TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (11)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Tuesday, April 26; link good at time of posting):

A security guard called police when he heard banging coming from the inside of a car trunk, and authorities figured a crime victim was locked inside. But police said it turned out the "victim" was apparently the perp.

According to investigators, the man crawled into the trunk while he was ransacking the car. But he managed to lock himself inside as he was trying to climb out.

Police have not released the suspect's name. He's been booked on two counts of theft

[Previous TGIS]

Eternal Sunshine of the Legal Mind

Soon-to-be Harvard Law alumnus Jeremy Blachman of the eponymously-named and always-excellent Jeremy's Weblog recently betrayed the secret all recent law school graduates and new attorneys share:

I have a secret. And it's getting more and more difficult to hide it. I think my family's finally catching on. There's only so much verbal gymnastics one can do before the truth is obvious. My friends here know my secret. It's their secret too. It's the elephant in the room. It's okay to talk about it, but it's embarrassing for other people to find out. I mean, it's not our fault, but it can feel that way. Like we've done something wrong. Like we're imposters. But I don't think we are. I think somehow the expectations just don't match the reality. People make certain assumptions. Heck, we make our own assumptions. But it turns out that the assumptions just aren't true. And so we carry around our secret, a little bit ashamed, a little bit amused, a little bit concerned, a little bit puzzled, a little bit resigned, and a little bit angry.

Here it is: I don't know any law.

That's an overstatement, but not by much. I don't know that I really thought about it before I started law school, but I feel like I must have assumed I'd graduate having more of a clue than I do. I've been noticing more and more lately. People cut you some slack when you say you're just a student, but you tell them you're about to graduate and they expect Perry Mason. After watching a segment on The Daily Show last week, I had a conversation with a friend about whether they would be allowed to film on the Harvard campus without permission. Neither of us had any idea. I have no clue what the difference between robbery, burglary, larceny, theft, and just plain stealing are. My cousin is a teacher. She asked me whether it's legal to handcuff her students. I mean, it sounds illegal... but is that really a more informed answer than I would have given three years ago?

If I may humbly offer some reassurance to Jeremy before he is set upon and killed by his classmates for blabbing, let me pass along the following truths I've learned in the nearly ten years since I left law school:

1. You know more than you think you know;
2. Much of what you know is useless in the real world, but will be impossible to forget;
3. You must forget everything you know in order to pass the bar exam;
4. After the bar exam is behind you, you will learn what you need to know;
   
5. Your years in law school have enabled you to learn what you need to know once you've forgotten everything you knew in order to pass the bar exam which tested nothing you learned during your years in law school; and
   
6. If Truth Number Five, supra, seemed like a reasonable sentence to you, you're ready to practice law.

Jeremy's lament that he has "no clue what the difference between robbery, burglary, larceny, theft, and just plain stealing are" also gives me the segue I need to digress into relating my own experience with the aforementioned Truth Number Two:

I am an in-house attorney at a software company; my principal duties involve contract law, intellectual property protection and licensing, regulatory and export compliance, employment law, and corporate governance issues. As such, there is absolutely no reason for me to recall that:

• the common law felonies were murder, manslaughter, larceny, arson, burglary, robbery, mayhem, rape, sodomy, and suicide;
• robbery is an illegal taking of property directly from a person using violence or forceful coercion;
• burglary is breaking into a residence at night with the intent to commit a felony (e.g., robbery or larceny);
• larceny is robbery without the personal touch;
• theft is common law larceny as codified by many modern statutes; and
• stealing is an informal name for the foregoing concepts and you cannot do it until you pass the bar exam.

There is no reason for me to know any of that, but I do and I can't forget it. Most likely, if Jeremy ever reads this post, he also will not be able to forget it and he will curse my name when this information pops into his thoughts as he attempts to formulate a response to a civil procedure question on his bar exam. Nevertheless, I'll offer one last thing I've learned from painful personal experience -- if you rattle-off the common law felonies at a dinner party, people will think you're creepy.

I Go Changing, to Try and Please You

Every so often, I like to tweak a few things at this site. In the past, I haven't publicized changes made because these generally have been either minor or apparent; this time around, however, there are a few changes I'd like to point out:

• The comment function has been enabled for all posts.
  
• The recommendations list has been moved to Blogrolling and has been doubled from 30 links to 60.
• The current TTLB Ecosystem status for Infamy or Praise is now available in the main page sidebar (except when TLLB is unavailable). With your continuing readership and linkage, I hope to make may way up the chain from Lowly Insect to Slimy Mollusc and beyond!
• Also in the sidebar, you may notice a SiteMeter icon on all pages; this enables me to harvest your credit card numbers and other personal information.
• The number of recent posts available on the main page has been doubled from 10 posts to 20.
  

Thanks for reading!

BBC: British Body Count

In 2002, Britain had a population of approximately 50 million people and a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 population; this yields an annual pool of murder victims of around 600 people, a number which is ridiculously low by American standards. In 2002, Chicago (2.9 million population) and Los Angeles (3.8 million population) thinned their populations by 647 and 658 murdered people respectively; Washington DC and Detroit, with a combined population of 1.5 million overachieved by killing off 662 in 2002.

Considering that a Brit's risk of death by tooth decay is probably many multiples of his risk of being murdered, it's always seemed somewhat strange to me that the British have such a longstanding obsession with murder mysteries. I'm not criticizing, mind you -- it's an obsession I wholeheartedly share. The wife and I watch Wire in the Blood, Inspector Morse, Midsomer Murders, Poirot, McCallum, Miss Marple, and pretty much any other British murder mystery program we can get in front of our eyeballs. If a limey's been killed anywhere on television in the past five years, we've seen it.

Watching these programs without reference to real-world statistics, one would naturally conclude that every person in Britain is a) a serial killer; b) a victim of a serial killer; or c) investigating serial killings. It seems that in order to reconcile their viewership's insatiable need for murder programming with the reality that murder is a rare thing in Britain, the BBC has been forced to dramatize each and every instance of foul play on their island.

We misguided Americans aspire to fifteen minutes of fame; in Britain, everyone gets an hour.

Bwaaahahaha!

This probably seemed reasonable to a generation exposed to Free to be You and Me. Thankfully, even in the age of disco, cooler heads prevailed. From WSJ.com's "Financial Flashback" item (subscription required):

The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 1977
The government plans to switch highway speed-limit signs to the metric system in late 1978. Under the tentative highway administration plan, the federally mandated 55 miles-an-hour speed limit would be converted to 90 kilometers an hour on road signs.

