Some members of Congress, along with certain “women’s groups” (the Times article doesn’t mention which ones), are pushing for gender quotas in the sciences, and Congress “quietly ordered agencies to begin the Title IX compliance reviews in 2006”:

Applying Title IX to science was proposed eight years ago by Debra Rolison, a chemist at the Naval Research Laboratory. She argued that withholding federal money from “poorly diversified departments” was essential to “transform the academic culture.”

Because that’s what’s important, isn’t it? Not good science. Transforming the culture. Science be damned. As usual, every other consideration is to be sacrificed upon the altar of “diversity”.

Thankfully, some people aren’t having it:

“Colleges already practice affirmative action for women in science, but now they’ll be so intimidated by the Title IX legal hammer that they may institute quota systems,” Dr. [Christina] Sommers said. “In sports, they had to eliminate a lot of male teams to achieve Title IX parity. It’ll be devastating to American science if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women’s level of interest.”

I’m not sure the diversity gang cares a whit about “American science”. Diversity must come first. Always.

Reason is running an interesting article about the demise of Microsoft’s “PlayForSure” music standard and the legal obstacles that have been put in place to prevent people from circumventing DRM (digital rights management) schemes that supposedly protect “content” from unscrupulous computer users:

Convinced that the tight integration between iTunes and the iPod was the secret to Apple’s success, Microsoft abandoned the PlaysForSure approach, shuttered the MSN Music Store, and built the Zune around yet another proprietary format.

As a result, music in the PlaysForSure format will not play—for sure or otherwise— on a Zune music player.

 …

In ordinary circumstances, you would expect entrepreneurs or volunteers to pick up Microsoft’s slack and offer software to convert those old recordings to another format.But the Digital Millennium Copyright Act transforms what would normally be a promising business opportunity into a federal felony. Not only will PlaysForSure music not play on a Zune, but the DMCA makes it illegal, punishable by up to five years in jail on the first offence, for third parties to offer utilities to bridge that gap…  Under the DMCA, no one may “circumvent” a copy protection scheme without the permission of the platform’s owner.

(more…)

Juan Cole at Salon:

The U.S. Justice Department is considering a change in the grounds on which the FBI can investigate citizens and legal residents of the United States. Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group.

…

 If the aim is to identify al-Qaida operatives or close sympathizers in the United States, racial profiling is counterproductive. Such tiny, cultlike terror organizations are multinational. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is a Briton whose father hailed from Jamaica, and no racial profile of him would have predicted his al-Qaida ties. Adam Gadahn, an al-Qaida spokesman, is from a mixed Jewish and Christian heritage and hails from suburban Orange County, Calif.

Sadly, this sounds a lot less far-fetched than the Department of Homeland Security’s “shock bracelet” story from a couple of days ago. That famous old Benjamin Franklin quote seems particularly apt here. Our government has long been intent on selling away our liberties for safety and security, often with the cowed acquiescence — if not outright encouragement — of the people. Perhaps in this case the tradeoff will appear so high enough as to a reaction not limited merely to the ACLU, disgruntled, anti-Bush liberals, and other civil libertarians.

(via Tololy’s Box)

Hot on the heels of the Mark Steyn/Maclean’s case in Canada, a British law firm, acting on behalf of Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative and mastermind of “much of Hamas’ political and military strategy”, has filed suit against UK blog Harry’s Place:

Mr Sawalha claims that we have “chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word”. In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha’s speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from “Evil Jew” to “Jewish Lobby”, we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.

Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase “Evil Jew” to him implies that he is “anti-semitic and hateful”. Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas.

…

A member of Hamas has no reputation to defend.

…

If Mr Sawalha persists in attempting to silence us with this desperate legal suit, we will need your help.

We won’t be able to stand up to them alone.

Proponents of legalizing pot have begun collecting signatures to place an initiative on the 2010 ballot that would decriminalize marijuana in Oregon. Sounds groovy, right? Well …

The Oregon Liquor Control Commission would manage the program, which would license approved individuals to cultivate the product for sale.

Oy vey! If you thought the OLCC’s alcohol regulations were asinine, just wait until they have control of weed. Even if passed, I wonder how effective the program would be when citizens are given the choice between trying to navigate all of the OLCC’s sure-to-be maddening regulations or just going to a black market dealer.

