CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Judging Cell Phones

The Sacramento Bee reports U.S. Federal Court Judge William Shubb executed summary judgement against cell phones.

The Judge stood up from his bench during a hearing, walked into the audience, confiscated a cell phone, went into the hall, and tossed the phone:

The judge was pushed by two weeks of beeping, chirping and musical tunes during a criminal tax case. Trouble began during jury selection. A defendant's cell phone erupted. "I had told everyone to please turn off all devices," Shubb said. "There's a sign outside the courtroom. I told the defendant he is not to bring a cell phone to court again." Next, a juror's phone cried out. The judge showed mercy. "Jurors sacrifice enough," Bill said. Then the defendant sounded again. "I said, 'Give it to the marshal,' " Shubb said. Days later, the defense attorney beeped. And another phone blared. "It was the other defendant, with a more obnoxious song," Bill said. Finally, at the trial's climax, a phone rang in the back of the courtroom.

According to the Bee, there were no appeals.

More Relish Please

The Greeley Tribune reports that on July 4, 2001 Richard Carroll was grilling hot dogs for a family gathering, when one of the dogs fell on the ground.

A family member, quickly picked it up, but instead of merely brushing the hot dog off and putting it back on the grill as most men would do (remember the 5-second rule), he stuck it on the radio antenna on Carroll's pickup truck.

That hot dog, now black, fuzzy and hard, after 80,000 miles, and all kinds of weather the dog appears to be part of the antenna:

"It kind of makes you wonder," Carroll said this week, pausing to look at the shriveled symbol of picnics everywhere. "It kind of makes you wonder about all the hot dogs you've eaten over the years..."

He doesn't remember what brand of hot dog it was. Whatever brand, there must have been enough preservatives in it to prevent it from simply rotting away and falling off.

[. . .]

"I kept thinking the birds would eat it, or the wind would blow it off on the highway," Carroll said. "But I've been on a lot of hunting trips with it, and it's been brushed against tree limbs and bushes, and it's still there."

Carroll is going to leave the wonder dog on the antenna until it finally falls off.

Lieberman Endorsed By The AFL-CIO

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was endorsed by the Connecticut AFL-CIO in the Democrat's primary fight against Greenwich millionaire businessman and anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.

According to the New York Times, Lieberman endorsement was not unanimous:

Several delegates noted that Senator Lieberman had an 84 percent score from the federation for his votes on labor issues. Many also complained that he had long supported free trade agreements that cost manufacturing jobs.

Others poked at Mr. Lamont, whom the senator has characterized as a wealthy opportunist trying to buy the election.

"Mr. Lamont owns a communications company," Howard Coling, vice president of Local 1298 of the Communications Workers of America in Seymour, Conn. "And it's nonunion." That prompted sustained hoots of disapproval across the room.

The AFL-CIO joins numerous other union supporting Lieberman. The labor support is important for the August 8 primary. The Connecticut AFL-CIO represents approximately 200-thousand Connecticut residents, mostly democrats who actively participate in politics. The Unions can provide needed resources, such as phone banks and campaign workers to make critical direct personal contact.

Recent polling shows the race much closer than originally thought. A Quinnipiac University Poll conducted May 31 through June 6, found Lamont has gained ground and now trails the Lieberman by 15 percent (55 - 40) percent among likely Democratic primary voters. Among all Democrats, Lieberman's lead has fallen to 57 - 32 percent. In polling conducted just a month earlier Quinnipiac found Lieberman leading by 46 percent (65 - 19).

According to Quinnipiac's most recent polling:

Lieberman defeats Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger 68 - 14 percent;
Lamont beats Schlesinger 37 - 20 percent, with 34 percent undecided;
Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 56 percent, to 18 percent for Lamont and 8 percent for Schlesinger.

Among those who do not want Lieberman reelected, 20 percent identify his support for the war in Iraq as the main reason. Most Connecticut voters know Lieberman supports the war in Iraq, but only 15 percent would vote against a candidate based solely on his position on the war.

So the question remains, will enough Lieberman supporters vote in the primary or will the anti-war "Joe must go" activists carry the day for Lamont?

Likelihood Of Being Gay Linked To Birth Of Older Brothers

Having older brothers increases the chances that a boy will be gay.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims an analysis of 905 men and their siblings found the only factor that was significantly related to whether a boy becomes gay was the number of times a mother had previously given birth to boys:

The so-called fraternal birth order effect is small: Each older brother increases the chances by 33%. Assuming the base rate of homosexuality among men is 2%, it would take 11 older brothers to give the next son about a 50-50 chance of being gay.

The analysis found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.