Blawg Review, Episode III: Blawg of the Sith

The third issue of Blawg Review is now available, courtesy of the Appellate Law and Practice blog. The buzz amongst the legal blogging community has been uniformly positive thus far, despite the inclusion of two posts from Infamy or Praise in the first three issues ("Always a Beta, Never a Bride" is included in this week's issue).

The continuing success of Blawg Review will depend on a steady supply of worthwhile content (to balance out my posts). The submission guidelines are straightforward -- recommend a worthy post you've read in the past week or even one of your own recent posts, if you're so inclined. The deadlines for submissions are each Saturday evening for the following Monday's issue.

The Other Love That Dares Not Speak Its Name

In the late 1980s, Gordon Gekko told us that "greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works." Those of us who aspired to the practice of law thought, "Well, duh." We did, however, have the sense to leave that unsaid for the sake of propriety. Unfortunately, a toxic mixture of e-mail honesty and difficult-to-spell Dutch surnames has now come together to let the cat out of the bag:

Even for his fellow lawyers, a Dutch law school graduate may have a gone a bit too far in expressing a desire to strike it rich.

Reinder Eekhof, a freshly minted lawyer, recently wrote in an e-mail that he had "finally finished this stupid education," and was "now looking for someone crazy enough to dump a suitcase full of money in my lap every month."

The e-mail was meant for a friend at the Houthoff Buruma law firm. But Eekhof mistyped the address and his missive landed in the inbox of someone in the communications department instead.

That person forwarded it, and soon the e-mail was being read at law firms across the Netherlands.

"Good luck with your career," wrote one lawyer who saw the e-mail. Another noted that "the advantage is that now everyone in the legal profession in Holland knows your name."

After Chili Reception, Claimant is Fingered by Police

Shocked, shocked I am to see it all come to this. If we can't believe the claims of a woman with a lengthy record of filing ridiculous legal claims against various companies, what can we believe? Not the San Francisco Chronicle, usually, but in this case, perhaps we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt:

Anna Ayala, the Las Vegas woman who claimed to have bitten into a severed finger at a San Jose Wendy's restaurant, was arrested Thursday night in connection with the case, San Jose police said.

San Jose police spokesman Enrique Garcia said Ayala, 39, was arrested, but he declined to provide further details.

"We've arrested her in connection with the Wendy's investigation. She's currently in custody" in Las Vegas, said Garcia late Thursday night.

Police did not say on what charges Ayala was arrested. A press conference is scheduled at the San Jose Police Department at 1 p.m. today to discuss details about the arrest, Garcia said.

A Clark County Detention Center official said Ayala was booked Thursday night as a fugitive from San Jose.

Family friend Ken Bono said officers raided the home around 9 p.m. and caught Ayala alone as she was watching "Meet the Fockers" on video.

"I had just left to get some soda at the store, and when I came back she was gone and there were cars from the (Las Vegas and San Jose) police," said Bono, 23, who lives with Ayala. "They said it for grand theft or something."

Bono said Ayala is innocent and eventually will be exonerated. He said she has been unfairly targeted by the police and Wendy's International Inc.

"They don't got jack s -- . They got her for something she didn't do. It's just something Wendy's is trying to do to her," Bono said.

Update: The Smoking Gun has the mugshot and arrest-related press release from the San Jose Police Department.

Update 2: We can all rest easily once again.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (10)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press via AZCentral.com (from Thursday, April 21; link good at time of posting):

A bullet in the butt has led authorities to a pile of pot. Brandon Sanders called for help after being shot in the rear end.

Deputies and paramedics in Grass Valley, Calif., found the wounded Sanders sitting in his car in a parking lot.

Sheriff Keith Royal says a deputy smelled a strong odor of pot in the area. Royal says officers followed a trial of blood to three large bags of marijuana hidden in some nearby bushes.

Deputies say they also found a large roll of cash near the car. The investigation continues, but Royal says Sanders hasn't been the most cooperative victim.

[Previous TGIS]

Always a Beta, Never a Bride

A key factor in Google's remarkable success during its short corporate history has been its unwillingness to be bound by conventional wisdom -- not just in its technology and business decisions, but in its licensing choices as well. For its legions of faithful users, Google's "go your own way" approach has produced services that are often useful to the point of indispensability, but Google's licensing practices, while right for Google, may not be right for all. Widespread adoption of such practices by other software companies for other types of software products could quickly prove problematic both for software users and for those lawyers charged with their care and feeding.

A new software product, like most new products, rarely is suitable for the masses in its first complete iteration from the development environment. Many times, planned features are not yet completed, some functions do not operate as expected or at all, or the design of the product doesn't meet the developer's or its users' needs. An interim version of the software is necessary to work through these concerns; such a version needs to be complete enough to work with but need not be so polished that it's considered "ready for prime time". Such a version is generally termed a "beta" release; as defined by WhatIs:

[A] beta test is the second phase of software testing in which a sampling of the intended audience tries the product out. (Beta is the second letter of the Greek alphabet.) Originally, the term alpha test meant the first phase of testing in a software development process. The first phase includes unit testing, component testing, and system testing. Beta testing can be considered "pre-release testing." Beta test versions of software are now distributed to a wide audience on the Web partly to give the program a "real-world" test and partly to provide a preview of the next release.

The issue then is not whether a new product will require beta testing, but when such testing will occur; alternately, and perhaps more precisely, the issue is how a software developer will define its "sampling of the intended audience".

Unlike a marketing focus group, beta testers have not generally been a representative cross-section of the intended audience; rather, these testers were usually much more technically-savvy than the general audience for the tested products. These "power users" were often selected for their technical skills -- skills which would enable them to recognize problems ordinary users wouldn't and to better-understand the root causes of those problems. For some beta tests, a more representative cross-section of the intended audience would be useful to a developer, but regardless the breadth of this sampling, it was just that -- a sample of the overall user base.

Thus, in the traditional sense, a beta product differed from the final (or "general release") product in two ways: 1) the product's intended audience (a sampling of the user base versus the entire user base); and 2) the "completeness" of the product. Implicit in the concept of the beta product is that it is an interim version of the product; the beta test is a prelude to the general release, rather than a general release in and of itself. This naturally begs the question, if a "beta" product is released to an entire user base and there is no definitive expectation by the developer to transition to a more complete and polished version, is this really a beta at all?

In the Disney version of Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter and the March Hare explain the concept of the "unbirthday":

Let's all congratulate us with another cup of tea
A very merry unbirthday to you
Now statistics prove
Prove that you've one birthday
Imagine just one birthday every year
Ah, but there are 364 unbirthdays
Precisely why we're gathered here to cheer

Poor Alice. When we try to define something by what it isn't rather than by what it is, we're bound for trouble, aren't we? So when a "beta" product is defined more as an "un-general release", by only noting that it isn't a general release version, where does that leave us as users and as users' attorneys?