A similar initiative might end up on California’s ballot this November.

As The Oregonian reports, payday lenders have all but disappeared from Oregon due to broad-sweeping legislation that put a cap on the interest rates they could charge. The moral crusade, led by the Oregon Legislature to get some feel-good, populist approval, enjoyed widespread support from consumer advocacy groups who claimed payday lenders were “predatory.”

Indeed, everyone’s been slapping each other on the back and declaring the “end of the predatory lending crisis,” but have they really quashed the insufferable evil of short-term, high-risk loans? No. (Surprise!)

In Oregon, officials now worry most about residents going into debt with payday lenders on the Internet, Tatman said.

Internet lenders selling to Oregonians are required by law to register with the state and abide by its regulations, but many do not.

It is difficult for the state to control Internet payday lenders who charge triple-digit interest rates, Tatman said. “If we could just get our arms around the Internet better to make sure people don’t jump out of the fire and into the frying pan.”

Who could have seen that coming? Why, It’s almost as if people seek out services to fulfill their needs! And if they can’t find a loan on the Internet, they can still seek out an illegal loan shark who will break their fingers if they’re late on payment. Huzzah!

Also, I haven’t heard a peep out of the Legislature about other “predatory” ventures such as the Oregon Lottery and its video poker machines. Is it any coincidence that payday lenders would often open up offices next to establishments that owned video poker machines? Oh, but that money goes into the state coffers, so it must be alright. I guess the moral of the story is the government won’t abide competition when it comes to swindling people.

Reason also has a write-up of the story.

Some Washington Times blogger is reporting that:

[a] senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®.

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass

• contain personal information about the traveler

• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

I’m pretty inclined to take all this with a healthy dose of salt. I say this because it is the Washington Times after all, and the scanned letter purportedly originating from the DHS official that he links to is incomplete and refers to a meeting that took place in 2006. And nevermind the fact that the idea of giving airline passengers shock bracelets instead of boarding passes is one of the most batshit crazy things I’ve ever heard.

If it is true, though, then everything that’s been said about the dangers of an intrusive government is true.

[UPDATE]

A recent comment on the Washington Times site from “S&Tspokesman” clears things up:

The bracelet was never intended to replace boarding passes, contain ID information or be worn by all passengers as asserted in the Lamberd video and discussed in the Washington Times Blog.

The hypothetical use of the bracelet would have been for transporting already apprehended prisoners and detainees at prisons and border patrol facilities, and DHS was looking to see if there were potential air travel applications for apprehended suspects.

This concept was never funded or supported by the DHS or TSA and hasn’t even been discussed for two years. The letter circulating throughout the blogosphere from Paul Ruwaldt was not addressed to Lamberd and merely states the DHS was interested in learning more about the technology. Neither side followed up.

DHS/TSA does NOT support the asserted use and has not pursued the development of such technology.

One hopes that this news report from the UK is wildly inaccurate:

The National Children’s Bureau… has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says “yuk” in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

…

[The report] alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can “recognise different people in their lives”. 

The world has gone fucking mad.

The U.S. Government has a patent on medical marijuana. Go figure.

(Via The Agitator)

(more…)

According to Ezra Levant, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has opted to drop its case against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s (which I previously wrote about here). The plaintiff’s reaction can be read here. Maclean’s, for its part, seems a bit unimpressed:

Though gratified by the decision, Maclean’s continues to assert that no human rights commission, whether at the federal or provincial level, has the mandate or the expertise to monitor, inquire into, or assess the editorial decisions of the nation’s media. And we continue to have grave concerns about a system of complaint and adjudication that allows a media outlet to be pursued in multiple jurisdictions on the same complaint, brought by the same complainants, subjecting it to costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, to say nothing of the inconvenience.

The story isn’t over yet, however, as a separate decision in British Columbia is still pending.

[UPDATE 10/10]

The case has been dismissed by the courts in BC.

As you’ve probably read, the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller came down today. The response from the right is pretty much what you’d expect (“Yeehaw!” *fires gun into air*). However, Radley Balko said the decision, while a philosophic victory for the Second Amendment, was too weak in practice. From his article:

Scalia’s opinion does interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, but only for self-protection, and only in the home.  The concept of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against an overly oppressive government seems dead.

