The Danish authorities have - or had - proposed to effectively abolish anonymous Internet use entirely. It's all part of fighting terrorism, you see.
There's not much to say, really. You either support peoples' right to use the Internet freely and to be able to operate under the assumption that they aren't guilty of a crime, or you don't. The Danish police have apparently chosen the latter option.
Tuesday, 28 June, 2011
Monday, 27 June, 2011
Notes of interest, June 28th: bunnies, Danielle Smith, pot, and video games
A few things that I thought were worth pointing out:
1) The USDA is continuing to go after a Missouri couple for selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year.
2) Evidently Smoking Is Bad for You.
3) The Wildrose Alliance would get rid of the Alberta Human Rights Commission if elected.
4) "You might think that putting an innocent person in prison for a major crime like rape or murder would end or at least impede a prosecutor’s career. But prosecutors are rarely sanctioned for mistakes, even when their misconduct is egregious."
5) Crime Labs and the Confrontation Clause.
6) Ian Mulgrew writes in the Vancouver Sun on Canada's medical-marijuana system, and the National Review editorial board supports Ron Paul and Barney Frank in their efforts to get the federal government out of State marijuana laws. Meanwhile, on a related note, an elderly German woman was apparently feeding weed to her rabbits.
7) The US Supreme Court has overturned California's ban on selling or renting violent video games to minors. In the words of Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing: "Supreme court performs finishing move on violent game ban." Brian Crecente at Kotaku writes about where video games could go from here. Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone thinks it's time that Hillary Clinton apologized for trying to introduce a similar federal law.
8) How Gingrich's Love Drives Him to Kill.
9) Finally, Ezra Levant and Brooke Goldstein:
1) The USDA is continuing to go after a Missouri couple for selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year.
2) Evidently Smoking Is Bad for You.
3) The Wildrose Alliance would get rid of the Alberta Human Rights Commission if elected.
4) "You might think that putting an innocent person in prison for a major crime like rape or murder would end or at least impede a prosecutor’s career. But prosecutors are rarely sanctioned for mistakes, even when their misconduct is egregious."
5) Crime Labs and the Confrontation Clause.
6) Ian Mulgrew writes in the Vancouver Sun on Canada's medical-marijuana system, and the National Review editorial board supports Ron Paul and Barney Frank in their efforts to get the federal government out of State marijuana laws. Meanwhile, on a related note, an elderly German woman was apparently feeding weed to her rabbits.
7) The US Supreme Court has overturned California's ban on selling or renting violent video games to minors. In the words of Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing: "Supreme court performs finishing move on violent game ban." Brian Crecente at Kotaku writes about where video games could go from here. Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone thinks it's time that Hillary Clinton apologized for trying to introduce a similar federal law.
8) How Gingrich's Love Drives Him to Kill.
9) Finally, Ezra Levant and Brooke Goldstein:
The Department of Sugary Drinks
Colleen Kimmett at The Hook reports:
Update: Speaking of, here's Baylen Linnekin at Hit & Run: New Study on Kids, Ads, & Obesity Says Same Thing in Mildly Different Way.
Look, I know that pumping our kids full of sugary crap probably isn't the best long-term health strategy, but this is just ridiculous: punitive taxation shouldn't be a method of coercion, period. That applies to any vice or behavior that those who get a say in such things deem to be somehow lacking in moral purity. It's none of the government's goddamn business how unhealthy we are, and it's tiring to have to keep saying that.An alliance of health organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, is calling on provincial governments to tax pop and other sugary drinks.
In a position statement released last week, the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada noted that obesity and other chronic diseases caused by obesity cost Canadian taxpayers around $123 billion every year, and that taxing these products is an key part of an overall obesity prevention strategy.
[...]
In addition to these measures, the alliance is recommending a tax on all SSB's, or sugar-sweetened beverages; those that contain sugar or other "caloric sweeteners" such as pop, sports drinks, vitamin water or fruit drinks. Specifically, it recommends an excise tax of a fixed price per ounce, rather than a sales tax per item that might encourage the purchase of less expensive brands or large containers.
