Archive for September, 2008


Story here. I know, rather biased source, right? But the facts are confirmed by this Army Times story.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

[T]his new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack…The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said.

According to the first article, this violates the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which govern the circumstances under which the military can be used on American soil. Can anyone confirm this? It seems to me that these sorts of duties are the purpose of the National Guard (which is controlled by the states); why don’t we just call the Guardsmen home from Iraq instead of bringing in some random brigade?

Having the US military take on this role creeps me out. Nelson called it “proto-fascism.” Even if the intent of the program is to “help Americans” (as the Army Times effuses) there’s a reason why uses of the military are limited at home. There’s a reason we don’t use those powers here. It’s a frightening precedent.

We’ve already tried militarized the police force in this country, and in aggregate they regularly abuse their tasers and other crowd-control weaponry *because* they’re “only” nonlethal (even though tasers are only supposed to be used in cases where you would otherwise use a gun). Now we’re going the other way around, with a bunch of soldiers back from the Iraq war zone. Do you think they’d have *more* restraint than a cop?

And it’s only one slight policy change from here until the guns come out.

Required reading for everyone ever: “REQUEST FOR URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP”

I don’t know enough about the US financial system (either what it is currently or what it should be) to say what should be done about the current crisis, if anything. I did happen to take one class on the intersection of the Fed, Wall Street, and the corporate elect. Doesn’t really help much. I’m not an econ major–and even the vast majority of econ majors don’t understand the nitty-gritty of finance any more than I do.

But:

1.) Do you really think most of Congress has any more expertise in this area than you or I do? Hell no! Congresspeople tend to be buddies with investment bankers, but they usually weren’t ones themselves. (Not that I would necessarily trust their judgment any more if they were.) Yet Bush and Paulson are quite forcefully shoving this bill down their throats–they’re trying to pass it this week. Do you trust your congresspeople to actually understand this crap and make an intelligent decision about it within days? Then I’ve got a mortgage to sell you.

Congress is very good at passing stupid, short-sighted bills even under ordinary circumstances, don’t get me wrong. But it’s even better at it when those bills come with 1.) such short development times that no one really knows what they’re voting on and 2.) vague but exceedingly dire threats. Hey, it’s the financial PATRIOT Act, sans sunset clause! Woo hoo!

None of this gives me even a shred of confidence that passing this thing is a good idea.

2.) If I just accept my minimal level of background knowledge, if I had to make a decision about what to do about the current crisis, you know what my instinct is? It’s “Let the buggering chimps hang.” It’s “Moral hazard ends here, you whiny, depraved pseudocapitalists!”

It is most definitely not “You want us to print ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in play money and bury Wall Street in it? Okay!!” Well…maybe. If it meant they’d suffocate underneath.

And the Democrats’ response is so sad. I know, I say that about…virtually anything the Democratic Party does. Just a long, voter-turnout-deflating series of spineless, half-hearted, pathetic reactions. But in this case it’s like they’re on a vaudeville stage, playing the role of Liberal Stereotype:

White House: “Gimme money. Lots and lots and lots of money. Or else the financial system will explode and EVERYONE WILL DIE and the TERRORISTS will WIN. …Wait.”

Democrats: “Uhh… Let it be said for the record that this is stupid and we don’t like it. But fine. You can have all the money you like. So long as we get to regulate.”

White House: “Regulate what?”

Democrats: “Regulate…you know…stuff. Stuff so this won’t happen again. Yeah.”

White House: “Wait, so you’re making kneejerk demands for regulatory power…even though you don’t even know what in the hell you should do with it? Jesus Christ, is this the Rush Limbaugh minstrel show?”

Yes. Yes it is.

I mean, my heart might be spotted with the dark taint of liberalism and all, but generally I’m still not in favor of regulation for the hell of it. I prefer the establishment and use of government power when it has a point, at the very least. Yet because Congress doesn’t know shit about the financial system, that’s pretty much what they’re asking for. A blank check for regulation in exchange for a literal blank check.

I could be convinced, by well-evidenced argument, that the financial system needs some more or different regulation. As a liberal, I believe it is possible, theoretically, for Congress to pass halfway decent financial regulation laws. But, again, not in a frickin’ week.

