October 31, 2005
{...}How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts! {...}
Mike at Tech Dirt correctly lays the blame for this odious suggestion on the FCC's inhibitions about allowing for market competition:
{...}Notice that the only reason this is possible now is because there's less competition in the broadband space, not more. If there were real competition, SBC would never even dare to suggest that they might cut off a Google, Yahoo or Vonage.
Michael Powell had a huge opportunity to get something done about how the FCC regulated the telecom industry; he had the opportunity to create competition and he didn't do it.
Chickenshit.
Posted by: Kathy at
12:08 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.
{...}In the absence of any such assertion or allegation, one must be forgiven for wondering what any of this gigantic fuss can possibly be about. I know some apparently sensible people who are prepared to believe, still, that a Machiavellian cabal in the White House wanted to punish Joseph Wilson by exposing his wife to embarrassment and even to danger. So strong is this belief that it envisages Karl Rove (say) deciding to accomplish the foul deed by tipping off Robert Novak, one of the most anti-Iraq-war and pro-CIA journalists in the capital, as if he were precisely the pliant tool one would select for the dastardly work. And then, presumably to thicken the plot, Mr. Novak calls the CIA to confirm, as it readily did, that Ms. Plame was in the agency's employ.Meanwhile, and just to make things more amusing, George Tenet, in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence, tells Dick Cheney that he employs Mr. Wilson's wife as an analyst of the weird and wonderful world of WMD. So jealously guarded is its own exclusive right to "out" her, however, that no sooner does anyone else mention her name than the CIA refers the Wilson/Plame disclosure to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Fitzgerald, therefore, seems to have decided to act "as if." He conducts himself as if Ms. Plame's identity was not widely known, as if she were working under "non official cover" (NOC), as if national security had been compromised, and as if one or even two catch-all laws had been broken. By this merely hypothetical standard, he has performed exceedingly well, even if rather long-windedly, before pulling up his essentially empty net.
However, what if one proposes an alternative "what if" narrative? What if Mr. Wilson spoke falsely when he asserted that his wife, who was not in fact under "non-official cover," had nothing to do with his visit to Niger? What if he was wrong in stating that Iraqi envoys had never even expressed an interest in Niger's only export? (Most European intelligence services stand by their story that there was indeed such a Baathist initiative.) What if his main friends in Niger were the very people he was supposed to be investigating?
Well, in that event, and after he had awarded himself some space on an op-ed page, what was to inhibit an employee of the Bush administration from calling attention to these facts, and letting reporters decide for themselves? The CIA had proven itself untrustworthy or incompetent on numerous occasions before, during and after the crisis of Sept. 11, 2001. Why should it be the only agency of the government that can invoke the law, broken or (as in this case) unbroken, to protect itself from leaks while protecting its own leakers?{...}
As they say, go read the whole thing.
This whole thing is such a non-starter, it's amazing. It's typical Dee Cee, I swear. It's as if the dorks who run that town need to have a good scandale once in a while, and if they don't have the makings of a juicy one, well, they'll find one where they can. It's such a B-movie scandale, too. Valerie Plame, the starlet du jour, was not undercover for the CIA, hence no law was violated at her outing. She was a desk jockey, for crying out loud. She also recommended her husband for this gig, so if one were looking for cronyism, this is where you would find it. Never mind that her husband was an incompetent boob. And you have a special prosecutor who's been investigating this thing for two years and only came back with perjury charges on one of the main players. Fitzgerald, apparently, couldn't even get an indictment for conspiracy.
If Scooter Libby perjured himself he should, indeed, pay the price for that. Perjury is perjury is perjury. But to have perjured yourself over this? Come on. That's just stupid. Cheney's got a rep as the evil mastermind of this administration to uphold. That his Chief of Staff would blunder on something so goddamn basic isn't going to help keep the rep intact, ya dig?
Posted by: Kathy at
08:49 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 4 kb.
/sarcasm.
Posted by: Kathy at
08:22 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
October 30, 2005
Yes, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, your supposition is right: I am still hungover.