Update: Speaking of, here's Baylen Linnekin at Hit & Run: New Study on Kids, Ads, & Obesity Says Same Thing in Mildly Different Way.
The latest at the Victoria Politics Examiner, June 27th
A few posts on my other blog. Please read to help me escape from poverty:
Saturday, 25 June, 2011
Freedom of What?cott
Here's the trailer for a new documentary created by these folks about Bill Whatcott, the somewhat-infamous anti-gay activist who has been fighting to the bitter end against the speech enforcement parts of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act:
By the way: I'm quoted briefly in the trailer from a post I wrote for The Lynch Mob back in the day.
By the way: I'm quoted briefly in the trailer from a post I wrote for The Lynch Mob back in the day.
Reefer notes
A few pot-related stories that I thought were worth noting.
1) Growing Pot Remains a Felony in California.
2) Earlier this month, a Michigan jury convicted a 70-year-old woman for pot possession - leaving her facing a 4-year sentence.
3) On an even more ridiculous note, Connecticut has apparently decided to criminalize fake pot while at the same time decriminalizing real pot. Try to wrap your head around that one.
4) From the folks who brought you Miracle-Gro: Miracle-Weed.
5) US Attorney General Eric Holder promised earlier this month to clear up the confusion over whether the federal government will try to go after medical marijuana dispensaries in compliance with state law. Good luck with that.
6) The government of Nova Scotia has been ordered by the province's Income Assistance Appeals Board to approve funding for a disabled Nova Scotian woman's grow-op. You can't make this stuff up.
7) If the Law's Unfit, You Must Acquit.
8) Finally, Ron Paul and Barney Frank, of all odd couples, have co-sponsored a bill that would "limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement."
1) Growing Pot Remains a Felony in California.
2) Earlier this month, a Michigan jury convicted a 70-year-old woman for pot possession - leaving her facing a 4-year sentence.
3) On an even more ridiculous note, Connecticut has apparently decided to criminalize fake pot while at the same time decriminalizing real pot. Try to wrap your head around that one.
4) From the folks who brought you Miracle-Gro: Miracle-Weed.
5) US Attorney General Eric Holder promised earlier this month to clear up the confusion over whether the federal government will try to go after medical marijuana dispensaries in compliance with state law. Good luck with that.
6) The government of Nova Scotia has been ordered by the province's Income Assistance Appeals Board to approve funding for a disabled Nova Scotian woman's grow-op. You can't make this stuff up.
7) If the Law's Unfit, You Must Acquit.
8) Finally, Ron Paul and Barney Frank, of all odd couples, have co-sponsored a bill that would "limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement."
Prisons, their reform
A few different writers and pundits, courtesy of Reason magazine, weigh in on the American prison system - with an eye toward California - and why it needs work:
Tim Cavanaugh: Prison Guards Union Locks Up Benefits, Politicians, People.
Radley Balko: Wrongful Convictions.
Alexandra Natapoff: The Guilt Market.
Shikha Dalmia: Shrink the Prisons.
Radley Balko: The Crime Rate Puzzle.
Lucy Steigerwald: California Death Row Costs $178 Million a Year.
Greg Beato: You’ve Got Jail.
Harvey Silverglate: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You.
Lovisa Stannow: Rape Factories.
Tim Cavanaugh: Prison Guards Union Locks Up Benefits, Politicians, People.
Radley Balko: Wrongful Convictions.
Alexandra Natapoff: The Guilt Market.
Shikha Dalmia: Shrink the Prisons.
Radley Balko: The Crime Rate Puzzle.
Lucy Steigerwald: California Death Row Costs $178 Million a Year.
Greg Beato: You’ve Got Jail.
Harvey Silverglate: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You.
Lovisa Stannow: Rape Factories.
Wednesday, 22 June, 2011
C-SPAN After Dark
H/t to Nick Gillespie at Reason's Hit & Run for this 2009 video of representative Alcee Hastings ( D-Fla. ), currently facing accusations of sexual harassment:
Fun stuff.