After all this, if I meet anyone who voted for Bush and whines about tax-and-spend liberals or how social programs cost too much, I will punch them in the mouth.* Seriously. “My” (ha ha, no) party might be a bunch of two-faced pansies, who will inevitably come around to voting for this dangling piece of dog dung, but they didn’t come up with it. They didn’t ask for–nay, demand–the power to dump one *trillion* dollars into the economy to bail out the supposed captains of capitalism. Or start an unnecessary war. Or to make (given all of the above) the most irresponsible tax cut ever. Or the many other neocon projects that have created a runaway deficit that will at this point probably sink this damn country.

At which point, yes, like the millions of un- or under-employed college grads out there who are up to their neck in student loans, there really won’t be any room in the budget for silly luxuries like health care or education. Just interest payments. Thanks.

* Those of you who actually voted for the Libertarian presidential candidates: please feel free to continue doing so.

Memetics

Instructions:

Take a picture of yourself right now.

Don’t change your clothes, don’t fix your hair…just take a picture.

Post that picture with NO editing. (Except maybe to get the image size down to something reasonable.)

Post these instructions with your picture.

candid camera

Got this from Patri, Andrew, and Rene Engstrom. I think the overwhelming conclusion of this meme is everyone’s computing area is poorly lit. No wonder I need new glasses.

Right now I’m listening to the witness testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act.” This bill would reverse last year’s open access mandate for works funded by the NIH by amending US Copyright Law to say that government agencies can’t ask in the funding contract for a nonexclusive license to works that they fund. It’s pretty much ridiculous.

The only reason this has even made it to public comment (I think) is a bunch of representatives feeling slighted because a bill passed Congress without going through their committee (the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and IP–the measure was part of an Appropriations bill, so it went through that committee). The grumbling at the opening of the session about how important their committee is, prestige of the Appropriations committee be damned, rah rah rah, I think bears this out. So the representatives have been receptive to the patently ridiculous argument that the NIH mandate *changed* copyright law and, thus, should have fallen under their purview.

Lots (probably millions) of nonexclusive license copyright agreements are agreed upon every day. Every time you upload a video to YouTube, you’re giving YouTube a nonexclusive license to that video–the license allows YouTube to display the video without violating your copyright. Professionals everywhere provide or exercise nonexclusive licenses to works. The less assholish scholarly journals only demand a nonexclusive license to an author’s article (more commonly, journals force authors to transfer their copyright entirely to the journal).

The terms of a nonexclusive license are not set in copyright law–they are determined in a contract. Like any contract, the terms vary from license to license, depending on what it’s for. My understanding of contract law is that two parties can write a contract requiring virtually any condition of either party (other than illegal activities or selling yourself into slavery or something). If I’m a research funder, I can stipulate in a funding contract that the researcher wear a big red clown nose at any and all conferences when presenting the research I’m offering to fund. The researcher is free to take my money, and accept the conditions attached, or go elsewhere for funds. That’s how contracts work.

It has always been a standard part of NIH funding contracts that the federal government gets a nonexclusive license to the work being funded. (What’s the point of funding research that you can’t even read?) The new condition with the mandate is that the author deposit the research in PubMed so the public (the people ultimately paying for it) can read it, not just NIH employees.

Bottom line: it’s a contract. It’s not a copyright law! The only way the NIH OA mandate conflicts with copyright law is if you change copyright law, which is what the publishers are trying to do now. After all, if it really conflicted, why haven’t the publishers just sued the NIH (as they have also rattled sabres about)?

Maybe because they’d lose.

The overlap is not with copyright law as it is, but copyright law as publishers wish it was: a hypothetical legal regime where if a contractual agreement theoretically threatens a revenue stream created by a copyrighted work–even a contractual agreement made long before the author transferred the rights to the publisher–that contractual agreement retroactively violates the publisher’s copyright. It’s a case of “if value, then right.” The law doesn’t work that way. The publisher is “buying” (read: getting for free–or even being paid to take in some cases) the rights *as is* when they take the article from the author. If the author’s previous funding agreement with the NIH makes those rights look less valuable to the publisher, then don’t “buy” them–just publish research that uses funding sources that don’t make this stipulation. But if this is all bullshit, as publishers’ record profit margins and the legion of financially-secure journals that put their stuff online for free before the mandate suggest, then there is no conflict *even* in the publisher’s la-la land version of copyright law.

