Paula Felix-Didier of the Museo del Cine in Buenos Aires, Argentina, discovered more than 20 minutes of missing film footage from the classic science fiction silent movie Metropolis in her museum's archives. German filmmaker Fritz Lang directed the film, and three reels have been missing almost since its premiere in 1927. Felix-Didier, the museum's director, talks with Deborah Amos.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92728652

Just thought this was cool. The link posted here has a link to the audio.

Israel identifies dead soldiers

The Israeli army has confirmed that human remains handed over by Lebanon's Hezbollah as part of a prisoner swap are those of two of its soldiers.

The two men, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, were captured in 2006, but it was not certain they had died.

In return, Israel is handing over five Lebanese prisoners and the bodies of 200 Lebanese and Palestinian fighters.

The capture of the two Israeli soldiers sparked a month-long war between Israel and the Shia Islamist militant group.

Israeli generals have reportedly visited both the soldiers' families to inform them personally of the identification.

From BBC online.

I am very glad for this exchange overall. Any moves toward negotiation, including prisoner swaps and remains return, should be viewed in a poisitve light. At the end of it all though, all I can think is nicely done Israel (sarcasm implied). Come on, this is how it ends? Hezbollah captures two soldiers, Israel launches a war that kills 1000 (mostly civilian) Lebanese, and then in the end Israel releases several prisoners and sveral remains so that Hezbollah can give up the two, now dead, soldiers. Seriously Israel, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier not to destroy Leabanon? You could have gotten the same thing, and maybe even two live soldiers instead, had you chosen not to blow up your neighbor. In the end, it looks like a big whopping victory for Hezbollah. I am mostly at a loss to understand Israel's strategies.

The Truthiness of the Colbert Bump

By: James Fowler, University of California, San Diego

Stephen Colbert hosts a comedy television program called The Colbert Report (the t at the end is silent—both of them!) in which he parodies personality-based news shows like The O'Reilly Factor that have become popular during the last 10 years. In an effort to make fun of these (usually conservative) personalities who engage in non-stop self-promotion, Colbert frequently trades outlandish claims for laughs. Among these is the claim that anyone who comes on the Report receives the “Colbert bump,” immediately vaulting the guest to stardom, fame, and fortune. Like Midas turning everything he touches to gold, Stephen Colbert can turn losers into winners, just by interviewing them on his show (but, ahem, he would never actually interview a loser now would he?).

Stephen Colbert first coined the term Colbert bump to describe the effect appearing on his program would have on candidates running for office. In particular, he trumpeted the victory of former Orleans singer John Hall in a very close election to become a member of Congress from New York in November 2006. He also claimed to have influenced the Connecticut race for U.S. Senate that same year. Ned Lamont, who earlier appeared on the Report, won the Democratic nomination against incumbent Joe Lieberman who refused to appear on the program (in spite of a temptingly comfy wingback chair Colbert had placed on the set just for him). However, Lamont did not return to the Report before the general election, so Colbert claimed this caused his subsequent loss to Lieberman! As his fans note, this proves that “the Colbert bump is stronger than ‘Joementum.’"

Democrats in Trouble and the Colbert Bump

First, let's start with Democrats and their fundraising activity before the Colbert Report. Notice in Figure 1 that 60 days prior to appearing on the show, Colbert Democrats are doing about as well as others. However, their luck takes a serious turn for the worse in the next 30 days. At their lowest point 28 days before appearing on the show, donations to Colbert Democrats lag those of similar candidates by 7.7 contributions per month. In dollar terms, Colbert Democrats are receiving $8,449 less than the control group, and this result is weakly significant (p = 0.06).

Once Democrats actually appear on the show, we see a dramatic rise in their performance. By the thirty-fourth day after their segment airs, Colbert Democrats are receiving significantly more contributions than matched candidates (p <>Colbert Democrats receive 9.2 more contributions than the treatment group (p = 0.03). This compares to the average for all candidates at all points in time in the data of 27.6 donations per month, suggesting a bump of about one-third over the normal number of donations received.

