Computerworld: Symantec settles adware dispute with Hotbar Computerworld: Symantec settles adware dispute with Hotbar

In an article in Computerworld titled "Symantec settles adware dispute with Hotbar", Symantec appears to be settling a lawsuit where it was claimed that they inaccurately classified software from Hotbar as adware.

One problem I see is the use of litigation to get around software designed to remove adware. Yes, it ultimately costs the adware companies money from lost sales. But that is, of course, the purpose of adware removal software - to remove the ******* stuff. If this is a trend, then I forsee a major headache for all of us computer users who use adware removal programs to cleanup our computers from all the adware that is hidden there without our permission or knowledge. At least with Hotbar, its installation isn't hidden, as it is for so much of adware. But also, from the article, it is likely that Hotbar doesn't disclose everything that its software does.

Cal Frazier, 'leader of leaders' in Colorado public education Cal Frazier, 'leader of leaders' in Colorado public education

The Rocky Mountain News has an obituary titled: "Cal Frazier, 'leader of leaders' in Colorado public education" dated February 1, 2006. While it gives the bare bones of Cal's life, it doesn't do justice to the man and his impact on education in particular Colorado, but also, nationally.

I knew Cal reasonably well from church. My parents were fairly close friends of his. At his service, our minister started by telling a story about going through old records and finding his certification as a teacher. And who signed it? Cal did, as Commissioner of Education for Colorado. And he wasn't the only one at the service who had a teaching certificate signed by Cal. He was the preeminent public educator in the state of Colorado for more than a quarter of a century, with one of his last achievements being a pay for performance contract for the Denver Public School teachers. He was the guy who both the school district and the unions trusted.

Cal was one of the most exceptional people I have ever met. For one thing, he had an uncanny ability to dig your stories out of you. If you met him, you wouldn't know that he had counseled presidents. Rather, you would talk about yourself. Someone asked me at the service what Cal had taught after retiring as Commissioner of Education. I remembered talking to him at DU shortly after then, but don't know what he was teaching there. All I got out of him was that he was teaching there, and the rest of the conversation, as usual, was about what I was doing there.

One story that I will remember of his he told my daughter and me right after President Reagan died. Apparently, Reagan's staff had been trying to get the two of them together for awhile, with no success. Then, they called up one day and asked if he could show up a couple of days later for a short talk with the president. It was supposed to be a 20 minute conversation, and Reagan was, as are all presidents, booked solid. So, his aides kept popping in and reminding him of the time and his other committments. Yet, it kept going on and on, running over an hour. Cal indicated that one of the prouder moments of his life was when president Reagan gave his education speech and concentrated on systemic problems with public education, while noting that teachers were typically highly motivated and hard working. Cal took some credit for changing the president's mind on the later, so that the emphasis was on the system, and not on the teachers.

I, along with all those thousands whose lives Cal touched, will miss him, his constant humor, and incisive mind, dearly.

Rocky Mountain News: Dick Lamm on minority education Rocky Mountain News: Dick Lamm on minority education

In an opinion column yesterday in the Rocky Mountain News titled "Minority self-reliance must be stressed now more than ever", four term former Colorado governor Dick Lamm took aim at the low expectations that many have in minority youth and their education as a big part of their many problems. In short, the soft bigotry of low expectations articulated by President Bush. This wouldn't be surprising if Lamm had been a Republican. But he wasn't. He was probably the most liberal governor of my lifetime.

Lamm points out that in his youth, discrimination was a legitimate excuse for nonperformance. But today, it is more of a minor hurdle. He points to Japanese Americans, many of whom were locked up and had many of their possessions seized by our government a little over 60 years ago. But, today, they are the demographic group in this country with the highest earnings. He also mentions that Jewish and Asian kids do twice as much homework as Hispanic or Black kids. No wonder they do much better in school.

All in all, an excellent article, that will hopefully stay visible for awhile before the RMN starts to charge for it.

Karma Karma

Last night, I spent a couple of hours after working at the Keystone ski area at a bar at the base of the area. And while there, got a call from a friend. Later, while leaving, I helped a couple of guys to jump their truck. Then, when I got back to the condo in Dillon, I had a call from this friend that a "Carl" had my cell phone. Today, I called him to set up getting my phone back. On our second call, he asked what car I was driving, I told him, and he then remembered it because I had helped him jump the truck from it. It was an ah-ha moment for both of us.