Then the only thing publishers are losing is a certain degree of autonomy; they no longer decide whether or when to put their material online. Just satiating publishers’ neurotic control needs is not worth the cost to scientific advancement and public access.

The bill is being considered because the committee members have ego problems. It’s being advanced because big publishers are control freaks. Why do important policies have to be threatened with the chopping block for the sake of various interest groups’ psychological tics?

***

Wow… The NIH witness compared eliminating the NIH mandate for the sake of publishers’ whining about theoretically going out of business to banning Google for the sake of artificially propping up Altavista–holding back innovation for the sake of a deprecated special interest. A relevant comparison, I think–lots of commentators compare industry copyright maximalists and other rent-seekers to buggy whip manufacturers all the time. To which Rep. Berman growled, “You’re saying that this is like Google, like YouTube, where people can violate copyrights, grumble grumble grumble…” and the NIH guy apologized! I didn’t know ‘Google’ was a dirty word in Congress!

Another Berman quote: “I’m disturbed by going from open access to health and biomedical research to talking about technological progress… The NIH is not Napster.

And now he’s embarrassing himself with his misunderstanding of Google.
Berman: “Doesn’t Google have it [all the biomedical research out there already]?”
NIH guy: “No, they link to us.”

Jeez, it’s not like you HAVE to be technologically illiterate when you’re old. Plenty of old people get technology–after all, they’re the ones who first built this stuff! And, on the other side of the coin, it’s not necessarily bad to be technologically illiterate. Lots of people get by without using high technology much (see: one of the two major party presidential candidates); that’s fine for them.

The problem is when old techno-illiterate people are US Representatives serving on the Subcommittee of Courts, the Internet, and IP. It’s a problem when they are responsible for making intelligent technology and information management laws. But it does make for hilarious Congressional transcripts.

Draft 1:

PLEASE LET ME IN I PROMISE I’M AN AWESOME PERSON PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE

[cmd-A; backspace]

Draft 2:

I’ve wanted to be a lawyer since
I want to be a lawyer because
I want to practice intellectual property law because

For pete’s sake. All the guidebooks say not to use these as your statement topic because it will put admissions counselors to sleep. Yet at the same time, you *do* want them to know why the hell you’re applying. So, basically, you have to say it without saying it. Great.

Draft 3:

Hmm. Something unique about me.

* I skipped second grade.
* I like going to pick-your-own berry farms.
* I got horribly lost in Croatia once.
* I challenged my alma mater’s plan to turn students into anti-terrorism personnel to the dean’s face (and, somewhat more successfully, online).
* I read too many webcomics.
* I love watching thunderstorms. (Having just experienced my first tropical storm, I can say that those are pretty darn boring, though.)
* I’m mildly obsessed with baby naming trends. (Back when I was a kid, and thought I was gonna be a fiction writer, I pored over baby name books in order to name my characters.)
* I contributed vocals to an electronica album that was popular in France.
* I do web design. (Probably uncommon among law applicants, but how to integrate it?)
* I love Moroccan mint tea.

What the hell do these tell them about me? About my ability to do law school? Would any of these make them want to admit me more than other smart people? I don’t understand the point of the fluffy “all about me” essays…*

Draft 4:

Committed non-smoking scandi-cracker female looking for an intellectually-stimulating law school. Me: smart, snarky, curvacious, and musical. You: enjoy cyberlaw, love civil liberties, value interdisciplinary study, and have an excellent internet connection. Please, no NYC schools.

Draft 5:

Oh, for Christ’s sake. I know I wanna go to law school, okay? I want to study civil liberties/conlaw. I want to study cyberlaw/intellectual property law. I’ve demonstrated my interest in both of these specialties (security geekery and free culture activism, respectively), even if my fruity web/graphic design background doesn’t make that completely obvious. I don’t know yet which I will ultimately specialize in. I don’t know yet if I’ll end up working for Google/another tech startup or working at the EFF/ACLU or building an alternative to the Westlaw/LexisNexis duopoly or teaching as a law professor or (hell) becoming a Supreme Court justice, my high school dream. Ideally I’d get to do all of the above at some point. And even if I were to change my mind during school and add yet another specialty to that list, so what? So far, all my interest areas have led me to the law. There’s no reason to believe that’d change.