The concern for us revolves around the differences between a general release product's license terms and those terms applicable to a beta product. Like any contract, a software license describes mutual obligations. For software users, such obligations generally include restrictions on use and copying of the software and documentation, prohibitions against decompiling software object code or modifying scripted programming statements, and (most important to those of us who work on the developer side) an obligation to pay licensing fees. For software developers, licenses generally describe warranty and support obligations.

A beta transaction is different. In such a relationship, the consideration on each side is less mercantile in nature. For a user of beta software, the value may be in working with and understanding an advanced product before the general public does, or in influencing the development of a product; for some, the ego boost associated with simply being granted access to something when others are not may be value enough. For a developer, the value of the beta is the feedback received from the test audience. As such, it is not generally expected that a beta tester pay for the privilege of receiving the beta product or that a developer warrant the product or indemnify the tester's use of it.

Where Google has departed from these licensing norms is in its blurring of the line between beta products and general release products -- many of Google's products, including the immensely-popular Gmail and Google News services, are still designated as "beta" while functioning in practice no differently than Google's other products. By providing what are de facto general release services under the legal guise of beta offerings, Google derives the full benefit of its products without the usually-associated customer expectations or obligations.

Whether this is intentional on Google's part or just legal happenstance is debatable. When Gmail debuted in April, 2004, contemporaneous reports clearly indicated that its beta status was not intended to be perpetual:

[Analyst Hellen Omwando] also pointed out that, although Gmail remains in a beta format, the service does lack some functionality offered by rivals such as Yahoo, such as the ability for users to access multiple e-mail accounts from one central account.

Google is wary of announcing a launch date for the service until beta testing is complete, but according to Kate Burns, managing director of Google UK's ad sales, it will be widely available to consumers fairly soon.

"My feeling is that we have already done an awful lot of testing, so it will be a limited test period--a matter of weeks," Burns said.

Since that time, more than a dozen major improvements have been made to the Gmail service, but it remains (officially at least) in beta. Although many users have recently noticed a loosening of the invitation supply (by which new users are enabled to join the service), Google has not indicated when, if ever, Gmail will lose its "beta" tag.

It is also not certain whether Google News remains in beta four years after its launch by design or by circumstance. According to Wired last year:

As it turns out, however, Google has a problem that is nearly as complex as its algorithms. It can't make money from Google News.

So while other online publishers like Yahoo News and MSNBC earn tens of millions of dollars in revenue each year and continue to grow, Google News remains in beta mode -- three years after it launched -- long after most of the bugs have been excised.

The reason: The minute Google News runs paid advertising of any sort it could face a torrent of cease-and-desist letters from the legal departments of newspapers, which would argue that "fair use" doesn't cover lifting headlines and lead paragraphs verbatim from their articles. Other publishers might simply block users originating from Google News, effectively snuffing it out.

These potential copyright issues, while a legitimate (no pun intended) concern, do not result from any technical or design weaknesses in the service itself. The Google News service is, at least in my experience as a long-time user, a stable and complete one; while the list of news sources and the algorithms applied thereto are continuously modified by Google behind-the-scenes, the only major feature change in the service in recent months has been the addition of a personalization function. Moreover, the limitation identified in the Wired article -- Google's reluctance to add commercial advertising to a "beta" service -- is belied by the fact that the Gmail service (as discussed above, also in beta) does display such advertising; commercialization is clearly not the demarcation line for Google between beta and general release.

Still, all of this pseudo-beta nonsense works for Google. In part, this is because its free, publicly-available services are 1) free; 2) publicly-available; and 3) services. Because all of Google's services are supported by advertising (or by the company itself) and provided at no charge to users, Google enjoys a degree of freedom as it does not have the usual developer's incentive to move its beta products into general release in order to be paid for their use. Because services like Gmail and Google News are made publicly-available, the usual licensing concerns of software developers that their products will be copied and distributed without authorization do not apply. Because Google's applications are hosted by Google and provided as services, users have no practical means to copy those applications; whereas a developer of shrink-wrapped software products needs to maintain a high degree of legal control over its creation because it is leaving its possession and will be "entrusted" to another party, Google has no such concern. Moreover, as free, publicly-available services, users have no expectation that Google will provide them with traditional software warranties; beyond privacy concerns, which Google addresses, users take what they can get, gladly and without further questions.

What this all boils down to is that neither Google nor its customers has any need for the formalities of a traditional software license; consequently, if a Google service remains officially in beta even years after its launch and in the absence of any apparent material defects or feature gaps, who cares? In Google's case, no one really. However, when developers whose products are not similar to Google's seek to extract traditional license obligations and fees from users, but disclaim their own traditional license obligations because the software is "in beta", we should be concerned; when the developer in question is the world's largest, we should be very concerned.

In its escalating competition with Google, Microsoft has often played catch-up, as with its revamped web search service (codenamed "Underdog" during its development) and enhanced HotMail web-based e-mail service. Microsoft has also focused on preventing or mitigating Google's encroachment upon its traditional software strengths in business applications, operating systems, and development tools. For some observers, this is a David-versus-Goliath struggle between the world's largest software company and a nimble and talented newcomer; for others, Microsoft and Google are merely proxies in a larger battle between PC-based and web-based applications. Regardless which, if either, characterization is true, Microsoft's perception of a Google threat has affected the development and positioning of its products, particularly its web-based products, but has not clearly affected its licensing methodology until now:

Microsoft released on Monday test versions of its forthcoming development tools and database, early versions the company said are already suitable for running production business applications.

Microsoft customers who subscribe to the Microsoft Development Network can access the second beta of the Visual Studio 2005 and the April "community technology preview" of SQL Server 2005. Both products are due for completion in the second half of the year and will be released in tandem.

The preview version of the database will include all planned features for SQL Server 2005. Rather than have a third beta program as originally planned, Microsoft will release updates every six to eight weeks until the product is finished, said Tom Rizzo, director of product management for SQL Server.

For both the SQL server and Visual Studio betas, Microsoft will offer customers the option to sign a "GoLive" license, which will allow them to deploy production systems on the beta software. Typically, beta software agreements do not allow customers to run applications because Microsoft does not officially offer support.

Because of the change in the license and the quality of the code, Microsoft expects 50,000 customers to move production applications onto the beta versions of Visual Studio 2005 and the .Net Framework, the software needed to run applications.