Scientific data showing that sexual orientation is the result of biology and not determined by social factors such as upbringing or a merely the result lifestyle choice should increase acceptance of gay rights:

Polls show that people who believe sexual orientation is governed by biology tend to support gay rights, whereas those who consider it a choice don't, said Dr. Jack Drescher, who chaired the American Psychiatric Assn.'s Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues for six years.

A 2003 survey found that 30% of Americans believed sexual orientation was innate and 14% said it was determined by upbringing, besides the 42% who considered it a lifestyle choice. That survey was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The Pew survey [pdf file] is a treasure trove of data on American attitudes towards homosexuals.

UPDATE: At PoliPundit, Oak Leaf poses two perplexing questions prompted by this finding:

1. Just as we treat other pre-natal conditions, should we not treat this condition as any other illness?
2. For those that are pro-choice, should we not offer screening for pregnant woman so that they can make a choice like they do with many other fetal conditions?

Any thoughts?

Supreme Court Finds Vermont Campaign Finance Law Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that strictly limits how much money candidates for state office can raise and spend on their political campaigns.

By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the restrictions on contributions and spending violated constitutional free-speech rights.

According to the Associated Press, the Court found Vermont’s limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns too low:

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont’s law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

The majority took issue with Vermont legislators for “constraining speech” by telling candidates and voters how much campaigning was enough.

At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston posts "the Court issued four opinions for the majority and two for the dissent." The ruling decided three consiolidated cases - Randall v. Sorrell, Vermont Republican Commiitte v. Sorrell, and Sorrell v. Randall.

A victory for free speech even if 30 years of election finance precedent is not swept aside.

More as it becomes available.

UPDATE: The text of the Supreme Court's decision is available here.

I haven't read the six separate opinions of the court's decision yet, but the New York Times offers this analysis of Supreme Court's decision:

The court said that the law's limits on how much a candidate could spend violated a landmark 30-year-old ruling equating such spending with free speech and that its limits on donations to a campaign were far too stringent.

The court offered in a 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, what has turned out to be an enduring if controversial framework for those issues. The justices said that some limits on donations were constitutional as part of an effort to control the influence of money in politics. But the court said that the money a candidate spent in an election was equivalent to free speech and any limit on that would be an unconstitutional infringement on that right.

The debate has raged over the years and produced a handful of other rulings, none of which upset the basic framework of the 1976 opinion. The court today upheld the 1976 ruling, deciding that some limits on donations were acceptable but that restricting campaign spending was unconstitutional.

[. . .]

The Vermont law set the lowest limits in the nation on donations, capping gifts at $200 for state House campaigns over a two-year election cycle; $300 for state Senate and $400 for statewide offices. In his controlling opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the court had allowed limits on donations in other states but said that the ones put forward by Vermont imposed burdens on the First Amendment that were "disproportionately severe."

His ruling, parts of which were joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said that the Vermont law's donation limits raise "substantial restrictions on the ability of candidates to raise the funds necessary to run a competitive election." He said that the low limits on how much an individual could donate to a candidate made it especially difficult for challengers, thus giving an undue advantage to incumbents.

On the more contentious issue of limiting the amount of money a candidate could spend, Justice Breyer wrote, "We can find here no special justification that would require us to overrule Buckley."

The Vermont law limited the amount a candidate for governor may spend in a two-year election cycle to $300,000; a candidate for lieutenant governor to $100,000, and other statewide offices to $45,000. State senators and representatives would be limited to spending between $4,000 and $2,000, depending on their district.

Justice Breyer said the state had demonstrated neither any increase in corruption nor that capping campaign spending was the only way to attack corruption.

U.S. To Deploy Patriot Missiles In Japan

As North Korea prepares to test-launch a ballistic missile that may have the range to reach the U.S., it was announced that Patriot interceptor missiles will be deployed on American bases in Japan:

The U.S. plans to deploy the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles — designed to intercept ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or aircraft — as soon as possible, a Japanese Defense Agency spokeswoman.

This is just the latest step in the effort to pressure North Korea not to test-fire its Taepodong-2 missile.
The test launch would break the moratorium on such launches which has been in effect since 1999.

The U.S. has moved up a planned test of a missile-detecting radar system in northern Japan, Kyodo News agency reported, citing an unidentified U.S. official in Washington:

A test run of the high-resolution radar, capable of detecting incoming missiles, was initially scheduled to begin weeks later. However, Kyodo said testing could start as early as Monday.

[. . .]

The radar deployment is part of the joint missile defense project, which began after North Korea fired a missile, part of which flew over Japan, in 1998.

Last week japan and the U.S. signed an agreement to expand their cooperation on a joint ballistic missile defense shield, including joint production of interceptor missiles.

There has also been speculation that the U.S. might try to shoot down the Korean missile.