Fun stuff.
Notes of interest, June 22nd: the CHRA, slow-speed chases, and bad pictures
A few things I thought were worth pointing out.
1) The Canadian Human Rights Act has been extended to cover Aboriginal peoples ( giving them the right, among other things, to challenge their own local governments ), which either constitutes a step forward for human rights or a step back, depending on your view of both the CHRC and the bodies which are tasked with administrating its application.
2) Lawrence Hill's Statement on the burning of his novel "The Book of Negroes" by a stupid Dutchman.
3) Tennessee makes putting offensive pictures online an illegal act. Meanwhile, a California high school has accidentally distributed "child porn" through its yearbook.
4) Your Jihadi site of the day...
5) The food police.
6) Finally, h/t to Peter Jaworski for this video of a low-speed chase involving the Canadian Taxpayer Federation's debt-clock, Ottawa police, and the Conservative Party of Canada's recent policy convention. Enjoy:
1) The Canadian Human Rights Act has been extended to cover Aboriginal peoples ( giving them the right, among other things, to challenge their own local governments ), which either constitutes a step forward for human rights or a step back, depending on your view of both the CHRC and the bodies which are tasked with administrating its application.
2) Lawrence Hill's Statement on the burning of his novel "The Book of Negroes" by a stupid Dutchman.
3) Tennessee makes putting offensive pictures online an illegal act. Meanwhile, a California high school has accidentally distributed "child porn" through its yearbook.
4) Your Jihadi site of the day...
5) The food police.
6) Finally, h/t to Peter Jaworski for this video of a low-speed chase involving the Canadian Taxpayer Federation's debt-clock, Ottawa police, and the Conservative Party of Canada's recent policy convention. Enjoy:
The Mexican war on drugs: more casualties, no victory in sight
As the war on the cartels in Mexico continues to ratchet up the violence, journalist Miguel Angel Lopez Velasco and his family were killed inside their home two days ago, continuing the pattern of dead and intimidated journalists in that country.
On a related note, Sylvia Longmire comments in the New York Times: Legalization Won’t Kill the Cartels:
I'm one of those people who has been arguing that the body count in Mexico is a direct result of the American ( and Canadian, to an extent ) prohibition on drugs like pot. It looks like I may be wrong about that, for reasons elaborated by Longmire in her article, and for this I apologize to anybody I may have mistakenly maligned.
However, the fact remains that fighting the war on drugs leads to violence and death, and we need to re-assess whether we are willing to pay that price for a moral stance on the chemicals we put into our bodies. That hasn't changed.
On a related note, Sylvia Longmire comments in the New York Times: Legalization Won’t Kill the Cartels:
H/t to Mike Riggs at Hit & Run.FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits. Legalization would move that trade into the open market, driving down the price and undermining the cartels’ power and influence.
Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Marijuana legalization has many merits, but it would do little to hinder the long-term economics of the cartels — and the violent toll they take on Mexican society.
I'm one of those people who has been arguing that the body count in Mexico is a direct result of the American ( and Canadian, to an extent ) prohibition on drugs like pot. It looks like I may be wrong about that, for reasons elaborated by Longmire in her article, and for this I apologize to anybody I may have mistakenly maligned.
However, the fact remains that fighting the war on drugs leads to violence and death, and we need to re-assess whether we are willing to pay that price for a moral stance on the chemicals we put into our bodies. That hasn't changed.
Monday, 20 June, 2011
Notes of interest, June 20th: homeless people, human rights, fat cats, and doughnuts
A few things that I thought were worth highlighting.
1) Apparently it's not legal to feed homeless people at Lake Eola Park in Orlando. Just in case you had any humanitarian urges.
2) The Sea Hitler lawsuit. Yes, you read that correctly.
3) "Ontario's human rights system must be abolished." H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.
4) Ticketed for eating donuts in a play park. Yes, you read that correctly.
5) This whole Citizens United thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
6) This cat knows how to hustle for its food:
1) Apparently it's not legal to feed homeless people at Lake Eola Park in Orlando. Just in case you had any humanitarian urges.