We also see a significant rise in receipts. On day 32, Colbert Democrats receive $8,247 more than the control group and the difference remains weakly significant until day 44 (p <>p = 0.01), and it remains below the 0.05 confidence threshold until day 42. To give a sense of scale, the average monthly amount received by all candidates at all points in time in the data is $21,107, so we are talking about a bump of roughly two-fifths over the normal rate of receipts.

Republicans and the Pre-Colbert Bump

Now let's take a look at the Republicans (the right half of Figure 1). It is important to point out that the results for Republicans are quite tentative since only eight have agreed to appear on Better Know a District. Nonetheless, some of the patterns that emerge are significant. Like their Democratic counterparts, Republicans who appear on the Report raise funds at about the same rate 60 days prior to the show as they do when their show airs. However, in stark contrast to the Democrats, the Republicans featured on the show have typically experienced a burst of activity I call the pre-Colbert bump. Exactly 30 days before appearing on the Report, Republican candidates have received a monthly average of 53.6 more donations than their matched counterparts, yielding an extra $63,357 in campaign funds. The difference between Colbert Republicans and the control group reaches its strongest significance 21 days before appearing on the show (p = 0.02 for the amount and p = 0.04 for the number of contributions) and gradually declines until the show airs.

Looking forward in time, however, Figure 1 shows that there is no evidence of a normal Colbert bump for Republicans. In the days after being on the show, the difference in monthly receipts between Colbert Republicans and the matched candidates actually turns negative, dipping to $4,207 by day 28 (though the difference is not significant, p = 0.46). In fact, Colbert Republicans receive a significantly smaller number of monthly contributions on days 17–20 (p = 0.05), with the difference hovering between 10 and 15 through day 30. Although this is not strong evidence of a “Colbert bust” since the sample is so small, it does argue strongly against evidence for a Colbert bump for Republicans who appear on the show. Ron Paul's legions of hopeful supporters are sure to be disappointed.

This is seriously (and significantly) excerpted from the latest issue of Politics and Society, a (real) academic journal published by the American Political Science Association, the largest poli sci organization in the US (and likely the world). I thought some of you might find it refreshing to know that we actually some relevant research once in a while--like is there a Colbert Bump. Anyway, for anyone interested I will be glad to send you a copy of the article. I am not sure how to post links to PDFs, and I am sure it would be a massive copyright violation anyway.

Sudan head accused of war crimes

Sudan says an indictment of Mr Bashir would harm any prospects of pea

Sudan's president has been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo told judges at The Hague that Omar al-Bashir bore criminal responsibility for alleged atrocities committed over the past five years.

The three-judge panel must now decide whether there are reasonable grounds for an arrest warrant to be issued.

Sudan's government has warned the move will undermine peace process in Darfur.

The country does not recognise the ICC and has refused to hand over two suspects who Mr Moreno-Ocampo charged last year, Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmad Harun and militia leader Ali Kushayb.

It has also labelled Mr Moreno-Ocampo a criminal, and warned that any indictment could stall peace talks and cause mayhem in Sudan.

I am big proponent of the ICC, and I was particularly disappointed when George W. removed former president Clinton's signature from the Rome Statute. Bashir no doubt deserves to be prosectued for war crimes--the evidence of his complicity in the Darfur gencoide is pretty clear. But I am not sure that this is the best time for the international community to make a legal move. Critics are probably right to suggest that the indictment could overturn the peace process and endanger peacekeepers on the ground. So, while I am all for the indictment in theory, it seems an unwise move unless the international community is ready to signifcantly beef up the international peacekeeping force or make some other move to end the conflict. Otherwise, it would be best to wait--they can always get him later.