More Iraqi Oil

Iraqi oil production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day, its highest level since Saddam Hussein was removed from power.

Iraq's new oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani expects production to rise to 2.7 million bpd by the end of the year.

Before the war, Iraqi output was around 3 million bpd and has never exceeded 3.5 million bpd.

Mr Shahristani has big goals for Iraq's oil production saying that Iraq hopes to challenge Saudi Arabia's position as the world's leading oil producer. The oil minister said he expects output to rise to approximately 4m barrels per day by 2010, increasing to 6m bpd by 2012.

Reuters credits the increased Iraqi production with decreasing the price of oil to under $71.

According to Reuters, al-Shahristani's bold targets should be treated with caution. That might be sound advice, but the increased production that has been achieved should still be celebrated for the good news that it is.

The New York Times Publishes More War Secrets

Back from taking our daughter to summer camp, I checked the headlines and was excited to see the New York Times headline, "U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts." My excitement turned to a disgusted rage as I read the Times article:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.

What is it with the New York Times? Why does the Times find it acceptable to publish stories revealing information it admits is classified?

In December, the Times revealed the NSA's classified program of intercepting of Al-Qaeda communications with people in the U.S. Last week the Times published details the federal government's classified program to gather data from a Belgium-based consortium that handles international bank transfers which enables the government to track terrorists' funds. And now the Times publishes classified plans concerning troop levels in a war zone.

Michelle Malkin has rounded up some Photoshopped WWII-like posters which nicely sum up my feelings about the Times' publishing war secrets. The posters are worth viewing.

At Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrissey cautions that the Times' story "does little but confirm the strategy that the White House and DoD have stated from the time Saddam Hussein got chased out of Baghdad." That may be true, but the material is classified and it isn't the prerogative of the Times to decide to reveal such information.

Happy Summer Solstice

Stonehenge Sunrise 

Photos courtesy of the BBC.

House Rejects Iraq Withdrawal - Passes Global War On Terror Resolution

The House approved the Global War On Terror Resolution and rejected an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops from Iraq by a vote of 256-153.

The Global War On Terror Resolution - House Resolution 861 - declares that the House of Representatives:

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

According to the Associated Press, Only 42 Democrats voted for the resolution:

ALABAMA - Cramer
ARKANSAS - Berry, Ross, and Snyder
CALIFORNIA - Berman, Cardoza, and Costa
COLORADO - Salazar
GEORGIA - Barrow, Bishop, and Marshall
HAWAII - Case
ILLINOIS - Bean, Costello, and Lipinski
IOWA - Boswell
KANSAS - Moore
KENTUCKY - Chandler
LOUISIANA - Melancon
MASSACHUSETTS - Lynch
MISSISSIPPI - Taylor and Thompson
NEW YORK - Higgins and McCarthy
NORTH CAROLINA - Etheridge and McIntyre
OKLAHOMA - Boren
PENNSYLVANIA - Holden
SOUTH CAROLINA - Spratt
SOUTH DAKOTA - Herseth
TENNESSEE - Cooper, Davis, and Gordon
TEXAS - Cuellar, Edwards, and Green (Gene)
UTAH - Matheson
VIRGINIA - Boucher
WASHINGTON - Larsen and Smith
WISCONSIN - Kind
WYOMING - Cubin

Only three Republicans voted against the Resolution:

IOWA - Leach
TENNESSEE - Duncan
TEXAS - Paul

One voted present:

FLORIDA - Boyd (D)

Eightteen did not vote:

ALABAMA - Bachus (R)
CALIFORNIA - Waxman (D) and Lewis (R)
ILLINOIS - Evans (D) and Gutierrez (D)
INDIANA - Burton (R)
IOWA - Nussle (R)
MICHIGAN - Dingell (D) and Kilpatrick (D)
MISSOURI - Cleaver (D)
NEW MEXICO - Wilson (R)
NEW YORK - Bishop (D)
TEXAS - Carter (R), Sam (R), and Sessions (R)
UTAH - Bishop (R)
WASHINGTON - Reichert (R)
WISCONSIN - Sensenbrenner (R)

We seem to be missing five. The Associated Press reports the following tally:

Voting Yes - 42 Democrats and 214 Republicans.
Voting no - 149 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Independent.
Not voting - 18
Voting Present- 1

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House so the tally should total 433, but we only have 428.

Today's House vote comes one day after the Senate voted 93-6 to reject a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end.

I'm disappointed in those that oppose to the war. Don't get me wrong, while I disagree with the opponents I respect their right to their opinion. I'm disappointed that those opposed to the war claim it is poorly prosecuted, but offer no suggestions as to how to prosecute the war in a more effective manner. The only suggestion they share is withdraw, which translates as retreat or cut and run.