2) The Sea Hitler lawsuit. Yes, you read that correctly.
3) "Ontario's human rights system must be abolished." H/t to Blazing Cat Fur.
4) Ticketed for eating donuts in a play park. Yes, you read that correctly.
5) This whole Citizens United thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
6) This cat knows how to hustle for its food:
"Marijuana"
Nothing like a good ol' anti-drug propaganda film from the 1960s.
As Ramon Glazov points out, anti-drug propaganda has become slightly more sophisticated since the '60s.
Update: I should note that this film is actually somewhat balanced. Shockingly so, in fact.
As Ramon Glazov points out, anti-drug propaganda has become slightly more sophisticated since the '60s.
Update: I should note that this film is actually somewhat balanced. Shockingly so, in fact.
Let's all say it together: end the war on drugs
A few calls for an end to the drug war from, in no particular coherent order or seeming pattern:
1) Richard Branson, Kofi Annan, and Paul Volcker.
2) Jesse Jackson.
3) Gary Johnson.
4) All these people.
5) Jacob Sullum.
6) The Global Commission on Drug Policy - although one could quibble with their conclusions.
1) Richard Branson, Kofi Annan, and Paul Volcker.
2) Jesse Jackson.
3) Gary Johnson.
4) All these people.
5) Jacob Sullum.
6) The Global Commission on Drug Policy - although one could quibble with their conclusions.
Wednesday, 15 June, 2011
Bill C-51: quite possibly the most illiberal thing that Stephen Harper has ever done
[ UPDATE: Welcome Blazing Cat Fur and Free Dominion readers! ]
If you care to recall ( which is assuming a lot on my part ), I had gone into the last federal election a couple of months back with a firm decision not to vote for the Conservatives.
This wasn't something that I came to lightly. How could I? I've been a conservative for years. But while I continue to support the party in general I've reached the conclusion that with a majority, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper stands to do quite a lot of damage.
And no, I don't mean damage in the sense of troops-in-our-streets, slashed-healthcare radicalism that Harper's critics on the left have - rather ineptly - tried to convey over the years. I don't even mean damage in terms of the budget, even though I hold little hope that the Harper administration will stick to any sort of fiscally conservative game-plan. I mean damage in the sense of measures like Bill C-51.
Haven't heard of it? Well, I don't blame you. It's an obscure bill, and it's about to get buried in an omnibus piece of legislation that the Tories are seemingly prepared to ram through Parliament in the next few months. The means of getting this legislation into place is odious enough - omnibus bills are so...tiring. But the legislation itself is worrying on a very, very deep level. Michael Geist sums up some of the most disturbing elements of Bill C-51:
I have to say that this second issue - the criminalization of hyperlinking and anonymity - does not concern me nearly as much as the rest of Bill C-51's lawful access legislation. As Michael Geist points out:
Instead, the main issue at hand is the fact that the government wants to have the right to force ISPs to spy on their customers and disclose their information without a court order. That's what should worry everyone who hears about this bill, and that's what makes me so damned frustrated with Stephen Harper: no conservative would allow this legislation to be passed. At least, no conservative worth voting for.
Last words go to Arnie at Blazing Cat Fur: "No one elected you for this asinine bill Stephen."
If you care to recall ( which is assuming a lot on my part ), I had gone into the last federal election a couple of months back with a firm decision not to vote for the Conservatives.
This wasn't something that I came to lightly. How could I? I've been a conservative for years. But while I continue to support the party in general I've reached the conclusion that with a majority, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper stands to do quite a lot of damage.
And no, I don't mean damage in the sense of troops-in-our-streets, slashed-healthcare radicalism that Harper's critics on the left have - rather ineptly - tried to convey over the years. I don't even mean damage in terms of the budget, even though I hold little hope that the Harper administration will stick to any sort of fiscally conservative game-plan. I mean damage in the sense of measures like Bill C-51.