The referenced "Go-Live" License provides in part:

Recipient wishes to have the option, at Recipient's sole discretion, of using the Pre-Release Software to a) deploy applications built with such Pre-Release Software in a live internal production environment, and/or b) deploy or distribute for use by third parties certain applications created with the Pre-Release Software . . . .

8. No Support. Microsoft is not obligated to provide maintenance, technical support, Updates or other support to Recipient or Recipient’s users of the Applications. Recipient is solely responsible for updating its users, if needed, with versions of Applications that operate satisfactorily with subsequent releases (including the final commercial release) of the Pre-Release Software.

. . . .

10. PRERELEASE/TIME SENSITIVE CODE. THE PRE-RELEASE SOFTWARE CONTAINS TIME SENSITIVE AND PRERELEASE CODE THAT IS NOT AT THE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE AND COMPATIBILITY OF A FINAL, GENERALLY AVAILABLE, PRODUCT OFFERING AND MAY NOT OPERATE CORRECTLY. RECIPIENT'S EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE IS AT RECIPIENT'S SOLE DISCRETION AND RECIPIENT ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND RISK OF ANY AND ALL DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE LOSS OF ANY DATA OR OTHER CONTENT.

To parse all that a bit, what's described is a situation wherein paying customers (albeit not paying specifically for this software license) are encouraged to deploy software "that is not at the level of a final, generally available, product offering" in a production, rather than test, operating environment. These customers are to do this without the usual developer support available for final, generally available products, without legal recourse for any effects caused by the software, and without any assurance that future changes in the still-developing software will not wipe out the customer's deployment efforts. Moreover, the customer is encouraged to provide to other parties applications it develops which are based and reliant upon the beta software.

This is the software licensing analog to a piece of real estate bought "as is" by quitclaim. It's legally permitted to buy land like that, but is it wise to do so? Would you advise someone to buy land in that fashion and, further, to build on that land in reliance on their quality of title to it? It's risky business in both real estate and technology.

Generally, software applications do not operate in isolation. One application receives inputs from another application and outputs to a third application; all of them operate within an environment created and managed by still more software. Usually, each developer-vendor will warrant and maintain its own piece of the puzzle and none other; to be fully-protected, an end user of this system must be able to string together these piecemeal warranties to achieve complete coverage. To the extent that one or another of these applications is a beta application without such warranties, there is a gap in the coverage; whether that gap becomes dangerous is a matter of degree.

Let me be clear on this -- what Microsoft is doing is legal and does not jeopardize their interests. If I were Microsoft's attorney, I'd love this. I'm not Microsoft's attorney, though. I'm an attorney for a company that relies on Microsoft's products and the legal warranties and remedies described in the software licenses for which we've paid; I'm a direct user of Microsoft's products and indirectly, I use Microsoft's products through my use of other applications and services which rely upon them. As a consumer of software generally, I know that the license practices of other developers often take their cues from the bigger players -- the Googles and Microsofts of the world -- and what starts with those bigger players (good and bad) tends to trickle down to everyone until it becomes accepted as the status quo.

Microsoft's "Go-Live" License may be a one-off scheme or it may be the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Given the increasing acceptance of the Google-style perpetual beta, I'm less confident than I might be that it's the former. For both users and their attorneys, times were simpler when the universe of beta software was kept separate from the universe of general release software, but the times they are a changin'.

UPDATE

Grape Ape Goes Manischiewitz

As reported by the Associated Press this morning, even the gorillas in Israel will be keeping kosher for Passover next week:

Since the zookeepers and handlers cannot touch any leavened products during the weeklong holiday that marks the biblical Jewish exodus from Egypt, the gorillas and other animals are also fed matzo — the unleavened cracker Jews eat to remember that in their rush to flee slavery, the ancient Israelites' bread did not have time to rise.

Accustomed to eating a slice of bread with cream cheese every morning, beginning Tuesday the gorillas and other animals at the safari were fed matzo instead, said Emelia Turkel, the zoo's curator.

"This turns out to be an interesting time for the gorillas and for the other animals because they get a bit of a change in diet," Turkel said. "We call this environmental enrichment, Jewish style."

In other news, the United Nations passed a resolution condemning the gorillas for their Zionist activities.

Blawg Review II: The Wrath of Coleman

The second edition of Blawg Review has been released into the wild by Ronald Coleman of Likelihood of Confusion. Considering how successful the intial edition was last week when it included a post from yours truly, this issue of Blawg Review should be even more favored, as it contains nothing from Infamy or Praise.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (9)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of Reuters (from Monday, April 11; link good at time of posting:

Albania's most wanted man fought off special police and eluded capture for years only to blow himself up while fishing with dynamite, police and newspapers said Friday.

Dubbed the "Last Cowboy" in northern Albania because of his gunfights with the law, Riza Malaj, 34, failed to accurately gauge the length of the fuse as he tried to blow up trout.

. . . .

He was sentenced in absentia to five years in jail on charges of leading an attack on the Bajram Curri police station last year. Since 2000, warrants have been issued for Malaj's arrest on charges of willful murder, armed robbery, armed assault and battery of the education directress of the town.

[Previous TGIS]

Foreign Policy's Growing Center (Update)

Pejman Yousefzadeh has a column in today's Tech Central Station which touches on some of the same issues as my post yesterday. As did I, Pejman is optimistic about the pragmatic movement amongst some libertarians to support a strong international presence; moreover, he argues (and I completely agree) that "pure" libertarians will need to accept the reality of world events into their philosophy -- introduce some "impurity", in other terms -- or find themselves completely excluded from serious foreign policy debate:

Speaking personally, I am . . . a realist with libertarian inclinations. For me, therefore, much of the doctrinal conflict is resolved. I want my government to be small in accordance with my libertarian-conservative principles, but I believe that when it comes to acting within the international system, the United States has to run an activist and internationalist foreign policy. Such a foreign policy does not entail any kind of hyper-aggression, but it does understand that we live in a Hobbesian world where life is nasty, brutish and short and that we should act accordingly. Much of my political philosophy stems from what I interpret the mandates of the Constitution to be (indeed, my admiration for the Constitution stems in large part from my perception that it expertly blends libertarian and realist principles), and there is a great deal of discretion left in the Constitution on how foreign and military policy should be conducted -- discretion that perhaps stems from the influence of realist Founding Fathers like Alexander Hamilton and which makes the Constitution impressively responsive to the dictates of the Hobbesian international order.