Israelis Propose Laws To Punish Terrorists' Families

by Eric Westervelt

Morning Edition, July 10, 2008 · Following last week's bulldozer rampage in Jerusalem, some Israeli politicians want to pass laws that penalize families of people who launch attacks. That would mean revoking health insurance and unemployment benefits for Arab residents of East Jerusalem. While some Jewish lawmakers say it's necessary for Israel to toughen laws, critics say the proposals are about revenge.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398760

This is seriously repugnant. This summary doesn't explicitly mention it, but if you listen to the story one of the proposals is that the family homes of terrorists would be demolished. I mean, come the fuck on. This is even more repugnant when you consider that extended families often occupy the same home--grandparents, cousins, etc. Collective punishment is certainly the policy of the Israeli regime, but this is another step all together. Could we imagine a US law that would bulldoze the homes of the families of anyone who committed a murder? I also can't find how this would be productive at all. It would seem to only increase the likelihood that a punished third party would then turn to violence against Israel. Ughh...

Take a listen to the story. I could only get the brief summary from the NPR webpage.

Cold War take 2

The United States has criticised what it calls "bellicose rhetoric" from Russia over US plans to develop a missile shield in Europe.

Russia said it would be forced to react with military means if the US went ahead with its plan for a shield based partly in the Czech Republic.

The reaction was "designed to make Europeans nervous about participating" said a Pentagon spokesman.

A White House spokesman said dialogue with Russia would continue.

"We seek strategic cooperation on preventing missiles from rogue nations, like Iran, from threatening our friends and allies," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

He said the US and Russia should be "equal partners".

Moscow says siting the system near its borders could weaken its own defences, despite US assurances that it is designed to counter a threat from the Middle East, not from Russia.

It has previously threatened to aim its own missiles at any eventual base in Poland or the Czech Republic.

A deal, signed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Prague on Tuesday, allows a tracking radar base to be set up on Czech territory.

'Not our choice'

The Russian foreign ministry statement said: "If a US strategic anti-missile shield starts to be deployed near our borders, we will be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military-technical means."

Condoleezza Rice on the need for a missile shield

It said there was "no doubt that the grouping of elements of the strategic US arsenal faced towards Russian territory" would mean Moscow had to "take adequate measures to compensate for the threats to its national security".

"This is not our choice," it added.

The foreign ministry said it would continue to monitor developments but would remain open to constructive talks on issues of strategic stability.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington cites Russia's ambassador to the UN as suggesting that the phrase "military-technical means" does not mean military action, but more likely a change in Russia's strategic posture, perhaps by redeploying its own missiles.

More likely still, our correspondent says, is that the Russians are trying to frighten the Czech parliament into backing out of the whole deal.

The next question, he says, is whether Poland will accept missile defence facilities as well, and how the Russians will respond to that.

The plans remain unpopular in the Czech Republic, while the US has failed to reach agreement with Poland on placing other parts of the system there.

The plans involve siting the tracking radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The US wants the sites to be in operation by about 2012.

No doubt Russia is acting in a bellicose manner and upping the anty to an unnecessary level. But still, the US should expect such a response. This is exactly how wars begin. This is classic security dilemma and the first thing you study in intro to international relations. The undergrads I teach can see this. Hell, I taught this to middle school students (albeit scary bright middle school students) last summer and they all understood it. The core here is that the US IS acting provactively by putting up the missle shield. It removes any strategic balance Russia had by having nuclear weapons (i.e. the Cold War balance). So, Realist theory predicts that Russia would react to the dimiishment in its security by threating the US and, possibly, considering pre-emptive military action. Realism is very clear on these issues, yet surprisingly even people in the Realist theoretical camp (I am looking at you Condy) seem to make the same bad choices.

Gorbachov's, brains...ummmm, brains

Gorbachov: The Music Video - Bigger and Russianer

The following is a music video for a Russian Metal Band called ANJ, for their earnest song tribute to Mikael Gorbachov (Russian spelling). According to it Russian history includes a zombie uprising that is thwarted by Conan the Barbarian's older Russian Brother. which leads them to capitalist consumerism.

Apparently we missed the zombie uprising, since we already have capitalist consumerism. Who knew?

(BTW It's in HD, so let it load a bit before you play it and then click the little "four arrows" symbol on the lower right part of the viewer to see it in full-screen HD)

GORBACHOV: THE MUSIC VIDEO - BIGGER AND RUSSIANER from Tom Stern on Vimeo.