Haven't heard of it? Well, I don't blame you. It's an obscure bill, and it's about to get buried in an omnibus piece of legislation that the Tories are seemingly prepared to ram through Parliament in the next few months. The means of getting this legislation into place is odious enough - omnibus bills are so...tiring. But the legislation itself is worrying on a very, very deep level. Michael Geist sums up some of the most disturbing elements of Bill C-51:
The package is benignly nicknamed “lawful access,” but isn’t benign. If the Conservatives move forward with it, it would feature a three-pronged approach focused on information disclosure, mandated surveillance technologies, and new police powers.The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, e-mail address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.
The second prong requires Internet providers to re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions.
Having obtained customer information without court oversight and mandated Internet surveillance capabilities, the third prong creates a several new police powers designed to obtain access to the surveillance data.
Here's the text of the bill itself. Michael Geist explores the issue of lawful access a little more here.
[T]he creators of this bill clearly don’t know what a link on the internet even is. Or worse — maybe they do, and they don’t care.Personally, I suspect it's a mix of both, but whether the reason is ignorance or an outright desire to censor and control, criminalizing a hyperlink to hate material is still bad policy. Not only, as Kathy Shaidle points out, could it lead to nazi-hunters like Bernie Farber fighting the very same laws they are trying to hammer others down with, it displays a remarkable degree of distrust for the Canadian people. In Mark Steyn's words:
If this law passes, I shall break it as a point of principle. A hyperlink is not an act of approval, but an act of sourcing: It says to the reader I trust you to go to the source and make an informed judgment. In denying that freedom to the citizen, the state couldn't be more explicit in its contempt for you.More thoughts from Terrence Watson, Denyse O'Leary, Brian Lilley, Charles Crawford, Free Dominion, and Blazing Cat Fur.
I have to say that this second issue - the criminalization of hyperlinking and anonymity - does not concern me nearly as much as the rest of Bill C-51's lawful access legislation. As Michael Geist points out:
The actual legislative change amends the definition of communicating from this:Michael Geist is much smarter than I am, and has read up on this much more than I have, so I'll defer to him on this. Conservatives shouldn't be worried about their linking activities leading to charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code. That's not to say that this potential interpretation of Bill C-51 isn't worth paying attention to - just that it's not the main issue at hand.
“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
to this:
“communicating” means communicating by any means and includes making available;
The revised definition is obviously designed to broaden the scope of the public incitement of hatred provision by making it technology neutral. Whereas the current provision is potentially limited to certain technologies, the new provision would cover any form of communication. It does not specifically reference hyperlinking.
I recognize that one could make an argument that a link could be included within communicating by any means or making available, but that strikes me a big stretch. The Supreme Court of Canada is examining this issue within the context of libel in the Crookes v. Newton case which should provide further guidance on the meaning of a "link" under Canadian law. In the earlier B.C. Court of Appeal decision, a majority of the court concluded that merely linking to another site does not make that person a publisher of the material found at that site. Pending the outcome of that case, I think the legislative summary likely overstates the breadth of the provision.
[...]
This summary had led to concerns that this prohibits false names on the Internet. The problem with the summary is that it doesn't mention that the provision includes an "intent to injure or alarm" component. The full provision states:
Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.
In other words, the offence is not conveying false information, but rather conveying false information with the intent to injure or alarm. This does not stop people from posting anonymously, unless they do so with the intent to injure or alarm, in which case arguably they should not be shielded from liability merely because they are using the Internet.
Instead, the main issue at hand is the fact that the government wants to have the right to force ISPs to spy on their customers and disclose their information without a court order. That's what should worry everyone who hears about this bill, and that's what makes me so damned frustrated with Stephen Harper: no conservative would allow this legislation to be passed. At least, no conservative worth voting for.
Last words go to Arnie at Blazing Cat Fur: "No one elected you for this asinine bill Stephen."