The libertarian minimalists will likely find my outlook to be anathema to their own. But in order to effectively respond to it, it is not enough to fashion an idealistic foreign policy. Libertarian minimalists must take the extra step to fashion a doctrine that debunks realism and supports their own foreign policy outlook. They must seek to explain how the international system is not a Hobbesian stage where the maximization of power is the central foreign policy goal, or that if it is, libertarian minimalism can somehow be consistent with the Hobbesian realist outlook. Unless they do so, libertarian minimalists will continue to be perceived as "not serious" about foreign policy.

Foreign Policy's Growing Center

Although I can now Google the internet, Google my own computer, and Google my e-mail, I cannot yet Google the contents of my brain. The sheer amount of time I spend each day trying to remember things I know that I know (as opposed to the Rumsfeldian "known unknowns") is a tragic waste. That time, if it could be recaptured through the magic of Google, could be better-spent on other pursuits, like Googling things.

Thus it was that it took me several minutes to recall why much of yesterday's excellent Democracy Arsenal post by Suzanne Nossel, "Top 10 Myths Progressives Need to Let Go of to Regain the Upper Hand on Foreign Policy", seemed so familiar. Eventually I realized that I had seen several of these points a few days earlier in the initial issue of The New Libertarian. For those who are not familiar with these sources, I'll attempt a thumbnail sketch of each:

Democracy Arsenal is the recently-launched blog of the Security and Peace Institute, which, in its own words, "works to advance a responsible U.S. foreign policy based on strong defense, collective security, capable international institutions, and effective promotion of democracy and the rule of law." The Institute is a joint effort of two solidly center-left organizations -- The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress.

The New Libertarian is the work of a group of bloggers who collectively tend toward the center-right. These bloggers describe a brand of libertarianism which blends traditional libertarianism's emphasis on personal liberty, free markets, and limited government with muscular foreign policy and "pragmatism" in working with real-world institutions that do not reflect the usual libertarian dogma. In describing "neolibertarians", blogger Jon Henke quotes with approval the words of one of conservatism's patron saints, Irving Kristol: "The welfare state is with us, for better or worse, and . . . conservatives should try to make it better rather than worse."

So where is the common ground between the progressives on the left and the Neolibertarians on the right? In the center, of course. It's that center which has existed in semi-silence as the extremes of both the left and right have shouted one another down over the past several years; it's that center which will remain once the extremes have passed from our national political scene, after the hard left commits political seppuku in their attempt to destroy the hard right and the hard right falls off the end of the flat earth they're creating. Let's take a closer look at three broad aspects of this common ground, as reflected in these two communications:

Forming Productive Alliances

Both camps encourage the United States to form foreign alliances which promote our objectives -- but only for so long as these alliances continue to be productive. Each group distinguishes itself from the traditional political structures from which each is emerging -- the Neolibertarians from traditional libertarianism; the Democracy Arsenal progressives from the Democratic party as it has developed since the Vietnam era.

As with any child moving out from its parent's shadow, these groups have to deal with some philosophical baggage. When it comes to forming foreign alliances, it is the Neolibertarians who seek to put more distance between themselves and their "parent". Bruce McQuain, in The New Libertarian article "Isolation Is Not an Option", recognizes this by starting from Thomas Jefferson's noted advice to his nation that we seek "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entanglement with none"; it is this advice which has been a guiding star for traditional libertarians and which is reflected in the Libertarian Party's current anti-war, isolationist position. What the Neolibertarians counsel is a near-complete break with that "tradition", in recognition of the fundamental differences between the international realities of our era and Jefferson's.

For the progressives, the challenge is to recognize that regardless whether or not their tireless support for multilateralism generally and the United Nations in particular has gone too far, it has certainly outpaced the general public's lukewarm support for them. Nossel notes: "Progressives love to cite studies showing that most Americans support the UN. That support may be a mile wide, but its [sic] an inch thick and never translates into political payback for politicians who either undermine or strengthen the world body." One of the difficulties with unwavering support for any durable institution is that that institution often is, by design, slow to react to sweeping changes around it. This has happened not just at the UN but in many of our traditional alliances -- with France and Germany specifically and NATO more generally.

Americans tend to prefer dynamic solutions that are adapted to address specific problems, and changing (or at least changeable) alliances satisfy this preference. Notwithstanding, we demand that our alliances not be capricious, immoral, or counter-productive, and any alliance which fails in these criteria either at its inception or over time will suffer in the court of American public opinion. Democracy Arsenal's Nossel recognizes that "[t]he public likes coalitions in that they save money, and because international imprimatur can save us divisive and politically costly internal debates. But they are also deeply attached to the idea that we can act alone . . . . [W]e cannot totally discount the option of going it alone." The New Libertarian's McQuain shares an openness to alliance, but realizes that an alliance must be the right sort of alliance -- specifically, one which advances our worthy objectives of national security and international democracy:

Practical foreign policy . . . includes engagement with like-minded democracies through treaties and alliances . . . [and] rejects the equal sovereignty premise of traditional libertarian foreign policy and differentiates between free countries and oppressed countries. It also holds as its highest standard the rights of free people, not the 'rights' of nations.

Reciting a Political Serenity Prayer

In Alcoholics Anonymous, adherents often recite the "Serenity Prayer": God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference.

Extremists are unable to compromise and "accept the things they cannot change" and are, as a result, marginalized over time. As Dale Franks expresses in The New Libertarian, "the first principle of the [Neolibertarians] is explicitly defined by comparison between the two types of libertarianism, and can be boiled down to a single word: pragmatism." Pragmatism can also be seen amongst the progressives, including a willingness to "take into account" the self-interests of key support groups (in Suzanne Nossel's article, her example is organized labor seeking trade protection), even when such political concerns modestly diverge from an aspirational, "pure" foreign policy position. As Nossel writes:

Progressives should be working now to put flesh on the bones of compromises involving labor and human rights standards that most agree are the only way forward here . . . . Neither [the left's nor the center's] pure prescriptions will attract a broad enough constituency, so we need both sides under the tent. They can debate all they want in bars and blogs, but when it comes to politics, both sides need to replace purity with pragmatism.

In The New Libertarian, Dale Franks is as explicit:

Politics is the art of compromise . . . . Certainly, one can try to get as much of one's program enacted as possible, but, at the end of the day, you have to have a firm grasp on the sense of where the limits of possibility lie. In doing so, you have to determine that accomplishing a little bit of something is better than accomplishing all of nothing.