The party last night was a whopping good time. Other than the fact that the dee jay SUCKED big time, the ball was a resounding success and a good time was had by everyone. The winners of the costume contest were five guys who had the nerve to don itty bitty speedos, warm up jackets replete with 'DDR' on the back, noseplugs and swim caps to form the East German Swim Team. They carried a flag, spoke German and had a little cheer that they performed in the midst of the party to much applause. They totally deserved to win. But, getting back to the cause of my pain and suffering, on the beverage menu there was this fabulous drink called "The Brain Hemmorhage" that was made with cherry vodka, sweet and sour, and something else, but, for all intents and purposes, said drink was the alcoholic equivalent of crack. Hence, I am hungover.
Blogging will resume tomorrow.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
October 29, 2005
A. Live in the Twin Cities
B. Have been looking for a place to wear that Catwoman/Batman/Random Superhero costume you just happen to have hanging in your closet
C. Have a spare $40 to blow
D. Want to boogie until the wee hours
E. Enjoy the comedic stylings of Miss Richfield 1981
F. Want to meet with and buy your friendly Cake Eater a drink...
You should go here this evening.
Seriously. You should come on down. Mr. H., who's on the board of this here ball, would really appreciate your support.
And, yes, Steed and Peel won out.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:35 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.
October 28, 2005
(Mom, skip right past this one, eh?) more...
Posted by: Kathy at
12:31 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
Please go and read the whole thing. It's so worth your time if for no other reason than choice quotes like this:
{...}"A blogger can go out and make any statement about anybody, and you can't control it. That's a difficult thing,"says Steven Down, general manager of bike lock maker Kryptonite, owned by Ingersoll-Rand and based in Canton,Mass. {...}
Oh, God Forbid that should ever come to pass! People making statements! It's just as if dogs and cats were getting it on in the backyard! Break out the smelling salts, Mildred, I'm feeling a wee bit faint!
It's hard to tell if this article is actually for real. I have to assume it is, but sheesh. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Seriously, though, the hyperventilating, Chicken Little tone of this article is absolutely ridiculous. While I don't doubt that some blogs are strictly attack blogs, that the medium is manipulated by evil-doers and pr hacks alike, and that there are people for whom the words "slander" and "lying" have no meaning, the author, Daniel Lyons, refuses to mention anything good that has come from blogs. There is not one example of something good coming out of blogs that he chooses to list. Blogs are all evil, all the time. I can't even begin to list the ways this shows this man has no idea what he's dealing with. For example:
{...}Even some bloggers see the harm they can pose. "Some people in the blogosphere are too smug about free speech. They'll say it's okay if people get slandered or if people make up fake stuff because in the end the truth wins out," says John Hinderaker, a lawyer in Minneapolis, Minn. who helps run a right-wing blog, Power Line, which hounded CNN's Jordan and CBS anchor Dan Rather. "But I don't think that excuses it."When Hinderaker published an item saying left-wing bloggers should stop assaulting a White House reporter alleged to have worked as a gay prostitute, his blog brethren went on the assault, publishing his phone number at work and prompting a deluge of harassing phone calls and e-mails. "My secretary was crying" because callers kept swearing at her, he says. "Then we started getting calls at the house. My wife wanted to hire a bodyguard." {...}
Yeah, Powerline simply "hounded" Dan Rather. There was no benefit in keeping a network news anchor honest during a highly contested and partisan presidential election? Mmmhmmm. Sounds exactly like one of Lyons' complaints about blogs. But it would seem as if none of this is relevant to Lyons: he's only interested in WHEN BLOGGERS ATTACK BLOGGERS! Like it was a horror movie from the 1950's or a Dateline special report with Maria Shriver circa 1996. If you were to only listen to Lyons take on the matter, why, that horrible Hinderaker got what he deserved!
Which segues nicely into a sidebar from the article: Lyons goes so far as to publish a DIY "How to Fight Back" manual. You know, what you should do in the event of a blogger leveling a smear campaign against you or your corporation. His suggestions include:
MONITOR THE BLOGOSPHERE. Put your own people on this or hire a watchdog (Cymfony, Intelliseek or Biz360, among others). Spot blog smears early, before they can spread, and stamp them out by publishing the truth.START YOUR OWN BLOG. Hire a blogger to do a company blog or encourage your employees to write their own, adding your voice to the mix.{...}
But wait, it gets better.
ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also:Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address. {...}
It's laughable how out of touch Forbes is on this. Crikeys. People pay good money to this magazine to find out what's going on in business and this is the product they provide? Sheesh. I'm glad we don't pay for our Forbes subscription; it's a gift from the father-in-law. Because after this I'm not really sure that I would take anything they wrote seriously.