Thursday, 9 June, 2011
Interview: On Klout and social media
[ ED NOTE: This appeared in the Libertas Post a few days ago, but I thought I would share it on this blog as well. ]
I recently had the opportunity to ask someone from Klout, a company which measures social networking influence, a few questions about their methodology and the potential applications that their work could have on the political process. The following is the lightly-edited result of a brief email back-and-forth:
I recently had the opportunity to ask someone from Klout, a company which measures social networking influence, a few questions about their methodology and the potential applications that their work could have on the political process. The following is the lightly-edited result of a brief email back-and-forth:
1) First off, the most basic question of all: what is Klout?
Klout measures influence across the social web. Using its core technology, Klout analyzes social network user data and identifies influential individuals based on the impact of their opinions, links, recommendations and other online content. Klout then provides innovative tools to allow companies, including major brands such as Disney, Audi, Nike and Fox, to interact with and interpret this valuable influencer data. Klout is a privately held company based in San Francisco, Calif.
2) What led founders Joe Fernandez and Binh Tran to start Klout up?
Our CEO and Co-Founder Joe Fernandez had his jaw wired shut for 3 months in 2007. During that time he couldn't talk and became deeply involved in social media as his main mode of communication. He became fascinated with the idea that there was real, measurable influence happening on the social web. Klout was born soon after.
3) Binh Tran wrote in Klout's blog this May about the models that Klout uses to analyze social networking data. Can you maybe delve into this a little further for laymen like myself? How does Klout analyze the reams of information coming out of the myriad of social networking sites?
Binh's post is a great overview of how we do it, but on an even higher level we take in information on social actions such as retweets, @messages, lists, likes, and comments and have an algorithm that ranks influence based on these factors.
4) What applications do you see Klout as having in the political world? Politicians in the United States and Canada have become much more engaged in social networking and media, and political leaders' Klout scores have recently become the subject of some media speculation. Do you see this as a growing trend?
Yes, we do. Politicians are increasingly aware that social media is important in modern-day campaigning. Klout provides a way for them to measure their own success as well as understand who to connect to.
5) Do you think that influence-measuring metrics like Klout will become a part of political election and communication strategies in the future? If not, do you think that they should become part of these strategies?
Yes, I think they will. Politicians can use Klout to pin-point the most influential "every-day" influencers who they should be engaging with.
6) This February, Greg Shove wrote in Advertising Age that the ability of services like Klout to analyze reader participation could be a boon to smaller online publications and a potential stumbling block for larger media organizations with online presences that do not have as much ability to engage their readers. Do you agree with this take? If so, what would your recommendation(s) be to publications – strictly online or otherwise – to boost reader participation and gain online popularity?
Klout can be effective for big or small publications. For bigger publications that can't engage with everyone, Klout helps them prioritize who they should be replying to. For smaller publications Klout can help them take their engagement to the next level and judge what's working.
Wednesday, 8 June, 2011
Ezra Levant and Marc Lemire
On his Sun TV news show, Ezra Levant interviews Marc Lemire. Interesting stuff:
H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this, and for this clip of his wife Kathy Shaidle talking about the interview with Ezra the next day:
H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this, and for this clip of his wife Kathy Shaidle talking about the interview with Ezra the next day:
Tuesday, 7 June, 2011
Notes of interest, June 7th: HRCs, drug violence, chokings, and hamburgers
A few things I thought were worth paying attention to over the past few days.
1) H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this one. John Martin writes in the Chilliwack Times: This commission must go.
2) In Mexico, with a drug-related shoot-out just outside, a kindergarten teacher sings to her class to keep it calm. Quite a juxtaposition there.
3) High prison populations in California? Here's one man's solution: start flogging prisoners. Seriously, give it a look.
4) Apparently, you can't dance at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. And if you decide to try it, federal park police will slam you to the ground and put their hands around your neck.
5) The Dutch government will soon ban tourists from buying pot in Holland's famous "coffee" shops, a proposal we here at the BoW have written about before.
6) "Narco-tanks." Yes, you read that correctly.
7) Finally, the North Carolina rare burger ban:
1) H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this one. John Martin writes in the Chilliwack Times: This commission must go.
2) In Mexico, with a drug-related shoot-out just outside, a kindergarten teacher sings to her class to keep it calm. Quite a juxtaposition there.