In any case, my good deed went rewarded. A lot of the time when you lose a cell phone, whoever finds it will make innumerable long distance, or even, foreign, calls on it before it can be shut off. This time though the guys who found it held on to it and made sure that I got it back - with no extraneous calls on it.

I would like to think that they would have gotten the phone back to me if they had not been the recipient of a kind act right before they found it. But maybe not.

TCS Daily: The New Iconoclasts TCS Daily: The New Iconoclasts

dictionary.reference.com defines an iconoclast as:
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

The later definition is used in a TCS Daily article entitled: "The New Iconoclasts". It suggests that the Danish cartoonist who drew all those cartoons of Mohammed, et al., was an iconoclast, as traditionally defined: one who destroyes sacred religious images.

While I agree with him, I am somewhat conflicted, having been raised Presbyterian, which has been traditionally iconclastic. Indeed, I can remember the furor when my church acquired a new Communion table with the image from Da Vinci's "Last Supper" carved on its face. This was a depiction of Jesus and his twelve desciples, and, as such, was unacceptable to many for similar reasons to those espoused by Jews and Moslems in the area of religious icons. Indeed, to this day, the two things that discomfort me the most about Roman Catholic services are the icons and the asking for intercession by Saints, neither of which are really sancted in Scripture.

U.S. Newswire : Bolton, Timmerman Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize U.S. Newswire : Bolton, Timmerman Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for helping uncover the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Yes, the same John Bolton who is serving an interim appointment because the Senate Democrats fillibustered his nomination.

ANWR ANWR

Jonah Goldberg of NRO has some pictures of the portion of ANWR where they would presumably drill for oil. It isn't the portion that has those beautiful mountains, but, rather is part of the thousands of square miles of absolutely flat tundra along the coast.

When I was in Alask some 15 years ago, we took a trip through Barrow and Pruhdoe Bay, and that is exactly what the northern coast of Alaska looks like.

PowerLine meets Day by Day PowerLine meets Day by Day

Today's "Day by Day" cartoon by Chris Muir mentions [Paul] Mirengoff, one of the lawyers blogging at Power Line Blog:

Reuters: Barny Franks calls for hate crime laws for gays Reuters: Barny Franks calls for hate crime laws for gays

In a Reuters article titled: "Bloody attack on Massachusetts gay bar stuns region", a neo-Nazi is accused of shooting two people and bludgeoning a third with a hatchet in a Massachusetts gay bar before fleeing. In response to this, Barry Franks (D-MA) is quoted calling for extending federal "Hate Crime" laws to protect gays. However, he fails to note that the attack occurred in his home state of Mass. which already protects gays against "Hate Crimes". Also, he ignores that the guy was going to face a dozen or so counts, including three for attempted murder. And, as a final note, he was apparently killed in a shoot-out with police in Arkansas yesterday.

This is the absurdity of Hate Crime legislation. First, as is obvious here, it doesn't prevent crime. The crime occurred in Mass. which already enhances punishment for Hate Crimes against gays. Why adding federal penalties here would help at all is never answered. Rather, as usual, we are left with the impression that the whole purpose of extending Hate Crime laws to gays is to make them feel better.

Indeed, that is the absurdity of Hate Crime legislation in the first place - much of the violence in this country is hate based, but inelgible for federal or state Hate Crime enhancement because the reason for the hate is not a protected class. Thus, if two men start fighting over a woman, it isn't a hate crime, unless they are of different races, and, in particular, if one uses racial epithets. Well, wouldn't you expect racial language when in the heat of passion, two men start fighting? Yet, that somehow makes it a Hate Crime.

Judge Posner on pragmatic judging in the NSA kurfluffle Judge Posner on pragmatic judging in the NSA kurfluffle

There was an interesting discussion at volokh.com about an article by Judge Posner in the New Republic suggesting pragmatism in judging. I originally made the following comments in that thread, and then moved them here.