{Hat Tip: Mike at Tech Dirt}
Posted by: Kathy at
12:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 751 words, total size 5 kb.
October 27, 2005
{...}Nor does the 37-year-old share Bond's love of Martinis shaken and stirred."I love a Martini straight up. I don't think anybody makes a Martini stirred any more," he said. {...}
It's shaken not stirred, you flipping idiot! NOT shaken and stirred.
(Hat Tip: Ith, who pretty much wrote the same damn post, but it was such an egregious error that I feel the need to pile on.}
Posted by: Kathy at
10:45 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
The Ministry of Silly Walks has certified it and will be sending out the certificate stating as much in tomorrow's post.
Posted by: Kathy at
01:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
So you'll see that we've got a few doozies on our hands.
Now, it's time for the obligatory bloggy disclaimer. I'm normally one of those people who doesn't touch the topic of abortion with a ten foot cattle prod. I can't stand how this topic turns rational people into lathered idiots by the briefest mention of it. I have yet to see one reasoned debate about any aspect of abortion on any blog, and considering I've been reading blogs for, oh, a good four years or so, that should tell you something, blog years being similar to dog years. It is a topic that raises the passions, so you will perhaps understand that when the topic was raised in group discussion that I was leery of tackling it. I will also admit that I thought long and hard about bailing out and not touching it at all because I don't feel like getting screamed at by trolls. But I haven't bailed on a Divas topic yet, and I don't intend to start now, so all I would ask is that I don't want to have regrets about sticking with it. Don't make me have regrets, ya dig? Do you get what I am saying? You do? Excellent. DAMN THE TORPEDOS!
Ahem.
As to the first question, should the father of an unborn child have the right to block the abortion of said unborn child? Yes, absolutely, is my answer. It takes two to tango, after all. The father of the child should have precisely the same legal rights as the mother. But---and you knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?---it's not only one life he would be holding in his hands, but two, mother and child being something of a package deal. Does the father of said child---if we're working under the assumption that these presumptive parents aren't married, nor even committed---take care of both of them for nine months and then ditch the mother after she gives birth? Is he legally allowed to do that? To control her life because that's just the way the biology works? Under our system of laws---and by that I mean the US legal system---this is a moot point. I'm not an expert on these matters, but a woman over the age of majority doesn't need to notify anyone of what she intends to do. Furthermore, she is the sole authority over what happens to her body---and any child she's carrying. In which case the father of said child would be up shit creek.
I find this an interesting question because it seems like an odd, world-turned-on-its-ear, futurama question, even for someone who is as reasonably young as I am at age thirty-four. It sounds like a future where the sexes really are equal, whereas men, today, still, other than through court-ordered child support payments, aren't held responsible for their actions to the same degree that women are. Nor do I think there's been a sea change in attitudes toward single fatherhood since I was younger. The history of male-female relationships is there for all and sundry to see: given the male half of humanity's long history of dumping women they thought suitable for sleeping with, but not for marrying, this is a curious hypothetical situation. Don't get me wrong. I think it's good that some hypothetical man would want to block an abortion. I just find it unusual because the whole situation is set up specifically because men have neglected their duties in this arena. For millenia women were abandoned, vilified and treated like the scum of the earth because they'd had sexual relations out of the bonds of holy wedlock. God help the child born of such a union. It doesn't bear repeating, does it, what it would be like for such a child because it was generally awful? Yet, nothing ever happened to the man in such a circumstance, of course. They got off Scot-free; the system being, after all, rigged in their favor. They made the rules---and of course it was always their word against the woman's when it came to establishing parentage. Women worked around their rules and tried to create options for themselves. It would seem by this hypothetical question as if the men didn't appreciate being left out of it.
As to the second question, should a woman who has had an abortion and not told the biological father be liable for damages, I have no freakin' clue. I would lean toward saying "yes" but, as with all other legal questions I tend to think about the precedent this would set, and I cannot imagine what sort of precedent this would set because my mind just doesn't go that far. I have a feeling that screaming "tort reform" isn't going to help me out here, so I will simply say this: beware where you go and claim liabilty. I could easily see a woman countersuing and asking for damages for pain and suffering due to the abortion she thought she had to have because she didn't feel she could tell the father of child the truth because she feared for her life, etc. Tack on the "loss of consortium" charges and you've got yourself one heck of a countersuit.