While it is important for both groups to disclaim the extremes at the end of their respective sides of the political spectrum, this is especially critical for the progressives. In a very real sense, the Democratic Party has been hijacked financially and ideologically by activists who tend to "blame America first". One of the critical failures for the party in the 2004 presidential campaign was in allowing the activists and 527 group admakers who spoke on their behalf to tell Americans that their nation was an evil abroad. Such a message may play on college campuses and at MoveOn.org fundraisers but will never resonate with the mainstream which believes that their country is a force for good in the world, albeit one which can sometimes do better. As Americans, we are open to constructive suggestions, and progressives, in Nossel's words, "need to assert a confident vision of how American power can be channeled to positive ends."

Embracing Your Inner Hawk

Sovereignty is for a nation what adulthood is for a person -- the right to make your own decisions in your own interests. Both sovereign nations and adults can give up their rights to decide. Ideally, this will be done only voluntarily and in furtherance of a higher purpose; notwithstanding, the right to decide may be lost through weakness, allowing a stronger force to impose its own will. The United States has a long tradition of joining, at times even subordinating, its interests to international efforts; we also have a long tradition of strong self-reliance, ensuring that our interests are protected.

For progressive foreign policy Democrats, post-Vietnam norms within the party are a challenge to overcome, but there is no "tradition of passivity and pacifism" endemic within the party's philosophy. As Suzanne Nossel points out:

Witness FDR, Truman, JFK and even Bill Clinton. We need to get over our own self-doubts if we’re going to win over others. Getting closer to the military as suggested here and here will help. So will elevating people with the background and personality to be convincing in talking about security issues.

Without a past to explain, the Neolibertarians can be more adamant: "Neolibertarian foreign policy . . . reserves for the US the right to preemptively act against any threat anywhere in the world in the name of national self-defense or critical self-interest."

There is considerable strength in the American political center, but the foreign policy views of this constituency have not always been heard in the toxic domestic political climate which has developed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As the center-left and the center-right make themselves heard, the extremists on both ends of the debate will find their control over the Republican and Democratic parties waning; such is the only natural outcome when rational , productive compromise is needed. America will not always be either "multilateral" or "unilateral"; we will make alliances with democratic nations to pursue democratic ends, but will not irrevocably sacrifice our right to act alone.

[Update]

Blawg Review

The inaugural edition of Blawg Review is now available at Notes from the (Legal) Underground. This weekly "carnival of the blawgs" is edited by Kevin Heller (Tech Law Advisor) and Evan Schaeffer (Notes from the (Legal) Underground) and collects noteworthy posts from law-related blogs (hence the cutesy-term "blawgs"). While the quality of many of the collected posts potends great things to come in future issues, readers should perhaps reserve judgement as to the publication's overall quality, since this first issue includes a link to and summary of the "Scarce Authority" post from this humble blog.

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (8) . . . The Sequel's Sequel!

This week's extra-special bonus joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the BBC News via OxBlog (from Thursday, April 7; link good at time of posting):

The French government has destroyed 162,000 copies of the EU constitution because the phrase "incoherent text" was printed on a page by mistake.

The copies had been intended for use in town halls and libraries across France.

But they were recalled after the mistake was spotted. It is not known who was responsible for inserting the offending comment.

. . . .

A new, expunged version of the full 232-page text is being printed, at the cost of 74,000 euros (£51,000; $95,000).

[Previous TGIS]

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (8) . . . The Sequel!

This week's special bonus joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press (from Thursday, April 7; link good at time of posting):

A man who went to the sheriff's department to bond out his brother-in-law also ended up in jail when police realized the money he handed them reeked of marijuana.

Timothy Richards, 45, of Columbus, went to the Decatur County Sheriff's Department and when he handed dispatcher Julie Meyers $400, she counted it and then noticed something unusual.

"When I walked back toward the jail I noticed the money was damp and smelled funny," Meyers said.

A jailer who sniffed the money told her it smelled like marijuana, she said.

Indiana State Trooper Chip Ayers was nearby and asked for the money, she said. He smelled it and then asked Richards for consent to search him and his car, Meyers said.

Ayers found a pipe and a small amount of marijuana and charged Richards with possession. If convicted, he could face six months to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Richards remained in jail for several hours Tuesday — until his brother-in-law made bail and came back to pay his own $250 bond.

[Previous TGIS]

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (8)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of The New Zealand Herald via Sploid (from Thursday, April 7; link good at time of posting:

A personable, 65-year-old conwoman dubbed "the queen of greed" duped 10 people out of more than $2 million before losing the money to a classic Nigerian scam.

Among her victims was a lawyer, formerly a senior member of a well-known Auckland practice, who lost $1.2 million.

The woman, Patricia Lenine Mabel Walsh, of Howick, was found guilty in the Auckland District Court yesterday on 47 counts relating to the Nigerian fraud and a further three fraud charges over the purchase of a $1.8 million home at Whitford.

A cousin, 78-year-old Elva Mary Medhurst, also of Howick, faced two charges of misappropriation but died partway through the trial.

The jury heard that the 10 people who lost just over $2 million also put money into a failed upmarket apartment project initiated by Walsh.

She and her fellow investors were conned out of their money by American fraudster Greg Dutcher, who offered to provide finance for the project - but they had to pay fees and expenses upfront.

When Walsh approached the investors with a rescue package, they threw good money after bad.

The lawyer, whose name was suppressed, lost $400,000 on the building project and $1.2 million trying to recoup his loss. A 90-year-old woman lost $337,000 in the Nigerian scam.

Serious Fraud Office lawyer David Jones said Walsh concealed the Nigerian connection when discussing the rescue package with the other investors.

She told them a Middle East benefactor was setting up a trust to help people who had fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. She was the trust's New Zealand representative and the funds would be under her control to dispense to people who fitted the criteria.

As in the Dutcher fraud, the investors were told that before the rescue money could be transferred to New Zealand, they had to pay set-up costs, taxes, bank fees and legal costs.

The Crown said that Walsh, who was expecting US$28 million, was telling the victims what the Nigerians were telling her. But when asked, she denied any Nigerian connection. Inevitably, the US$28 million never arrived.

[Previous TGIS]

Get a Grip (Update)

Attorney Ronald Coleman at Likelihood of Confusion, an intellectual property blog, has posted concerning the noise Major League Baseball has made about licensing its player statistics to fantasy sports leagues and players, an issue of which I wrote previously. Coleman characterizes MLB's plan as "[u]tterly idiotic" and "[f]abulously obnoxious" and quotes the similar conclusions of Greg Skidmore at the Sports Law Blog:

Statistics are facts, nothing more, and can be disseminated as freely as can news stories. It is unclear how extending copyright to statistics would not also impact newspapers, television stations and commercial websites that also report baseball statistics. Baseball's methods for "compiling" these statistics consists of the advanced mathematical functions of addition and averaging.