Porn and Rugby...

Porn appears on rugby programme

Some New Zealand rugby fans were shocked by unexpected pornography

New Zealand rugby fans watching a regular sports programme found themselves viewing hardcore pornography instead on Sunday afternoon.

Four minutes of pornography interrupted sports coverage on the Prime Television channel, after what a spokesman described as a distribution mix up.

The pornographic footage was meant for an adult pay-per-view channel.

Instead, it found its way onto a regular free-to-air programme called "Grassroots Rugby".

Rival television channels reported that some viewers were angry about the broadcast, which may have been seen by children.

Just for laughs....

BBC: "Iraq floats US pullout timetable"

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Talks are continuing on a new security deal, but the US has said it opposes setting any timetable for withdrawal.

The UN mandate under which US troops stay in Iraq expires at the end 2008.

Correspondents say Mr Maliki may have an easier time getting the support of Iraqi MPs by proposing a deal which includes a withdrawal timetable.

US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a detailed bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) since March and it was supposed to be concluded this month.

Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security.

In violence on Monday, a female suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

Respect for sovereignty

A statement from Mr Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors in the UAE: "The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq."

It was the first time that the prime minister had specifically suggested the setting of a timetable for a US withdrawal.

US officials in Baghdad did not issue an immediate reaction to the comments.

The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.

A possible withdraw from Iraq has become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign and could also figure prominently in local elections in Iraq in October.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7493782.stm

Sean Hannity...

...gets to call himself a news anchor for some reason?

On Iran, top military officer sounds like Obama

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen urges diplomacy, not use of force

By Tom Curry

National affairs writer

updated 5:05 p.m. ET July 3, 2008

WASHINGTON - It could turn out to be one of the most significant comments of the 2008 campaign — but coming just ahead of a holiday weekend, it isn’t getting much notice.

Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen.

He added pointedly, “we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time,” seeming to imply that the Bush administration should be talking to the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said that if elected, he would begin talks with Iran, without any precondition.

The Bush administration has insisted that before talks can begin, Iran must cease its nuclear enrichment — a step toward building nuclear weapons.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has said that his rival's willingness to hold direct talks, without preconditions, reveals "the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Adm. Mullen, much like Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, is one of those powerful unelected officials whose words could, at times, have as much effect on the campaign as Obama and McCain themselves.

It’s unusual for a military officer, especially the nation’s highest ranking one, to warn in such explicit terms of potential military action and to so emphatically call for diplomacy.

“What struck me about the comments was that he called for dialogue with Iran in his preliminary statement, even before he was responding to (reporters’) questions,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Alterman pointed to Mullen’s opening statement in which he said, “I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”

Not ruling out use of military force
President Bush, McCain, and Obama, all say they would not rule out the use of military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

But Mullen appeared to be edging toward saying that military action, either by Israel or the United States, or both, would be catastrophic.

He also warned that the United States would be hard pressed to conduct operations against Iran, given the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,” Mullen told reporters. “That doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserve, but that would really be very challenging.”

And, he added, “The consequences of that (military action) sometimes are very difficult to predict.”

Mullen explained, “Just about every move in that part of the world is a high-risk move. And that's why I think it's so important that the international piece, the financial piece, the diplomatic piece, the economic piece be brought to bear with a level of intensity that resolves this.”

The Israeli air force staged a large-scale drill last month that some observers saw as a warning of a possible Israeli attack on Iran.

But Mullen assured reporters Wednesday that “the Israeli press reported fairly widely that…those exercises were planned and routine.”

In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. The Israeli government believed Saddam Hussein's regime was planning to use the plant to make nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel.

An attack on Iranian nuclear sites could cause the Iranian regime to attack shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s total daily oil demand is carried.

Oil prices hit a record high of nearly $146 a barrel on Thursday. As Americans drive during this July 4 vacation, one reason they're paying more than $4.50 a gallon in some parts of the country is the growing tension over Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk such an attack.

“The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said. “The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region.”

In Congress, some members have expressed their fear that the Bush administration might launch a unilateral attack on Iran.