One could make the assumption that the only purpose of such a lawsuit would be to punish the mother of the aborted child. In a situation such as this, where most rational people would be feeling pain from every angle conceivable, it doesn't make much sense to me to create more of it. This, of course, assumes certain emotional reactions of the respondents, but I can't see where it would be a great idea even if the bitch was richer than Croesus. Too much pain by attempting, once again, to attach a monetary sum to a human life.
All righty then, that's enough pontificating from moi. Go and see what the other divas, Silk and Phoenix, have to say on the matter. Sadie, I believe, is still on the break, but maybe if we're lucky Oklahoma's newest lawyer will chime in on this weighty subject. Ruth at Chaos Theory, this week's Guest Diva, has chimed in, so run along and read her opinion. For the male perspective Phin, Stiggy, our Maximum Leader and Jamesy are the usual token testosterone holders, hence you shall take their opinions seriously. Our guest Men's Club Member is That 1 Guy and he has chimed in as well.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1169 words, total size 7 kb.
October 26, 2005
That is all.
Posted by: Kathy at
08:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.
Reading Hitchens is like smoking a Chesterfield: it always satisfies.
Posted by: Kathy at
11:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
New title, new mantra, same great woman! Run along and thank your lucky stars that she's baaaaaaaaaaaack!
Posted by: Kathy at
09:09 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
October 25, 2005
Kath the Cake Eater: Unattended Luggage Fighter and Cub Reporter
At precisely 12:52 p.m. CDT today, on my way back from Lake Harriet, I reached the bus stop that sits opposite the Cake Eater Pad. While I was waiting to cross the street, the sweet stylings of the Boss' Rosalita flowing through my earphones, out of the corner of my eye I noticed something was amiss. Something was resting next to the bench. Something that shouldn't have been there. Furthermore, it something that wasn't there when I went to the lake an hour and ten minutes earlier.
I am sure you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, are asking, what could it have possibly been? A breadbox? A Chrysler? A disembowled smurf?
{insert heavy duh-duh-duh music here}
It was...
...an evil garment bag. An evil unattended garment bag.
Rather conveniently for the cub reporter angle, I had my digital camera with me, so I snapped off a few shots of the garment bag, before going into the house, where I faced a conundrum: to call the cops or to not call the cops.
You see, some idiot probably just forgot their bag when they were getting on the bus. It happens. Someone probably got a little too wrapped up while listening to George Clinton and the Parliament Funkadelic on their fashionable iPod and, in the midst of their grooving on this beautiful autumn Tuesday, forgot all about their garment bag as the bus pulled up. It could happen.
But the "authorities" have repeatedly warned us about "unattended bags," because, apparently, they don't like for our luggage to be separated from its owner: that's a bad thing because it generally doesn't bode well when this happens. Yet, I ask you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers, who in their right mind would want to bomb the bus stop across the street from the Cake Eater Pad? The only thing that's there, as you can see, is a bench, a Strib box, and a Lutheran Church about fifteen yards behind it. Besides the obvious choice of target--- the Strib box---the only other target of interest is the Lutheran Church. Who'd want to bomb a Lutheran Church? Yeah, sure bomb a synagogue or a cathedral, but a boxy Lutheran church? And ECLA Lutherans at that? That's just really not worth the effort. Particularly on a Tuesday.
Anyhoo...I was torn. Do I call the cops? Do I not call the cops? I wouldn't want to waste their time. So instead of debating with myself, while I stretched my hamstrings, I called the husband and asked him what I should do. He said, duh, call the cops. I agreed I would. I chatted with him for a little bit, asked him how his day was going, listened to him bitch about this ISP he's working with currently on this project, and then, after I hung up with the husband, called the police at 1:05 p.m. CDT. Of course I got the Cake Eater City Police on the horn and since the bus stop is in the Province of Minneapolis, they transferred me promptly to the Minneapolis police, who took my name, number and complaint and said, "we'll send some cruisers right over."