In response to a comment I made, however, Coleman noted that another attorney in his office was familiar with this kerfuffle and believed that MLB's comments might have been misreported and that their claim "is really based on the right of publicity in the player personalities licensed to the league by the ML[B]PA [the Major League Baseball Players Association, the players' union representatives]." If so, that would complicate things somewhat, but I think MLB would still be facing an uphill battle. My comments are available on Coleman's blog, so I won't reproduce them here; suffice to say, MLB isn't helping themselves legally by confusing the protectable (players' rights to control use of their personalities) with the unprotectable (raw statistics produced as byproducts of games).

[Update]

Dumbassery and Dumb Luck

If you do something stupid but hope for a good result anyhow, you're a dumbass. Much like the Catholic view of sin, however, dumbassery can be confessed by and absolved from the truly penitent; if you discover that your hoped-for result will never occur, you are not required to persist in being a dumbass.

Of course, to choose to persist in being a dumbass is always your inalienable right as an American.

There are some Star Wars dorks who, despite having seen Episodes I and II, are so geeked about the upcoming Episode III: Revenge of the Sith that they have decided to camp out in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater so as to be at the head of the line when the film opens there in approximately a month-and-a-half. The only problem, as reported by Variety, is that the movie isn't going to play at that theater:

If a movie isn't playing at a theater, will its fans still line up outside? For "Star Wars" fans, the answer is a befuddling yes.

Saturday, 46 days before "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" opens on May 19, the trilogy's enthusiasts began their vigil outside Grauman's Chinese Theater.

Problem is 20th Century Fox doesn't plan to open the film at the Chinese, opting instead for the ArcLight a few blocks east.

. . . .

"Even if it's not here, we'll just go see it somewhere else. We're not doing this just for the movie." Besides, [spokesdork Sarah Sprague] added, "What's the point of lining up at the ArcLight if someone is going to go online and get the best seat in the house?"

But wouldn't that still make more sense than spending a month outside a theater that isn't playing the movie?

"Lining up for anything, what part of that makes any sense?" she responded philosophically.

. . . .

The kerfuffle has inspired some soul-searching among the fans, and they have discovered that standing in a "Star Wars" line is actually more important than seeing a "Star Wars" film.

"The telling thing is -- for me, at least -- if the film is not playing at the Chinese ... I have zero desire to see it at all," a fan who calls himself Obi Geewhyen posted on the message board at Liningup.net. "I'm in it for the lineup only and don't give a darn about the conclusion of this lackluster, so-called 'Star Wars' series."

Hope springs eternal, Sprague said. After the last two "Star Wars" films, "We're all a little beaten down," she said. "But this one could be it!"

At the other end of the spectrum of dumbassery exists dumb luck, which is reserved to those privileged few dumbasses for whom good things occur despite their dumbassery. The Wall Street Journal describes a case-in-point, Iraqi attorney Ali Ghaleb:

Ali Ghaleb, a lawyer from Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, did everything he could to persuade fellow Sunni Arabs to boycott Iraqi elections in January.

So he sounds a bit sheepish when he explains his new job in Tikrit: elected representative. "Maybe the boycott was a mistake," he says.

Mr. Ghaleb put himself up for election last year. Then he joined the opposition to the elections and resolved to withdraw, but got kidnapped and missed the deadline to remove his name from the ballot. On election day, he found himself a reluctant winner.

Now, detecting changing winds in the Sunni Arab community, he has decided that active participation in the political process is the right thing to do after all.

. . . .

"Next time, we'll even take the sick from their hospital beds and carry them on our shoulders to the polling booths," says Hamed Hamoud, governor of the predominantly Sunni Arab province of Salaheddin.

Until then, however, the Sunni Arabs of Tikrit will have to make do with Mr. Ghaleb.

. . . .

As Mr. Ghaleb was getting ready to resign his seat in February, he ran into some unexpected resistance. Some of the same Sunni religious and political leaders who in December had joined him in calling for a boycott of the election now were urging him not to quit. At a large gathering in Tikrit's grand mosque, they argued that without Mr. Ghaleb in the provincial legislature, the city would be neglected.

Reluctantly, he agreed to stay on. And he is now enthusiastically preparing for the next election, which could happen as soon as December. This time he is aiming for national office.

Dumbass becomes dumbass-politician despite his dumbassery -- the new Iraq is truly the child of America's democracy! If Horatio Alger were alive today, we'd probably all be reading from his Ragged Ali series because, when you get right down to it, what could be more American than riding your own dumb luck as far as it will take you?

Channeling a Snotty Paul Harvey

Some days, there's not much news to report; other days, there's an embarrassment of riches.

CBC News reports that, starting in 2007, most Canadians attempting to escape their "nation" enter the United States will be required to show a valid passport:

Canadians without a passport will be barred from entering the United States after Dec. 31, 2006, unless they have a special U.S. "laser visa" border crossing card that includes a fingerprint or other "biometric identifier" such as a retinal scan.

Those cards are issued mostly to Mexicans who want to enter the U.S.

Currently, Canadians and Americans are able to enter the United States with little more identification than a driver's licence or a birth certificate, though a passport has sometimes made it simpler to satisfy immigration officers at the border.

The new rules will still allow Canadians to enter the United States without being fingerprinted.

This change is part of a larger effort by the Department of Homeland Security to update our existing Canadian travel policies. Key dates for implementation of these changes, designated "Operation Choke Off the Flow of Those Smug, Maple Leaf-Wearing Bastards", include:

1. Passports Required by 2007;
2. Radio-Tagging Mandatory by 2008; and
   
3. Hunting with Dogs Permitted by 2009.

---

The death of Pope John Paul II this past Saturday marked the end of an historically-significant papacy and a truly remarkable life. It also heralded the birth of a papal superhero:

Pope John Paul II is being reborn in a Colombian comic book as a superhero battling evil with an anti-Devil cape and special chastity pants.

The first episode of the "Incredible Popeman" is about to go on sale in Colombia and shows the late Polish pontiff meeting comic book legends such as Batman and Superman to learn how to use superpowers to battle Satan.

"The pope was a real-life superhero, of flesh and blood," said Colombian artist Rodolfo Leon, a non-practicing Catholic who has been working on the comic book for about a year.

Like any self-respecting superhero, the Incredible Popeman has a battery of special equipment. Along with his yellow cape and green chastity pants, the muscular super-pontiff wields a faith staff with a cross on top and carries holy water and communion wine.