But last year the House rejected, by a vote of 288 to 136, an amendment offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D- Ore., that would have prohibited funds being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress — unless Iran had first attacked the United States.

Good for the military. I am glad they have decided that diplomacy is equally as valuable as violence. I am not sure if their opinion would be the same if they weren't bogged down, discredited, injured, and under-resourced by wars in two Southwest Asian countries (not that I am blaming the military itself for that). But it is refreshing to see the institution warn publicly against aggression. It almost sounds like a plea to the current (and future) administration: "Please God don't commit us to another war. You're killing us here George!"

Google must divulge YouTube log

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.

Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

Legal action

When it initiated legal action in March 2007 the firm said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site.

The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.

But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.

Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

'Erroneous ruling'

The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.

"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."

The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data.

The court also ruled that Google disclose to YouTube the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm


Freaking boo! What a terrible ruling. I understand wanting to protect intellectual property but I for one haven't even ever upoloaded anything to Youtube but I have a login and Google has my name and IP address and I don't want this information given out for any reason, nor do I want anyone to have unfettered access to my viewing log. This is a setback to privacy and internet rights. Boo I say, boo!

Africa urged to act on Zimbabwe

The UN has urged African leaders at a key summit in Egypt to try to negotiate a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe.

UN Deputy Secretary General Asha-Rose Migiro said this was the "moment of truth" for the African Union leaders.

President Robert Mugabe is attending the meeting. He was sworn in on Sunday after a victory that observers said had been undermined by pre-poll violence.

South Africa has now urged Mr Mugabe to hold talks with the opposition towards forming a transitional government.

Mr Mugabe claimed a landslide victory as the sole candidate after the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai, withdrew.

Draft resolution

Ms Migiro told the leaders of the 53-nation bloc: "This is a moment of truth for regional leaders... the secretary-general urges your excellencies to mobilise support for a negotiated solution."

She added: "This is the single greatest challenge to regional stability in southern Africa."

Ms Migiro again expressed UN regret that the election had been allowed to go ahead despite the violence.

In his welcoming speech, host President Hosni Mubarak said bolstering peace and security was "essential for resolving disputes and conflicts in the continent".

The AU has a rule not to accept leaders who have not been democratically elected - but observers say it is unlikely to take such strong action against Mr Mugabe so quickly.

A draft resolution written by African foreign ministers during talks ahead of the summit did not criticise the elections or Mr Mugabe, but condemned violence in general terms and called for dialogue.

Independent observers have criticised the poll.

The AU's own monitors said on Monday: "The vote fell short of the African Union's standards of democratic elections."

However, the said they were "encouraged" by the willingness of the MDC and Mr Mugabe's Zanu-PF to hold talks.

Earlier the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) observers said there was "politically-motivated violence, intimidation and displacements".

The Pan-African Parliament called for fresh elections to be held, saying the vote was not free or fair.

On Monday South Africa's foreign ministry said Zanu-PF and the MDC "must enter into negotiations which will lead to the formation of a transitional government".

The MDC has previously criticised South Africa's role and on Monday called for an additional mediator to be appointed to work alongside President Thabo Mbeki.

Also on Monday, France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the election was a "farce" that it could not accept.

UK PM Gordon Brown said: "I hope that the African Union and its leaders will make it absolutely clear that there has to be change and a new government has got to be brought in."

Separately, on the eve of the summit, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa, one of Mr Mugabe's leading critics, was rushed to hospital in Sharm el-Sheikh suffering chest pains. He is said to be stable.

Spoilt ballots

Mr Mugabe was sworn in during a quickly convened ceremony on Sunday, about an hour after the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission announced the results of the presidential election run-off.

Robert Mugabe is sworn in as Zimbabwe's president

The commission said Mr Mugabe won 85.5% of the vote, but many ballots were spoiled.

In a speech that followed the swearing-in ceremony, Mr Mugabe said he was committed to talks with the opposition to find a solution to the political crisis.

However, BBC Southern Africa correspondent Peter Biles says the opposition may reject any notion of a government of national unity in which Mr Mugabe is still in a key position.