3) High prison populations in California? Here's one man's solution: start flogging prisoners. Seriously, give it a look.
4) Apparently, you can't dance at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial. And if you decide to try it, federal park police will slam you to the ground and put their hands around your neck.
5) The Dutch government will soon ban tourists from buying pot in Holland's famous "coffee" shops, a proposal we here at the BoW have written about before.
6) "Narco-tanks." Yes, you read that correctly.
7) Finally, the North Carolina rare burger ban:
My latest, for the Libertas Post and the Victoria Politics Examiner
A couple of pieces today that I thought I'd point out.
First, here's a quick interview that I just published at the Libertas Post: The Libertas Post Interview: On Klout and social media:
Meanwhile, at the Victoria Politics Examiner: Craig James leaves Elections BC for plumb appointment and more controversy:
First, here's a quick interview that I just published at the Libertas Post: The Libertas Post Interview: On Klout and social media:
I recently had the opportunity to ask someone from Klout, a company which measures social networking influence, a few questions about their methodology and the potential applications that their work could have on the political process. The following is the lightly-edited result of a brief email back-and-forthI should have that interview re-posted here a couple of days from now.
Meanwhile, at the Victoria Politics Examiner: Craig James leaves Elections BC for plumb appointment and more controversy:
Also at the Examiner: Adrian Dix launches "Vote Yes" campaign in Burnaby today.Earlier, I noted the appointment of Alberta academic Keith Archer to the position of Chief Electoral Officer, effective September 1st, and wondered what direction Elections BC would take under its new boss.
Well, we're still waiting for the answer to that question, but for those who are worried that Craig James won't have something to fall back on after he's relieved of CEO duty, rest assured that the direction he'll be taking is in a rather more prestigious direction.
Monday, 6 June, 2011
Matt Welch, FTW
Matt Welch in Reason Magazine with the quote of the day:
The drug war is a leading supplier to the prison industry and the biggest inspiration for new ways to circumvent the Fourth Amendment. More than 800,000 people are still arrested each year for marijuana alone, despite the widespread misconception that pot has been largely decriminalized, and despite the fact that close to half of all Americans by now have smoked it, and more than half, by some surveys, favor legalizing it. We can thank the drug war for “stop-and-frisk” harassment of young New Yorkers, for the transfer of military equipment and tactics to local police departments, for wrong-door SWAT raids that kill innocents, for an entire shadow economy of dubious jailhouse snitching and back-room sentence reductions. Vanishingly few public officials even pretend anymore that the drug war can somehow be “won.”
Notes of interest, June 6th: Reform, human rights tribunals, heroin, and tree trimmers
A few things that I found interesting over the past few days.
1) Gerry Nicholls on Stephen Harper's departure from his Reform Party roots.
2) H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this one. Mark Hasiuk writes in the Vancouver Courier: "Human rights tribunals elevate the frivolous and cheapen the sacrosanct."
3) Turns out that safe-injection clinics - for heroin, at least - might not be as bad for the communities they're planted in as some might think.
4) Which credit card companies will let you buy pot?
5) A Minneapolis man has been fined $275 for voluntarily cleaning up debris in a tornado zone. Yep. It's that crazy.
6) Finally, how could I resist a headline like this? Huckster Suzuki's American Sugar Daddies:
1) Gerry Nicholls on Stephen Harper's departure from his Reform Party roots.
2) H/t to Blazing Cat Fur for this one. Mark Hasiuk writes in the Vancouver Courier: "Human rights tribunals elevate the frivolous and cheapen the sacrosanct."
3) Turns out that safe-injection clinics - for heroin, at least - might not be as bad for the communities they're planted in as some might think.
4) Which credit card companies will let you buy pot?
5) A Minneapolis man has been fined $275 for voluntarily cleaning up debris in a tornado zone. Yep. It's that crazy.