Despite being freedom-hating libruls, the response over at Blue Oregon was fairly muted and neutral, except for this exasperating paragraph:

It is the highest-profile case to be decided by the Roberts Court, and suggests that the Court will not blanch at the opportunity to decide in favor of conservative positions in politically-charged cases.

Sorry, but since when has the Constitution been a “conservative position?” For all the whining from the left about the evil, boogieman Roberts Court, most of its decisions have been surprisingly moderate and narrow. They even stuck it to the Bush administration on habeas corpus. Oh those radical right-wing judges and their respect for our founding documents!

P.S. Slightly off-topic, but this Onion video on the Supreme Court is totally wicked awesome.

Via Scotusblog, the US Supreme Court has struck down the D.C. gun ban and also affirmed the right of individual citizens to arm themselves. The decision was 5-4, along exactly the lines you’d expect: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito in majority.

So, congratulations residents of D.C., may I suggest a side-arm?

The Emerald today is carrying a guest commentary by Dr. Jerry Rosiek, who expresses concern over the recent controversies over the University’s affirmative action and diveristy hiring programs. Far from being concerned about whether or not the accusations are true, Dr. Rosiek is instead worried that the lawsuit filed by Joseph Wade might “distract” people from more important things — namely heaping accolades upon the diversity program:

The danger is that the University’s new leaders will be distracted by things like Wade’s suit, and will not appreciate the important work that has recently been done by the OIED under Dr. Martinez’s leadership.

Never you mind the man behind the curtain!

(more…)

 If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, you might’ve heard about the controversial case before a Canadian “Human Rights Commission” regarding Mark Steyn’s infamous Maclean’s article, which is an excerpt from his book, “America Alone.” While I’m not necessarily a fan of Steyn or his thesis, which I find to be rather too histrionic, the fact that one of Canada’s most prominent journalists, as well as one of its oldest publications, being marched up in front of some “human rights” troika for the “crime” of essentially hurting some peoples’ feelings discomforts me, to say the very least.

After all, regardless of what one might think of buffoons like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore — or even outright racist scumbags like David Irving — here in the United States, people are for the most part free to say whatever they please in whatever forum will let them speak.

This article, published in the New York Times, muses upon the idea of whether or not the Canadian model, which effectively prohibits “hate speech” is perhaps, in some ways preferable to the American one, in which “newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.” It cites legal scholars who are quick to put “respect” and avoiding “distress” before freedom, the argument being that some speech is simply “too dangerous” to allow.

Such a position is, I fear, even more dangerous to the values of a democratic society than any “hate speech” ever could be. In a perversion of Voltaire, “hate speech” laws seem to say “I disapprove of what you have to say, so I shall revoke your right to say it.” Opening the door for ever greater government control over what we can and cannot say in order to protect the “right” to not be offended is to test the law of unintended consequences.

There is a George Orwell quote that I am fond of: “Liberty, if it means anything at all, is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Those in favor of “hate speech” laws would do well to take it to heart. Being subjected to a racist tirade, suffering a homophobic rant, or being the target of any of what might be called “hate speech” cannot be anything but degrading, offensive, and hurtful.

It also should not be anything but legal. Otherwise, we’ve cashiered our liberty for the illusion of tolerance.

[EDIT]

Reason has a post up today about the same subject that’s worth reading. I also encourage people to read the links that Olly posted in the comments section.

The Ol’ Dirty has a story in today about two University students being Tased and arrested for disorderly conduct on Friday.

The police report says that Ian George Van Ornum was standing in the middle of the street on Willamette and Broadway protesting the use of pesticides on highways, and was approached by police because he was disrupting the traffic.

Van Ornum then resisted arrest and was Tased twice. University student Anthony Farley tried to prevent the arrest and was Tased and subdued.

The circumstances for the Tasing aren’t made very clear in the report, and the use of a Taser does not seem necessary. Unfortunately, there is no objective information on the incident, since the accounts given by spectators present were friends of Van Ornum. If anything, though, this is a testament to the effectiveness of Tasers in assisting police officers in arrests. (more…)