The MDC said some 86 of its supporters were killed and 200,000 forced from their homes by militias loyal to the ruling Zanu-PF party in the weeks preceding the run-off.

The government has blamed the MDC for the violence.

Mr Mugabe has been in power since Zimbabwe gained independence from Britain in 1980.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7480584.stm


This is just a topic we have not touched on and it is of major importance in the region. I encourage you to check out the actual article for a map of the nations surrounding Zimbabwe and their positions on the matter.

A chicken in every pot and a handgun in every purse

A powerful pro-gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.

The lawsuits come a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) says it wants similar bans in other states and cities overturned as well.

San Francisco's mayor says he plans to fight the NRA challenge.

The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges the city's handgun ban in public housing; while in Chicago it challenges a ruling that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

"In Washington DC, or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," said Chris Cox, from the NRA.

"These laws all deny that right."

Self-defence

The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and said the ban was good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing? I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority," Mr Newsom said.

The Supreme Court's ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home".

The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.

"The Supreme Court's decision was very encouraging, but it is just a start," NRA lawyer C D Michel said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7478832.stm

Damn it, this is exactly what I was afraid would happen. I don't get this ruling at all. Prohibiting a class or category of guns in not a violation of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, the court should have ruled that the assault weapons ban and the ban on sawed off shotguns was a violation. I am starting to think that I know stray dogs that would make better decisions that Justice Asinine Scalia. Anyway, the point being, I am a gun owner, and I support the right of American's to own guns. But I also support significant constraints on these rights. For example, why is it that one must have a license to drive a car but not to shoot a gun? People that are wishy-washy on gun control seem to be misinformed about the laxity of current gun laws. I like to encourage all of my students to visit a gun show someday just for the cultural experience. I like to go myself, but it is always a little frightening (the scary conspiracy theory militia folk are an added bonus). Most people are shocked to learn how fucking easy it is to get a gun--last year I purchased a ticket to a gun show walked right up to a table and paid 100 dollars cash for a surplus military rifle--no id check, no signature, no questions asked. I also bought 50 rounds of ammunition at the next table. I am glad I am able to purchase the weapon, I love target practice. But I would also feel way more secure if I had had to show some official idea, maybe prove that I had taken a safety class, or had my info logged into some database.

Lastly, for those on the blog who disapprove of the court's recent ruling on executing child rapists because it overturned a state law approved by voters, how does this sit with you? If a state or municipality votes to ban some weapons or all weapons why should the court get to overturn it? (For the record I don't agree with that logic. People vote for all manner of retarded and vile things, and it is only the rule of law that prevents democracy from turning abysmally foul).

A little inappropriate religious humor

This picture kills me. Thank Matt for the contribution. I am just the holy messenger of mirth.

An Important Campaign Announcement from Barack Obama

*I was having major trouble Copying/Pasting the video. I couldn't get the embedded code to replicate and I wasn't about to type that crap out. Feel free to do it yourself and post it here Reed/Beck/Matt, you can get it from this address: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snsnqbq_OCo "

Transcript:
Hi, this is Barack ObamaI have an important announcement and I wanted all of you – the people who built this movement from the bottom-up – to hear it first. We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We’ve won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that’s the path we will continue in this general election. I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.If we don’t stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That’s why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable healthcare, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let’s build the first general election campaign that’s truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much.

I have some thoughts on this, but I have to go to work right now. I will express my opinion tonight in the comments section. BTW, I have the internet again - woohoo! I'm back online!

Child rapists can't be executed, Supreme Court rules

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that child rapists cannot be executed, concluding that capital punishment can be applied only against murderers.
The ruling stemmed from the case of Patrick Kennedy, who appealed the 2003 death sentence he received in Louisiana after being convicted of raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that execution in this case would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, citing "evolving standards of decency" in the United States.

Such standards, the justice wrote, forbid capital punishment for any crime other than those that take a life.

"We conclude that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other," wrote Kennedy, who is not related to the convicted rapist.