So lemme in already, okay?

* One of the sample personal statements I was reading was about how the girl loved chocolate. What.

Obligatory life update

Wow, it’s been a month. What all have I been up to?

* I just started officially working part-time at SPARC, doing various interesting projects. I’ll be animating a OA 101 video in Flash (now that my tablet pen is no longer borked), editing several HD videos of people talking about Open Access (on a Mac G4! I’m slightly frightened–it may not even be faster than my decrepit PowerBook), helping organize the Digital Repositories conference in Baltimore this November (including designing the program and signage; yay for flexing my ancient InDesign skills!), and redesigning the Alliance for Taxpayer Access site.

* I also started teaching my first LSAT class at Kaplan. So far it’s been going fairly well, other than an extremely chaotic first day where the manager had to take off for an emergency and didn’t do the full orientation and I had no idea what the hell I was doing. The students seem to assume that I do know what the hell I’m doing, and I think they’re learning. I get so nervous preparing before lessons, though.

* I finished my first freelance web design project, for a inflatables rental company in northwestern Virginia. Here‘s the before; here‘s the after. My responsibilities were pretty much limited to making things not broken, as opposed to suggesting web strategy, editing copy, or changing the site design more extensively. But hey, it’s done. Here’s hoping I actually get paid!

* I have other freelance projects in the pipeline as well: Jennifer’s father owns a biocide chemical company whose site needs a redesign, and I’ll be revamping Nelson’s personal site and Wrong Side of Dawn‘s site soon. So that’s good. I guess.

* Between all of these jobs, I’m working around 54 hours a week: 3 days a week (including Saturday) at Kaplan, 2.5 days a week at SPARC, and the freelance stuff…all the rest of the time. Even though most of my work is doing things I enjoy, I’m still feeling the lack of a barrier between work and life. Add in the fact that despite all this work every time I do my budget calculations I get a different answer regarding whether or not I can pay my bills, and it gets rather unpleasant. I’m not sure what I can do about it, though.

* Speaking of budgets, medical bills may yet be the death of me. First I had to go to the doctor twice in eight days (don’t ask). Then, a painful back problem I developed earlier this summer (thanks to my laptop bag) recurred starting a few days ago. The first time, Nelson’s dad (a chiropractor) was able to fix it when we visited NJ. (He was astonished how messed up my back was–apparently pretty much all my vertebrae and most of my ribs were out of whack. Said he hadn’t seen a case that bad that wasn’t caused by some major athletic-type injury.) Since then, however, I (stupidly) continued using the bag, and now it’s back.

Today I sucked it up and bought a new laptop bag that’s better for my back. It’s a nice bag, and looks professional enough that I won’t feel weird wearing it on the Metro, but spending eighty dollars on a goddamn backpack has put me in an extremely foul mood. Hopefully the new bag will keep the problem from getting worse, but thanks to my Kaplan schedule I have virtually no chance of visiting Nelson’s parents in any reasonable amount of time. Thus, either I can put up with periodic symptoms of painful breathing and being unable to lift weighty objects, or break my budget further and pay $??? (uncovered by my health insurance) to see a chiropractor here. Haven’t made a decision on that one yet.

* And then Nelson and I stopped by the Apple Store today. I lusted after all the shiny new computers that run faster than mine and can run Parallels so I could do my own goddamn IE testing for freelancing jobs instead of relying on Nelson (and being unable to test IE 6 even then). Shiny new computers that I may not ever be able to afford, except with law school loan money. At which point I won’t be doing pretty CPU-intensive webthings with them anyway. Grah.

I know I have plenty of other things going for me, but right now I feel stressed out, overcommitted, and poor. I guess that’s what this post is about.

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Powered by WordPress.
Theme NewRiver by Karen Rustad, based on Motion by 85ideas.