In the comic book, the pope dies and is reborn with superpowers beyond the infallibility Catholic doctrine gave him on Earth.

. . . .

He also plans to produce Incredible Popeman action dolls.

"He isn't John Paul II any more," Leon said. "From now on, he's the Incredible Popeman."

Reached for comment, Mehmet Ali Agca was surprised by the artist's audacity: "Chastity pants and action dolls? Oh man, talk about taking an express train straight to hell." There's no word yet whether the Incredible Popeman will appear in the forthcoming sequel to Hellboy.

---

Reuters reports that Florida no longer will require retreat before the use of deadly force is permitted in self-defense:

The Florida House of Representatives, citing the need to allow people to "stand their ground," voted 94-20 to codify and expand court rulings that already allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes without first trying to escape.

The new bill goes further by allowing citizens to use deadly force in a public place if they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of death or great bodily harm. It applies to all means of force that may result in death, although the legislative debate focused on guns.

The "Stand Your Ground" bill passed the Senate last week on a 39-0 vote and now goes to Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, who indicated he will sign it.

"This is about meeting force with force," said House sponsor Republican state Rep. Dennis Baxley of Ocala. "If I'm attacked, I should not have to retreat."

In related news, Michael Schiavo clarified that his seven-years-long battle to end his wife's life had been an act of self-defense: "After a few years in a persistent vegetative state, Terri suddenly came at me with a crazed look in her eyes; I had no choice but to defend myself." Notified of these previously-unpublished details of the Schiavo case, Florida Governor Jeb Bush was introspective: "Well, I guess that changes everything. I suppose it's all OK then."

---

A library assistant who had claimed she was discriminated against by Harvard University because she was "a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits" lost her federal lawsuit on Monday:

Harvard University did not discriminate against a library assistant who claimed she was repeatedly turned down for promotions because school officials saw her as "a pretty girl" whose attire was too "sexy," a federal jury found Monday.

Desiree Goodwin, who is black, also claimed that Harvard passed her over because of her race and gender. She had been seeking damages for emotional distress and lost wages.

. . . .

Goodwin, who has worked as a library assistant at Harvard since 1994, claimed in the lawsuit that she had been rejected for seven promotions at the library since 1999.

She said she was shocked when, in late 2001, her supervisor told her she would never be promoted at Harvard. In court documents, Goodwin said her supervisor told her she was "a joke" at the university's main library, where she "was seen merely as a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, low cut blouses, and tight pants."

But Harvard attorney Richard Riley said Goodwin's supervisors encouraged her, helped her with her resume and recommended her for other positions. For each job she applied for, Harvard received applications from dozens of other qualified applicants from across the country, he said.

Goodwin's claims were dismissed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

It was noted that after the verdict went against her, Goodwin related that "One of my friends said to me, no matter how it turns out, standing up for yourself is a victory in itself." Fortunately, federal juries tend to disagree and require a higher level of proof, or at least some proof. Perhaps the Special Olympics or an under-10 soccer league would be more Goodwin's speed; word is that they give you awards for just showing up.

Without "Man", It's Just "Chester"

It's long been an article of faith of women the world over that Englishmen are gods in the sack. Nevertheless, I fear that that well-earned reputation may take a hit after last week's cancellation of a "major erotic festival" in Manchester due to a general lack of interest amongst the area's male population:

Erotica Manchester opened on Friday, selling a range of sex aids, clothing and footwear, but ticket sales have been poor and organizers say they will not be coming back.

"We've tried to warm this city up for more than two years but northerners just haven't responded in sufficient numbers," said event director Savvas Christodoulou.

"They are happy enough to come to our London event in the autumn but they seem embarrassed about being seen at Erotica Manchester."

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (7) . . . The Sequel!

This week's special bonus joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of CBC News (from Friday, April 1; link good at time of posting):

A man who tried to parachute off a Calgary office building is in hospital after smashing through a window on the 24th floor, sending broken glass flying through seven windows in the atrium below.

Police say they were called to the Canada Trust building in downtown Calgary about 11:10 p.m. Thursday night.

They found the 41-year-old parachutist on top of a pedestrian walkway.

He was taken to hospital with non-life-threatening pelvic, abdominal and back injuries.

Charges are pending, according to police.

[Previous TGIS]

"Not Disabled Enough"

I don't have much time to comment on this piece from CNN, but frankly it doesn't need too much commentary:

Ms. Wheelchair Wisconsin has been stripped of her title because pageant officials say she can stand -- and point to a newspaper picture as proof.

Janeal Lee, who has muscular dystrophy and uses a scooter, was snapped by The Post-Crescent newspaper standing among her high school math students.

"I've been made to feel as if I can't represent the disabled citizens of Wisconsin because I'm not disabled enough," Lee said Thursday.

. . . .

The move by the state pageant officials, led by coordinator Gina Hackel, is supported by the national board.

Candidates for the crown have to "mostly be seen in the public using their wheelchairs or scooters," said Judy Hoit, Ms. Wheelchair America's treasurer.

"Otherwise you've got women who are in their wheelchairs all the time and they get offended if they see someone standing up. We can't have title holders out there walking when they're seen in the public."

Back in the day, it took pornographic photos to cost someone a beauty crown; now, merely being somewhat ambulatory is enough.

Please join me in boycotting the national Ms. Wheelchair America pageant until they understand that this kind of bigotry is simply unacceptable in today's America. We "abled" should be just as valued by society as the "differently abled"!

UPDATE:
Best of the Web Today has picked up this story, but is more understanding of the Pageant's position than was I: "We sympathize with Lee's plight, but we suppose we can also understand Hoit's point. You can't expect a group representing the wheelchair-bound to stand for this sort of thing."

TGIS: Thank God It's Schadenfreude! (7)

This week's joy in the misfortune of others comes courtesy of the Associated Press via the San Francisco Chronicle (from Monday, March 28; link good at time of posting):

Mail carriers said they were recently unable to deliver mail to homes along a section of Guyer Street in [Hobart, Indiana] because of a 4.5-pound Chihuahua named Bobo.

"The little Chihuahua was 10-foot tall when he was on the street," said Florence Page of the Hobart Humane Society, which picked up the dog twice for running loose. "It's kind of comical, you know, but after a while it's not any more."

. . . .

Hobart police officer Ron Schalk said he had no option but to cite [the dog's owner] for allowing the dog to run loose.

"The biggest thing I was concerned with is there were a lot of residents that week who couldn't get their mail," he said. "The little Chihuahua was running around being aggressive and trying to bite people's ankles."

[Previous TGIS]