Patrick Kennedy, 43, would have been the U.S.'s first convicted rapist since 1964 to be executed in a case in which the victim was not killed.

Kennedy was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter in her bed. The attack caused severe emotional trauma, internal injuries and bleeding to the child, requiring extensive surgery, Louisiana prosecutors said.

In the majority opinion, Anthony Kennedy acknowledged "the victim's fright, the sense of betrayal, and the nature of her injuries caused more prolonged physical and mental suffering than, say, a sudden killing by an unseen assassin."

But the justice -- supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- wrote that when determining what punishment the Eighth Amendment prohibits, "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" must be taken into account.

After a review of the "history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments ... we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape," Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Attorneys at the Capital Appeals Project who represent Patrick Kennedy issued a statement applauding the ruling.

"We can only hope that the money that Louisiana has been spending drafting and defending this anomalous and unconstitutional statute will be reallocated to efforts at treatment for victims of sexual abuse and for measures that actually reduce the risk of such abuse in our communities," attorney Ben Cohen said in the statement.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, saying, "the harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapist is grave." He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Alito also wrote that the majority ruled against the death penalty "no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's criminal record may be."

Wednesday's ruling will affect six states that allow the death penalty for rape, including Louisiana, where Patrick Kennedy was recently joined on death row by another convicted child rapist, Richard Davis.

Because of the ruling, the sentences of Davis and Kennedy will automatically be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the Capital Appeals Project said.

"Mr. Kennedy, who has consistently maintained his innocence, plans to continue to pursue his appeals in state and federal court," the appeals project said.

Florida, Montana, Oklahoma and South Carolina have death-penalty laws for rape but have not applied them in decades. Texas enacted a version a year ago, but no defendant has been designated death-eligible for child rape in any state but Louisiana.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1976 and 1977 barred capital punishment for rape and, by implication, any other crime except murder. But in 1995, Louisiana passed a law allowing execution for the sexual violation of a child under 12. State lawmakers argued that the earlier high court cases pertained only to "adult women."

Supporters of Louisiana's law say that besides murder, no crime is more deserving of the death penalty than child rape and that the punishment would be used only in the most heinous of circumstances.

"A lot of people think there should not be a death penalty because the child survives," sex crimes prosecutor Kat Bartholomew said. "In my opinion, the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide."

She said a sexual assault on a child "takes away their innocence. It takes away their childhood. It mutilates their spirit. It kills their soul."

Death penalty opponents contend, among other things, that it could give attackers a reason to murder their victims. In Wednesday's ruling, Anthony Kennedy agreed, writing, "A state that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim."
After the ruling, Lynn, a cousin of the victim's, said, "Just knowing the kind of man [Patrick Kennedy] is, we'll never be comfortable."

The high court has in recent years banned execution for the mentally retarded, underage killers and those deemed to have had an inadequate defense at trial.

Other state and federal crimes theoretically eligible for execution include treason, aggravated kidnapping, drug trafficking, aircraft hijacking and espionage. None of these crimes has been prosecuted as a capital offense in decades, if ever.

An uncomfortable topic... and one we have discussed previously. I'm still conflicted over the subject, but in the end, I can't help but feel the Supreme Court has (again) fallen on the wrong side of the issue. I just can't help but feel that it should be up to the citizens of a given state as to whether or not they apply capital punishment to child rape, regardless of what my personal feelings on the matter might be. Personally, I'd commute the death penalty of a spy or a traitor before I'd do so for a convicted child rapist.

Upscale urban tactical gear

Who says protecting yourself from sniper attacks or chemical warfare needs to be ugly business? Certainly not Dutch designer Tim Smit. His “Urban Security Suit” will be all the rage in a war zone near you. Made of stylish neoprene and strategically lined with body molded kevlar, this runway show stopper will be THE must have accessory for your next war, skirmish, struggle, conflict, combat zone or civil strife you find yourself in or starting. Aeon Flux eat your heart out.

Designer: Tim Smit

from:http://www.yankodesign.com/index.php/2008/04/28/body-armor-fashion-design-armorni/