6) Finally, how could I resist a headline like this? Huckster Suzuki's American Sugar Daddies:
My latest, for The Propagandist and the Victoria Politics Examiner
Check it out. First, for the Victoria Politics Examiner: Like the HST or not, Bill Vander Zalm is sort of crazy:
Look, it's not as if I don't think that Bill Vander Zalm and Chris Delaney haven't done a good job of fighting for the interests of a large segment of BC's population. It's just that I don't think this is the case anymore. BC's political landscape is wildly different than it was even this spring, and Fight HST hasn't adapted to the new environment. Its failed attempts at recalling a variety of Liberal MLAs should have been indication enough.And then my latest for The Propagandist: 12-Year Sentence For Mohammed Cartoon Bomber:
Doukaev isn't the first incompetent terrorist to ply his trade, and he probably won't be the last. Good riddance to him nonetheless.
Wednesday, 1 June, 2011
Online gambling in the crosshairs of the U.S. government
[ ED NOTE: Below is a guest-post from Daniel. ]
Online Gambling in the Crosshairs of the US Government
Despite passing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in late 2006, the US government had largely been silent when it came to enforcing it, a move that emboldened some online poker, casino, and sportsbetting sites to continue to openly serve US customers. After nearly five years of steady profits serving one of the world’s largest gambling markets, it looked like the right decision for companies that chose to defy US law and stay in the US market -- until the Department of Justice moved to indict two of the world’s largest online poker sites (PokerStars and Full Tilt) on April 15th.
The move took both players and industry insiders by surprise, with the DoJ charging the sites with violating the UIGEA as well as with money laundering and wire fraud; bank accounts containing millions of dollars were confiscated and the online domains of the indicted sites were seized by the US government. While PokerStars refunded over $100 million to US players in the aftermath of the indictments Full Tilt has yet to refund any money to players, leaving millions of dollars locked in limbo.
The US government wasn’t done, however, with a fresh wave of indictments and domain seizures a little over a month later on May 23rd. The target this time was two separate companies that primarily operated online sportsbetting sites, with ten domains seized this time as well as bank accounts and funds in nine different countries. The investigation that led to these indictments stretched out over a two year time span and included setting up a fake transaction processing company to gather evidence against the companies when they moved money to and from US players and accounts.
While many US citizens would still like to play online, the future is murky at best as far as poker sites that continue to serve US players; some have vowed to stay in the market but they could be firmly in the crosshairs of future moves by the US government. Given the lengths that the DoJ and other organizations have gone to thus far, it wouldn’t be a shock to see future indictments and seizures, which should give any poker player in the US serious pause before going online to play poker at the moment.
Online Gambling in the Crosshairs of the US Government
Despite passing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in late 2006, the US government had largely been silent when it came to enforcing it, a move that emboldened some online poker, casino, and sportsbetting sites to continue to openly serve US customers. After nearly five years of steady profits serving one of the world’s largest gambling markets, it looked like the right decision for companies that chose to defy US law and stay in the US market -- until the Department of Justice moved to indict two of the world’s largest online poker sites (PokerStars and Full Tilt) on April 15th.
The move took both players and industry insiders by surprise, with the DoJ charging the sites with violating the UIGEA as well as with money laundering and wire fraud; bank accounts containing millions of dollars were confiscated and the online domains of the indicted sites were seized by the US government. While PokerStars refunded over $100 million to US players in the aftermath of the indictments Full Tilt has yet to refund any money to players, leaving millions of dollars locked in limbo.
The US government wasn’t done, however, with a fresh wave of indictments and domain seizures a little over a month later on May 23rd. The target this time was two separate companies that primarily operated online sportsbetting sites, with ten domains seized this time as well as bank accounts and funds in nine different countries. The investigation that led to these indictments stretched out over a two year time span and included setting up a fake transaction processing company to gather evidence against the companies when they moved money to and from US players and accounts.
While many US citizens would still like to play online, the future is murky at best as far as poker sites that continue to serve US players; some have vowed to stay in the market but they could be firmly in the crosshairs of future moves by the US government. Given the lengths that the DoJ and other organizations have gone to thus far, it wouldn’t be a shock to see future indictments and seizures, which should give any poker player in the US serious pause before going online to play poker at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)