I hung up the phone, happy that was over with. Then, because I was hungry, I went into the kitchen and made some Cream of Wheat for lunch. 1:10 comes and goes and the cops don't show. 1:15 passes by with still no police as I pour the hot cereal into a bowl and get myself some juice. At 1:20, I'm settled in the chair in the living room, eating my lunch and watching the street outside, waiting for the cops to show up. The cream of wheat was exceedingly tasty---and it disappeared fast, because I was hungry. At 1:24 a Minneapolis police cruiser shows up! And it only took nineteen minutes! A moment later, a second cruiser pulls up behind the first.
Now, apparently the guy in the first cruiser wanted nothing to do with the bag. He left it for the dude in the second cruiser to take care of. The second cop pulled on what looked like a pair of baby blue rubber gloves and went to work on the bag, while the cop from the first cruiser stood out of the way.
The second cop went through the bag pretty thoroughly.
And then all of a sudden, the gawker effect kicked in on the street as the cars started slowing down to get a good peek at what was going on. This, apparently, coincided with the time that the second cop decided there was nothing to worry about with this bag, hence the first cop decided to mosy on over, closer to the bag.
About a minute later, at 1:27p.m., the second cop put the bag in his trunk, whipped his rubber gloves off like he was Marcus Welby, threw them into his car and got in after them. The first cop pulled into the church parking lot and then the second cruiser pulled in after him.
There apparently wasn't anything wrong with the bag, per se, because they sat there and shot the shit for the next fifteen minutes or so.
So, I feel somewhat righteous right now, having defended my local bus stop from unattended luggage that might or might not have exploded and destroyed the Strib box.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: Kathy at
02:47 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:59 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
October 24, 2005
John Steed and Mrs. Emma Peel aka The Avengers
or Nick and Nora Charles
What say you, my devoted Cake Eater Readers?
Posted by: Kathy at
09:50 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.
My blog is worth $104,439.90.
How much is your blog worth?
Hat tip: Everyone's Favorite Commie Pinko
Posted by: Kathy at
08:18 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
October 23, 2005
Posted by: Kathy at
10:51 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2 words, total size 1 kb.
Hmmph.
I thought he'd be furrier. Hmmph. Must've been shorn for the occasion.
Posted by: Kathy at
09:30 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
October 22, 2005
A Florida court will hear arguments on Friday in a case where the accuracy of a breathalyser is being scrutinised because the manufacturer has refused to release the source code.Lawyers representing more than 150 defendants who have been charged for driving under the influence of alcohol in two Florida counties will file the request.
They argue that they have a right to see the source code of the alcohol breath analyser that was used to determine their clients' guilt.
"None of the [software] programs that was used here is approved," said Robert Harrison, a lawyer representing some of the defendants.
"The question is whether the difference [between these programs] is material or not. Without seeing the source code, we do not know."
At the centre of the controversy is the Intoxilyzer 5000, a device made by CMI of Ownsboro, Kentucky.
A marketing brochure for the device claims that it has been used for more than 25 years, and touts it as the "standard for accuracy, reliability and courtroom evidence".
Information on the internet shows that the Intoxilyzer 5000 is being used worldwide, including in Norway, the US and Canada. CMI did not return repeated phone calls seeking further information.
Florida approved the Intoxilyzer 5000 in 1993, but the manufacturer has since made numerous changes which Harrison argues have not been certified. CMI had to recall its devices in at least one case due to a software error, he said.
Releasing the source code of the device could take away any doubt about its accuracy, but the manufacturer has said in the past that it refuses to do so because it considers that information a trade secret.
This refusal could have far reaching consequences, potentially giving those convicted of 'Driving Under the Influence' a reason to appeal against their rulings.
It also has caused a backlog of such cases that await the results of this case to determine whether evidence gathered by the Intoxilyzer 5000 is still admissible in court.{...}
Curious, eh?
I wish them luck. Police have been modifying breathalyzers (read jerryrigging) for years and the evidence from said modified breathalyzers has still been admitted into court. It's about time someone took issue with the breathalyzers themselves---and their source code. Even if this examination proves there is nothing wrong with the way the breathalyzers work, the overall point is important---that the defendant has the right to examine "its accuser" in court. Even if its accuser is a machine. Because it's important to remind the courts that those accused of DWI are actually, you know, protected by the Constitution, even though they'd like to think otherwise.
UPDATE: Mitch has some further thoughts along these lines. Make sure to peruse the comments section.
Posted by: Kathy at
10:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.
60 queries taking 0.095 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