The later posters brought something up that I posted about in other fora. The Supreme Court has a duty above and beyond that of Judge Posner in that they also have to maintain the power of their branch of government. The Judiciary has what some have called "soft power". They don't have soldiers, FBI agents, etc. Rather, their power is in their moral authority. In law school, I was taught (I think) that this really started with Marbury v. Madison, that they took upon themselves the power to decide what the Constitution means.

The Executive on the other hand has both "soft power" and "hard power". It has both moral authority and guns. So, to a very great extent, the Judiciary is dependant upon its "soft power" to make the Executive do what they wish it to.

Now, let us accept, arguendo, that FISA, by its language, would ban the NSA surveilance, or at least an important part of it. Let us also assume, arguendo, that the President is honest when he says that the reason that Americans are being surveiled by this program is that the NSA is trying to identify people being called by Al Qaeda. Also, lets accept, arguendo again, that the President believes that this is very important for national security and in preventing another 9/11. Finally, let's assume that a majority of Americans (and, in particular, a significant majority of Red State voters) back this.

So, what happens if the dispute (such as the pending ACLU lawsuit) gets to the Supreme Court? Do the Justices blindly interpret the laws and Constitution here, and let the chips fall as they may?

I submit that this is unlikely. Rather, I suggest that it is much more likely that they interpret the AUMF to effectively amend FISA to the extent that the NSA program is legal. Why? Because ruling against the President would jepardize their "soft power". Why? Because of what happens if the President calls their bluff (and a lot of people have suggested that it is foolish to play poker with this President). What happens if he refuses to terminate the NSA program? How are they going to enforce their decision against him? After all, he is the one for whom all the FBI agents, soldiers, et al. work. Not the Judicary. He is the one with the "hard power". Not them.

Can they afford to take the chance that he would defy them? I would suggest not. They can't take the chance that he would do that, because that would establish that they were not the final arbitors of what laws and the Constitution means. Maybe a bit like Marbury v. Madison in reverse.

One poster asked then what are the limits on a president's power to ignore the other branches of government. My answer is the same as that an 8th grade civic student would give - impeachment. Nixon ended up obeying the Supreme Court because of the real possibility that he would become the second president in history to be impeached (obviously, that honor ultimately fell to Mr. Clinton).

Here you have a situation where a majority of the people seem to support the President in the NSA surveilance. Plus, his party controls both houses of Congress. Absent more, the chances of President Bush being impeached for this are quite low.

I should add that Mr. Nixon forfeited a lot of his "soft power" (and moral authority) when his people burgled the DNC. That was personal and venal. Mr. Bush on the other hand can go to the American people and plausibly claim that he is protecting them from another 9/11 with this program. That arguably puts him in the position of having both all the "hard power" plus a surplus of "soft power" in any showdown with the Judicary.

The way this ties into Judge Posner's "pragmatism" is that the power dynamics between the different branches of government are likely to affect the place where the Justices start. With probably a majority of the people behind the President, and, more importantly, a vast majority of Red State voters behind him, I don't see the Justices calling his bluff. They can't afford to bet 200+ years of "soft power" on this.

That then gives them the implicit choice of either expanding FISA via the AUMF or finding for the President on his Article II powers. But that later would truly interject them into a Balance of Power dispute, and end up increasing the power of the Executive, vis a vis the Legislature. Something I think they would do to prevent betting their "soft power", but not preferable to finding the program legal on narrow statutory grounds.

Democratic Senators accepting Indian Casino money Democratic Senators accepting Indian Casino money

Each of these Democratic Senators received at least the following contributions from Abramhoff clients, mostly Indian tribes, presumably for casinos. Following list is sorted first by minimum contribution received and then by name.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) $98,550
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) $79,300
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) $78,991
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) $68,941
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) $45,750
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) $29,830
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $29,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) $28,000
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) $22,500
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) $21,765
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) $20,250
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) $20,168
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) $14,891
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) $14,792
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) $14,250
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) $14,000
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $12,950
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) $10,550
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) $9,000
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) $8,000
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) $7,500
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) $7,500
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) $7,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) $6,500
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) $6,250
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) $6,000
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) $5,200
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) $4,300
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) $4,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) $4,000
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) $3,500
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) $3,300
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) $2,300
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) $2,000
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $2,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) $2,000
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) $1,250
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) $1,250